正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية تعتمد منذ بداية الحرب، وبناءً على تجارب سابقة، آلية توثيق دقيقة جدًا تتوافق مع معايير المنظمات الدولية، خاصة منظمة الصحة العالمية... يتم التوثيق عبر برنامج "صحتي" التابع للأمم المتحدة ويُشرف عليه كوادر الوزارة... لا يُسجل أي شهيد إلا بعد وصوله إلى المستشفى لضمان الدقة في مجتمع...

Dr_Muneer1's profile picture

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

29,496 subscribers

18,794 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生新闻政治教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 条评论

gazza 的头像
gazza1 年前

حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل

☕𝒟ℯℯ𝓃۵𝓘𝓼𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓵🪔 的头像
☕𝒟ℯℯ𝓃۵𝓘𝓼𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓵🪔1 年前

حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل يا الله💔

相关视频

تجاوز عدد الشهداء منذ وقف إطلاق النار 500 شهيد، بينهم نحو 180 طفلا و139 امرأة، أي أن 60% من الضحايا هم من النساء والأطفال. بعد عامين من الحرب اعترف الاحتلال نفسه بمقتل نحو 71000 فلسطيني، مؤكدا مصداقية أرقام وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية التي تعرضت طويلا للتشكيك. القطاع الصحي في غزة ينهار بالكامل، مع عجز يصل إلى 52% من الأدوية الأساسية، و72% من المستهلكات الطبية المنقذة للحياة أرصدتها صفرية، إضافة إلى اختفاء نحو 1000 صنف دوائي أساسي، ما أدى إلى وفاة 1062مريضا وهم ينتظرون العلاج. في عام 2024 انخفضت الولادات بنسبة 40% ولم تتجاوز 39000 مولود، وفي عام 2025 لم تصل إلى 60000 كما يزعم الاحتلال بل تقارب 50000 فقط. نسبة فقر الدم بين الأطفال دون سن العام تجاوزت 82%، فيما تعمل العناية المركزة بأكثر من 150% من طاقتها، والمعابر ما زالت مغلقة، في إبادة صامتة تُترك فيها غزة لتنزف بلا دواء ولا غذاء. The number of martyrs since the ceasefire has exceeded 500, including around 180 children and 139 women, meaning that 60% of the victims are women and children. After two years of war, the occupation itself admitted to the killing of approximately 71000 Palestinians, confirming the credibility of the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s figures that were long questioned. Gaza’s health sector is collapsing, with a 52% shortage of essential medicines and 72% of life saving medical supplies at zero stock, alongside the disappearance of around 1000 essential drug items, resulting in the deaths of 1062 patients while awaiting treatment. In 2024, births declined by 40% and did not exceed 39000 newborns, and in 2025 the number did not reach 60000 as claimed but stands at around 50000. Anemia among children under one year of age exceeds 82%, intensive care units are operating at more than 150% capacity, crossings remain closed, and Gaza is being left to bleed in a silent genocide without medicine or food.
10:36

تجاوز عدد الشهداء منذ وقف إطلاق النار 500 شهيد، بينهم نحو 180 طفلا و139 امرأة، أي أن 60% من الضحايا هم من النساء والأطفال. بعد عامين من الحرب اعترف الاحتلال نفسه بمقتل نحو 71000 فلسطيني، مؤكدا مصداقية أرقام وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية التي تعرضت طويلا للتشكيك. القطاع الصحي في غزة ينهار بالكامل، مع عجز يصل إلى 52% من الأدوية الأساسية، و72% من المستهلكات الطبية المنقذة للحياة أرصدتها صفرية، إضافة إلى اختفاء نحو 1000 صنف دوائي أساسي، ما أدى إلى وفاة 1062مريضا وهم ينتظرون العلاج. في عام 2024 انخفضت الولادات بنسبة 40% ولم تتجاوز 39000 مولود، وفي عام 2025 لم تصل إلى 60000 كما يزعم الاحتلال بل تقارب 50000 فقط. نسبة فقر الدم بين الأطفال دون سن العام تجاوزت 82%، فيما تعمل العناية المركزة بأكثر من 150% من طاقتها، والمعابر ما زالت مغلقة، في إبادة صامتة تُترك فيها غزة لتنزف بلا دواء ولا غذاء. The number of martyrs since the ceasefire has exceeded 500, including around 180 children and 139 women, meaning that 60% of the victims are women and children. After two years of war, the occupation itself admitted to the killing of approximately 71000 Palestinians, confirming the credibility of the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s figures that were long questioned. Gaza’s health sector is collapsing, with a 52% shortage of essential medicines and 72% of life saving medical supplies at zero stock, alongside the disappearance of around 1000 essential drug items, resulting in the deaths of 1062 patients while awaiting treatment. In 2024, births declined by 40% and did not exceed 39000 newborns, and in 2025 the number did not reach 60000 as claimed but stands at around 50000. Anemia among children under one year of age exceeds 82%, intensive care units are operating at more than 150% capacity, crossings remain closed, and Gaza is being left to bleed in a silent genocide without medicine or food.

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

14,430 次观看 • 7 个月前

الاحتلال خطط مسبقًا لمحو النسل الفلسطيني ووقف النمو السكاني، واستغل الحرب لتنفيذ هذا المخطط... أكثر من 17,000 طفل وأكثر من 9,000 امرأة قُتلوا، وقتل الأطفال مستمر بطرق مباشرة وغير مباشرة، بما فيها منع حليب الأطفال والأدوية والمكملات الغذائية... انخفاض بنسبة 41% في عدد الولادات مقارنة بعام 2022، مع تسجيل 2,400 حالة إجهاض، وولادة أكثر من 120 طفلًا مشوهين، بعضهم بدون دماغ أو رئة... 50% فقط من المواليد الجدد وُلدوا طبيعيًا، والباقي إما توفوا أو لديهم تشوهات خلقية... الاحتلال دمّر مستشفيات الولادة ومنع وصول حمض الفوليك والحديد، ما أدى إلى تشوهات وموت الأجنة... الحرب خلفت تغييرًا جينيًا في الأطفال وفق تقرير أممي، وهو مؤشر خطير على الإبادة البطيئة... المجتمع الدولي صامت رغم الأرقام الصادمة، ونحن نطالب بتحقيقات دولية عاجلة في نوعية الأسلحة المستخدمة... المطلوب تحرك عالمي لحماية الأمهات والأطفال الفلسطينيين من الإبادة، وتوفير الحماية الكاملة للنظام الصحي في غزة The occupation had premeditated plans to erase the Palestinian lineage and halt population growth, using the war as an opportunity to implement this agenda... Over 17,000 children and more than 9,000 women have been killed, with the killing of children continuing through both direct and indirect means, including the denial of baby formula, essential medicines, and nutritional supplements... Births have dropped by 41% compared to 2022, with 2,400 recorded miscarriages and over 120 babies born with deformities—some without brains or lungs... Only 50% of newborns were delivered healthy; the rest either died or suffered congenital defects... The occupation destroyed maternity hospitals and blocked access to folic acid and iron, causing fetal deformities and deaths... According to a UN report, the war has caused genetic alterations in children—an alarming sign of slow genocide... Despite these shocking numbers, the international community remains silent. We urgently call for international investigations into the types of weapons used... A global effort is needed to protect Palestinian mothers and children from extermination and to ensure full protection of Gaza's healthcare system.
11:14

الاحتلال خطط مسبقًا لمحو النسل الفلسطيني ووقف النمو السكاني، واستغل الحرب لتنفيذ هذا المخطط... أكثر من 17,000 طفل وأكثر من 9,000 امرأة قُتلوا، وقتل الأطفال مستمر بطرق مباشرة وغير مباشرة، بما فيها منع حليب الأطفال والأدوية والمكملات الغذائية... انخفاض بنسبة 41% في عدد الولادات مقارنة بعام 2022، مع تسجيل 2,400 حالة إجهاض، وولادة أكثر من 120 طفلًا مشوهين، بعضهم بدون دماغ أو رئة... 50% فقط من المواليد الجدد وُلدوا طبيعيًا، والباقي إما توفوا أو لديهم تشوهات خلقية... الاحتلال دمّر مستشفيات الولادة ومنع وصول حمض الفوليك والحديد، ما أدى إلى تشوهات وموت الأجنة... الحرب خلفت تغييرًا جينيًا في الأطفال وفق تقرير أممي، وهو مؤشر خطير على الإبادة البطيئة... المجتمع الدولي صامت رغم الأرقام الصادمة، ونحن نطالب بتحقيقات دولية عاجلة في نوعية الأسلحة المستخدمة... المطلوب تحرك عالمي لحماية الأمهات والأطفال الفلسطينيين من الإبادة، وتوفير الحماية الكاملة للنظام الصحي في غزة The occupation had premeditated plans to erase the Palestinian lineage and halt population growth, using the war as an opportunity to implement this agenda... Over 17,000 children and more than 9,000 women have been killed, with the killing of children continuing through both direct and indirect means, including the denial of baby formula, essential medicines, and nutritional supplements... Births have dropped by 41% compared to 2022, with 2,400 recorded miscarriages and over 120 babies born with deformities—some without brains or lungs... Only 50% of newborns were delivered healthy; the rest either died or suffered congenital defects... The occupation destroyed maternity hospitals and blocked access to folic acid and iron, causing fetal deformities and deaths... According to a UN report, the war has caused genetic alterations in children—an alarming sign of slow genocide... Despite these shocking numbers, the international community remains silent. We urgently call for international investigations into the types of weapons used... A global effort is needed to protect Palestinian mothers and children from extermination and to ensure full protection of Gaza's healthcare system.

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

49,117 次观看 • 1 年前

ما يحدث في غزة خارج عن المعقول والتصور الإنساني… ما يجري أكبر من الإبادة الجماعية والتطهير العرقي، وهو ما دفع خبراء الأمم المتحدة والمؤسسات الدولية لاستخدام مصطلح جديد هو “الإبادة الصحية – هيلثوسايد”… القتل هنا لا يقتصر على القصف بل يشمل حرمان الناس من الحق في الحياة والعلاج، واستهداف كل مكونات الصحة… سجلت وزارة الصحة أكثر من 61,000 شهيد، بينهم 18,592 طفل، وأكثر من 4,800 مبتور بينهم نحو 1,000 طفل، و154,000 جريح منهم 18,000 بحاجة لتأهيل… فقدنا أكثر من 9,300 امرأة، وأُبيدت أكثر من 2,600 عائلة بالكامل… الاحتلال قتل أكثر من 1,590 من الكوادر الطبية، بينهم أكثر من 200 طبيب من التخصصات النادرة، ودمر المعالم الثقافية والأثرية… ما يجري يجب أن يُوثق كسجل عار على الاحتلال الإسرائيلي… الأمم المتحدة تمتنع عن إعلان المجاعة رغم وضوح المؤشرات وتحقق أغلبها باستثناء معيار نسبة الوفيات (2 لكل 10,000 يوميًا)، وهو شرط من غير المنطقي تطبيقه في حالة سياسة تجويع ممنهجة وليست مجاعة طبيعية… إعلان المجاعة كان سيُلزم المجتمع الدولي قانونيًا وأخلاقيًا بالتدخل العاجل، لكن القوى الكبرى تتجنب ذلك بدوافع سياسية بحتة لا تمت للإنسانية بصلة. What is happening in Gaza is beyond reason and human comprehension… What is taking place is greater than genocide and ethnic cleansing, prompting UN experts and international institutions to adopt a new term: “Healthocide”… Here, killing is not limited to direct bombardment but includes depriving people of their right to life and treatment, targeting all components of healthcare… The Ministry of Health has recorded more than 61,000 martyrs, including 18,592 children, over 4,800 amputees, around 1,000 of them children, and 154,000 wounded, of whom 18,000 require rehabilitation… We have lost more than 9,300 women, and more than 2,600 families have been completely wiped out… The occupation has killed over 1,590 medical personnel, including more than 200 doctors from rare specialties, and destroyed cultural and archaeological landmarks… What is happening must be documented as a record of shame against the Israeli occupation… The United Nations refrains from declaring famine despite the clear indicators and the fulfillment of most criteria, except for the mortality rate threshold (2 per 10,000 per day), a condition that is illogical to apply in the case of an engineered starvation policy rather than a natural famine… Declaring famine would have legally and morally obligated the international community to intervene urgently, but major powers avoid doing so for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with humanity.
21:47

ما يحدث في غزة خارج عن المعقول والتصور الإنساني… ما يجري أكبر من الإبادة الجماعية والتطهير العرقي، وهو ما دفع خبراء الأمم المتحدة والمؤسسات الدولية لاستخدام مصطلح جديد هو “الإبادة الصحية – هيلثوسايد”… القتل هنا لا يقتصر على القصف بل يشمل حرمان الناس من الحق في الحياة والعلاج، واستهداف كل مكونات الصحة… سجلت وزارة الصحة أكثر من 61,000 شهيد، بينهم 18,592 طفل، وأكثر من 4,800 مبتور بينهم نحو 1,000 طفل، و154,000 جريح منهم 18,000 بحاجة لتأهيل… فقدنا أكثر من 9,300 امرأة، وأُبيدت أكثر من 2,600 عائلة بالكامل… الاحتلال قتل أكثر من 1,590 من الكوادر الطبية، بينهم أكثر من 200 طبيب من التخصصات النادرة، ودمر المعالم الثقافية والأثرية… ما يجري يجب أن يُوثق كسجل عار على الاحتلال الإسرائيلي… الأمم المتحدة تمتنع عن إعلان المجاعة رغم وضوح المؤشرات وتحقق أغلبها باستثناء معيار نسبة الوفيات (2 لكل 10,000 يوميًا)، وهو شرط من غير المنطقي تطبيقه في حالة سياسة تجويع ممنهجة وليست مجاعة طبيعية… إعلان المجاعة كان سيُلزم المجتمع الدولي قانونيًا وأخلاقيًا بالتدخل العاجل، لكن القوى الكبرى تتجنب ذلك بدوافع سياسية بحتة لا تمت للإنسانية بصلة. What is happening in Gaza is beyond reason and human comprehension… What is taking place is greater than genocide and ethnic cleansing, prompting UN experts and international institutions to adopt a new term: “Healthocide”… Here, killing is not limited to direct bombardment but includes depriving people of their right to life and treatment, targeting all components of healthcare… The Ministry of Health has recorded more than 61,000 martyrs, including 18,592 children, over 4,800 amputees, around 1,000 of them children, and 154,000 wounded, of whom 18,000 require rehabilitation… We have lost more than 9,300 women, and more than 2,600 families have been completely wiped out… The occupation has killed over 1,590 medical personnel, including more than 200 doctors from rare specialties, and destroyed cultural and archaeological landmarks… What is happening must be documented as a record of shame against the Israeli occupation… The United Nations refrains from declaring famine despite the clear indicators and the fulfillment of most criteria, except for the mortality rate threshold (2 per 10,000 per day), a condition that is illogical to apply in the case of an engineered starvation policy rather than a natural famine… Declaring famine would have legally and morally obligated the international community to intervene urgently, but major powers avoid doing so for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with humanity.

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

12,156 次观看 • 1 年前

من ساحة مستشفى الشفاء الذي شهد قتلا وتشريدا وحرقا… هذه الساحة ساحة الشهداء التي دُفن فيها العشرات… نعيش في وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية أسوأ الظروف في المستشفيات ومراكز الرعاية الأولية… نعاني شُحّا غير مسبوقا في الأدوية والمستلزمات بسبب استمرار إغلاق المعابر… يوجد 170000 جريح وكل جريح يحتاج في المتوسط 3 عمليات ما يعني أننا نحتاج لأكثر من 400000 عملية جراحية… إذا استمر إغلاق المعابر سيموت هؤلاء أمام أعيننا في ظل النقص الحاد وحتى عدم توفر الماء النظيف في المستشفيات… لا بد من فتح المعابر والتزام الاحتلال بما اتُّفق عليه وقد اتفق الوسطاء على إدخال 600 شاحنة بينها شاحنات أدوية وإمداد طبي لإنقاذ المستشفيات وإنشاء المراكز الطبية… على المجتمع الدولي أن يُلزم الاحتلال بفتح المعابر وإدخال الإمداد الطبي لإنقاذ مئات الآلاف من المرضى والمصابين… نتحدث عن شعب أُصيبت غزة فيه بمجاعة مُعلنة وتحتاج إلى إجراءات وتدخلات سريعة بإدخال مراكز تغذية للأطفال والأمهات وتوفير حمض الفوليك والحديد وسائر رعاية الأمومة والطفل… استلمنا 90 جثمانا طاهرا على دفعتين 45 و45 وننتظر دفعة ثالثة تقارب 30… المشاهدات الأولية تُظهر تعذيبا وتكبيلا وآثار جنازير دبابات ووجود جثامين مُشرَّحة تحتاج لتدقيق من لجان مختصة… لدينا تجربة سابقة تُظهر إفراغ مضامين بعض الجثامين من الأعضاء ووضع القطن والقماش وسُرقت قرنيات وكِلى وحتى كبد… لا نستطيع تأكيد أو نفي سرقة الأعضاء إلا بعد استكمال الإجراءات الروتينية عبر لجنة من القضاء العالي والنيابة العامة ووزارة الصحة. From the courtyard of al-Shifa Hospital, which witnessed killing, displacement, and burning… this courtyard is the martyrs’ square where dozens were buried… we at the Palestinian Ministry of Health are living through the worst conditions in hospitals and primary care centers… we are suffering an unprecedented shortage of medicines and supplies due to the continued closure of the crossings… there are 170000 wounded, and each needs on average 3 operations, meaning we require more than 400000 surgical procedures… if the crossings remain closed, these people will die before our eyes amid severe shortages and even the lack of clean water in hospitals… the crossings must be opened and the occupation must abide by what was agreed, and mediators agreed to allow in 600 trucks, including medicine and medical-supply trucks, to save hospitals and establish medical centers… the international community must compel the occupation to open the crossings and bring in medical supplies to save hundreds of thousands of patients and the injured… we are talking about a people for whom Gaza has been declared to be in famine and who need rapid measures and interventions by setting up nutrition centers for children and mothers and providing folic acid, iron, and all maternal and child care… we received 90 pure bodies in two batches, 45 and 45, and we are awaiting a third batch of about 30… initial observations show torture, shackling, the tracks of tank treads, and bodies that were autopsied, which require verification by specialized committees… we have prior experience showing that some bodies were emptied of organs and stuffed with cotton and fabric, and corneas, kidneys, and even a liver were stolen… we cannot confirm or deny organ theft until routine procedures are completed by a committee from the High Judiciary, the Public Prosecution, and the Ministry of Health.
12:23

من ساحة مستشفى الشفاء الذي شهد قتلا وتشريدا وحرقا… هذه الساحة ساحة الشهداء التي دُفن فيها العشرات… نعيش في وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية أسوأ الظروف في المستشفيات ومراكز الرعاية الأولية… نعاني شُحّا غير مسبوقا في الأدوية والمستلزمات بسبب استمرار إغلاق المعابر… يوجد 170000 جريح وكل جريح يحتاج في المتوسط 3 عمليات ما يعني أننا نحتاج لأكثر من 400000 عملية جراحية… إذا استمر إغلاق المعابر سيموت هؤلاء أمام أعيننا في ظل النقص الحاد وحتى عدم توفر الماء النظيف في المستشفيات… لا بد من فتح المعابر والتزام الاحتلال بما اتُّفق عليه وقد اتفق الوسطاء على إدخال 600 شاحنة بينها شاحنات أدوية وإمداد طبي لإنقاذ المستشفيات وإنشاء المراكز الطبية… على المجتمع الدولي أن يُلزم الاحتلال بفتح المعابر وإدخال الإمداد الطبي لإنقاذ مئات الآلاف من المرضى والمصابين… نتحدث عن شعب أُصيبت غزة فيه بمجاعة مُعلنة وتحتاج إلى إجراءات وتدخلات سريعة بإدخال مراكز تغذية للأطفال والأمهات وتوفير حمض الفوليك والحديد وسائر رعاية الأمومة والطفل… استلمنا 90 جثمانا طاهرا على دفعتين 45 و45 وننتظر دفعة ثالثة تقارب 30… المشاهدات الأولية تُظهر تعذيبا وتكبيلا وآثار جنازير دبابات ووجود جثامين مُشرَّحة تحتاج لتدقيق من لجان مختصة… لدينا تجربة سابقة تُظهر إفراغ مضامين بعض الجثامين من الأعضاء ووضع القطن والقماش وسُرقت قرنيات وكِلى وحتى كبد… لا نستطيع تأكيد أو نفي سرقة الأعضاء إلا بعد استكمال الإجراءات الروتينية عبر لجنة من القضاء العالي والنيابة العامة ووزارة الصحة. From the courtyard of al-Shifa Hospital, which witnessed killing, displacement, and burning… this courtyard is the martyrs’ square where dozens were buried… we at the Palestinian Ministry of Health are living through the worst conditions in hospitals and primary care centers… we are suffering an unprecedented shortage of medicines and supplies due to the continued closure of the crossings… there are 170000 wounded, and each needs on average 3 operations, meaning we require more than 400000 surgical procedures… if the crossings remain closed, these people will die before our eyes amid severe shortages and even the lack of clean water in hospitals… the crossings must be opened and the occupation must abide by what was agreed, and mediators agreed to allow in 600 trucks, including medicine and medical-supply trucks, to save hospitals and establish medical centers… the international community must compel the occupation to open the crossings and bring in medical supplies to save hundreds of thousands of patients and the injured… we are talking about a people for whom Gaza has been declared to be in famine and who need rapid measures and interventions by setting up nutrition centers for children and mothers and providing folic acid, iron, and all maternal and child care… we received 90 pure bodies in two batches, 45 and 45, and we are awaiting a third batch of about 30… initial observations show torture, shackling, the tracks of tank treads, and bodies that were autopsied, which require verification by specialized committees… we have prior experience showing that some bodies were emptied of organs and stuffed with cotton and fabric, and corneas, kidneys, and even a liver were stolen… we cannot confirm or deny organ theft until routine procedures are completed by a committee from the High Judiciary, the Public Prosecution, and the Ministry of Health.

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

32,072 次观看 • 11 个月前

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
24:35

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Hillel Neuer

68,720 次观看 • 11 个月前

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."
16:12

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."

Cristian Terhes MEP

33,649 次观看 • 2 年前

Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"
10:25

Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"

Arnaud Bertrand

10,938,350 次观看 • 2 年前

Ambassador Chas Freeman: Israel Is Worse Than Nazis It’s very clear what Israel wants. It’s made no secret that it wants to depopulate Gaza by whatever means it can, by starving people into leaving, expelling them, or killing them all. And there’s no question that it meets the definition of genocide. They have the intent to destroy an entire people. They have the ability and they are, in fact, carrying out an operation intended to do so. I think it’s also quite clear why Hamas did what it did. This was in the nature of a jailbreak from the world’s largest concentration camp. And having been treated like animals they behaved like animals. What they did was horrifying, it was inexcusable, but it was understandable. The Israeli reaction has been vastly disproportionate and that is Israel’s custom. It tries to react disproportionately in order to intimidate and deter anyone from attacking it. That is not new but what is new are the genocidal statements and proposed emptying of Gaza. 60% of the buildings in Northern Gaza have been destroyed and we know that over 12,000 Palestinians have been murdered by one means or another. Israel has destroyed most of the hospitals in Gaza. It now seems to be working on the schools. So it is totally ruthless and the whole thing is particularly macabre because it is such a vivid reminder of the Warsaw Ghetto, a very parallel situation in which driven beyond any ability to tolerate what was being done to them, the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto rose against Nazi Germany and the Nazis exterminated them all and leveled the ghetto. One would think that the survivors of that Holocaust and the larger Holocaust in Europe would not wish to repeat a holocaust against another people but evidently, that is expecting too much of human nature. It now appears that much of the killing at the music festival was actually done by Israeli forces who fired indiscriminately at both the Hamas warriors and the milling crowds at the festival. Similarly, some of the major damage in the kibbutzim and the murders of the settlers there were done not by Hamas but by Israeli forces firing tank bullets into houses and hellfire missiles into cars and so forth. So this was a dreadful beginning to what has turned out to be an absolutely nauseating months and a half of slaughter, not finished. The United States has the ability to stop this by halting armed supplies to Israel but does not do that, opposes a ceasefire in support of Mr. Netanyahu’s revenge against the Palestinians, and Mr. Netanyahu, I would remind you, is on record many years ago as expressing hope for a war in which Israel could expel all the Arabs in its midst and seems to be taking advantage of this to do that hoping, I suppose, that his reputation which has been greatly damaged by charges of corruption and by his suspension of judicial independence in Israel, can somehow be redeemed by this act of revenge. Where we are is a very bad place. What Israel is reporting is extraordinarily crude propaganda, some of it obviously, utterly false, and they’ve been caught. Even some of the mainstream media are beginning to report that the Israeli Defense Forces are lying about a huge number of things. Younger people, generally in the West, certainly in my own country the United States, are far more inclined to be sympathetic to the Palestinians than they ever were before. It’s not that they dislike Israelis but now confronted with with graphic images of horror, the murder of 12,000 [Palestinians], they’re not dispassionate. Not only are they demonstrating in all of the world’s capitals for a ceasefire which their governments declined to support for the most part, but social media is now overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian as opposed to pro-Israeli. But I think the Palestinians, generally, have been motivated to remind the world that they exist. That their problems can’t be set aside. The Israeli government, with the connivance of the Biden Administration, and before that the Trump Administration, was making an effort to set the Palestinian issue aside in order to produce Arab-Israeli normalization. And the Palestinians set out with this raid into Israel to demonstrate that that is impossible, that the only way that you can have peace in Palestine is with a two-state solution. And oddly enough, although Hamas, of course, started as a movement funded in part by the Israelis — Mr. Netanyahu has openly admitted that he corroborated with Qatar to fund Hamas in Gaza in order to divide the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — I think Hamas seized the moment to provoke Israel into doing exactly what Israel has predictively done in order to make it clear to the world that you have to have a two-state solution which had become a talking point. There was no reality to it at all. There had been no peace process for twenty-some years. Now there must be. People have recognized that the one-state solution — which many favored, meaning a purely democratic one-man-one-vote arrangement in Palestine in which inevitably the Jewish population given its higher level of culture, civilization, and finance, would have called most of the shots — is off the table. After all the hatred that has been demonstrated on both sides, coexistence in one state is obviously impossible in Palestine. Two states, however, would give the Palestinians a stake in peace. They have no stake in peace at the moment. They’re like a rabbit being swallowed by some kind of boa constrictor. As time goes on they go farther and farther down the throat of the snake and they’re crying out, and they were doing so at a pitch that, apparently, no one internationally could hear. And now their cause has been dramatized. We can’t have a resolution of what is going on now that takes the form of another expulsion of Palestinians, more tolerance of massacres, the condoning of genocide... and I think those in the West, including President Biden, who has been prepared to give Israel a pass on these issues, are beginning to pay heavily in terms of their political prestige in their domestic politics. Settler colonialism invariably leads to some attempt at genocide. That was the case in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It wasn’t the case in New Zealand because the Māori were too tough. It wasn’t the case in South Africa because the Zulus, and other South African blacks, were too tough. It wasn’t the case in Kenya because, eventually, black Kenyans rose up in the Mau Mau movement, which was itself a horror, but it did result in a separation from the colonial rule of the British. The same thing could happen. Now the difficulty of all this is obvious in terms of the fact that you’ve got an Israeli cabinet that is the most determined, genocidal cabinet the world has ever seen, and I don’t excuse the Nazi cabinets from that comparison. The overt statements of genocidal intent are unmistakable. There’s no effort, as the Germans did make, to conceal what is in store for the Palestinians. There’s no fake camp for Jews like the one the Nazis set up to bring the Swiss Red Cross in to show how wonderful they were treating the people they had taken away from their homes. No effort whatsoever of that sort, just bombing and strafing and murder on the ground. Israel appears to be paying quite a heavy price for that in terms of combat losses, but, of course, is not reporting accurately what is happening.
12:10

Ambassador Chas Freeman: Israel Is Worse Than Nazis It’s very clear what Israel wants. It’s made no secret that it wants to depopulate Gaza by whatever means it can, by starving people into leaving, expelling them, or killing them all. And there’s no question that it meets the definition of genocide. They have the intent to destroy an entire people. They have the ability and they are, in fact, carrying out an operation intended to do so. I think it’s also quite clear why Hamas did what it did. This was in the nature of a jailbreak from the world’s largest concentration camp. And having been treated like animals they behaved like animals. What they did was horrifying, it was inexcusable, but it was understandable. The Israeli reaction has been vastly disproportionate and that is Israel’s custom. It tries to react disproportionately in order to intimidate and deter anyone from attacking it. That is not new but what is new are the genocidal statements and proposed emptying of Gaza. 60% of the buildings in Northern Gaza have been destroyed and we know that over 12,000 Palestinians have been murdered by one means or another. Israel has destroyed most of the hospitals in Gaza. It now seems to be working on the schools. So it is totally ruthless and the whole thing is particularly macabre because it is such a vivid reminder of the Warsaw Ghetto, a very parallel situation in which driven beyond any ability to tolerate what was being done to them, the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto rose against Nazi Germany and the Nazis exterminated them all and leveled the ghetto. One would think that the survivors of that Holocaust and the larger Holocaust in Europe would not wish to repeat a holocaust against another people but evidently, that is expecting too much of human nature. It now appears that much of the killing at the music festival was actually done by Israeli forces who fired indiscriminately at both the Hamas warriors and the milling crowds at the festival. Similarly, some of the major damage in the kibbutzim and the murders of the settlers there were done not by Hamas but by Israeli forces firing tank bullets into houses and hellfire missiles into cars and so forth. So this was a dreadful beginning to what has turned out to be an absolutely nauseating months and a half of slaughter, not finished. The United States has the ability to stop this by halting armed supplies to Israel but does not do that, opposes a ceasefire in support of Mr. Netanyahu’s revenge against the Palestinians, and Mr. Netanyahu, I would remind you, is on record many years ago as expressing hope for a war in which Israel could expel all the Arabs in its midst and seems to be taking advantage of this to do that hoping, I suppose, that his reputation which has been greatly damaged by charges of corruption and by his suspension of judicial independence in Israel, can somehow be redeemed by this act of revenge. Where we are is a very bad place. What Israel is reporting is extraordinarily crude propaganda, some of it obviously, utterly false, and they’ve been caught. Even some of the mainstream media are beginning to report that the Israeli Defense Forces are lying about a huge number of things. Younger people, generally in the West, certainly in my own country the United States, are far more inclined to be sympathetic to the Palestinians than they ever were before. It’s not that they dislike Israelis but now confronted with with graphic images of horror, the murder of 12,000 [Palestinians], they’re not dispassionate. Not only are they demonstrating in all of the world’s capitals for a ceasefire which their governments declined to support for the most part, but social media is now overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian as opposed to pro-Israeli. But I think the Palestinians, generally, have been motivated to remind the world that they exist. That their problems can’t be set aside. The Israeli government, with the connivance of the Biden Administration, and before that the Trump Administration, was making an effort to set the Palestinian issue aside in order to produce Arab-Israeli normalization. And the Palestinians set out with this raid into Israel to demonstrate that that is impossible, that the only way that you can have peace in Palestine is with a two-state solution. And oddly enough, although Hamas, of course, started as a movement funded in part by the Israelis — Mr. Netanyahu has openly admitted that he corroborated with Qatar to fund Hamas in Gaza in order to divide the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — I think Hamas seized the moment to provoke Israel into doing exactly what Israel has predictively done in order to make it clear to the world that you have to have a two-state solution which had become a talking point. There was no reality to it at all. There had been no peace process for twenty-some years. Now there must be. People have recognized that the one-state solution — which many favored, meaning a purely democratic one-man-one-vote arrangement in Palestine in which inevitably the Jewish population given its higher level of culture, civilization, and finance, would have called most of the shots — is off the table. After all the hatred that has been demonstrated on both sides, coexistence in one state is obviously impossible in Palestine. Two states, however, would give the Palestinians a stake in peace. They have no stake in peace at the moment. They’re like a rabbit being swallowed by some kind of boa constrictor. As time goes on they go farther and farther down the throat of the snake and they’re crying out, and they were doing so at a pitch that, apparently, no one internationally could hear. And now their cause has been dramatized. We can’t have a resolution of what is going on now that takes the form of another expulsion of Palestinians, more tolerance of massacres, the condoning of genocide... and I think those in the West, including President Biden, who has been prepared to give Israel a pass on these issues, are beginning to pay heavily in terms of their political prestige in their domestic politics. Settler colonialism invariably leads to some attempt at genocide. That was the case in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It wasn’t the case in New Zealand because the Māori were too tough. It wasn’t the case in South Africa because the Zulus, and other South African blacks, were too tough. It wasn’t the case in Kenya because, eventually, black Kenyans rose up in the Mau Mau movement, which was itself a horror, but it did result in a separation from the colonial rule of the British. The same thing could happen. Now the difficulty of all this is obvious in terms of the fact that you’ve got an Israeli cabinet that is the most determined, genocidal cabinet the world has ever seen, and I don’t excuse the Nazi cabinets from that comparison. The overt statements of genocidal intent are unmistakable. There’s no effort, as the Germans did make, to conceal what is in store for the Palestinians. There’s no fake camp for Jews like the one the Nazis set up to bring the Swiss Red Cross in to show how wonderful they were treating the people they had taken away from their homes. No effort whatsoever of that sort, just bombing and strafing and murder on the ground. Israel appears to be paying quite a heavy price for that in terms of combat losses, but, of course, is not reporting accurately what is happening.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

22,337 次观看 • 2 年前

PUTIN 12 minutes Answers to questions from media representatives **Question:** Vladimir Vladimirovich, you said earlier that after the State Duma elections, talks in a trilateral format — Russia, the United States, and Ukraine — might resume. The elections have taken place. Where and when might a new round of negotiations be held? **Vladimir Putin:** It is well known that the Ukrainian side broke off the talks that were under way in Istanbul. But now — or rather even before the elections, about ten days or a couple of weeks beforehand — it declared its readiness to resume those talks. And indeed, we said that negotiations were hardly possible before the State Duma elections, and that after that we would be ready to resume those contacts. But what has happened recently is also well known to everyone. On the night of the 19th to the 20th, that is, on the main voting day itself, an attempt was made to carry out a massive strike on Moscow. More than 1,600 unmanned aerial vehicles entered practically the Moscow zone. That is the first point. Second. Strikes were carried out against polling stations. In one place the polling station was in a school, and the school was practically destroyed by the strike. They began attacking the residential buildings of the chairs of territorial election commissions. In one case the chair of a territorial commission was wounded, her husband was wounded, and a child was wounded; in another case, unfortunately, it ended in tragedy, and as you know, the chair of a territorial election commission was killed — the strike was delivered against her home. In addition. We are in St. Petersburg right now. I think everyone remembers how the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum went, when the Ukrainian authorities tried to strike St. Petersburg, hit the so-called coal harbour in the port, and set it on fire. Who were they trying to frighten — us or our guests? People who work with Russia are hardly going to take fright and run off somewhere. No one ran anywhere. We held the forum through to the end. Then, starting in June, they began striking our oil refineries. As is also well known, in June they announced the start of a forty-day operation. Well, it led to certain losses on our side. On top of that they tried to organize a naval blockade of our Black Sea coast. They damaged more than 100 ships — 100 vessels — both Russian ones and those sailing under foreign flags. Yes, we restored all of that. But these were active operations that… Then — against such civilian facilities as Wildberries or Ozon warehouses. What is that? What is it for? Nevertheless, it was done. After that we began to respond on each of these points. And, by all appearances, the retaliatory actions of the Russian Armed Forces proved so painful and destructive for the adversary that now they are again actively raising the issue of a truce on several tracks, as they themselves put it: an energy track (that is, they are already prepared to stop striking our refineries), an air track (a mutual halt to strikes). We can see that they especially need to stop the strikes of our Geran drones — the modern Gerans — against which they have, at least for now, no countermeasure, no antidote — and to end the blockade we have imposed on the Black Sea coast. But they started all of this. They started it on every one of these tracks. Is this some kind of game? Children’s games of some sort? Therefore they must feel these retaliatory strikes by Russia and understand that no provocative actions and no whipping up of tensions will produce the result they want. They only make their own position worse. So all of these moves aimed at so-called reconciliation, and the proposal to resume negotiations — yes, they are all on the table; all of that is possible. But after everything they have done, we will still think carefully about what we need to do in response. And in any case, all decisions in this area, including on a possible resumption of the negotiating process, we will take on the basis of the interests of the Russian Federation. **Question:** Unfortunately, we have already grown used to a wave of Russophobia from Europe. But the other day Estonia’s Minister of Defence, Martin Herem, said they are ready to kill every Russian who crosses the border, and — note this — if the Russians do not attack first, it would be more advantageous for the Estonians to do it themselves. Madness. But this is being said by the defence minister of a neighbouring country, a NATO country. How should one respond? **Vladimir Putin:** On the part of European countries this is, without any doubt, a deliberate inflaming of the situation and a provocation. Everyone is saying — many in Europe are saying — that they expect an attack from the Russian Federation and therefore must themselves prepare for combat operations, for a war with Russia. I want to stress once again: we are not preparing for any combat operations with Europe whatsoever. We have no such plans and, most importantly, no grounds, no real motives for aggravating the situation with Europe, no matter what anyone says, including from the Baltic states. Yes, we know that the rights of the Russian-speaking population are being violated there, but we already know how to respond, and we have worked out a certain approach to this. We respond in the humanitarian sphere and in the sphere of international law. What they invented with “non-citizenship” — that is all a fabrication in the Baltic countries. They are not citizens, not foreigners, not dual nationals — they are “non-citizens.” But that is nonsense. It is nonsense that has already been a fact of international life for more than a year. We will continue to fight for the rights of our compatriots, but in the international legal field. We have never intended to use other instruments, we have not used them, and we do not intend to do so. The whipping up of tensions by certain aggressively minded circles can be explained by only one thing: they want to go on using Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder, and Ukraine as a state as an instrument of struggle against Russia, in order to prevent our development, to constrain our development, to slow Russia’s forward movement. And in order to keep pouring money into this thoroughly aggressive behaviour and to explain to their own citizens why they are doing it, they try to deceive the citizens of European countries with the thesis that Russia itself is supposedly going to attack someone. That is complete nonsense. Just as it is nonsense coming from this individual who says that they… What will they do? **Remark:** That it would be more advantageous for them to attack us themselves, and they will kill every Russian. **Vladimir Putin:** Look, this is one of those cases where, as we say jokingly, the circus has left town but the clowns have stayed behind. This is political clowning. Estonia’s population, I believe, is a little over 1.3 million people. And the Russian army — the Russian army alone, I am not even talking about the population of the Russian Federation — is 1.535 million. One million three hundred thousand are Estonia’s citizens, and that includes infants and elderly people. Clearly this is complete nonsense, complete rubbish. But unfortunately these are the kind of people we have to deal with today in Western Europe. **Question:** As is well known, talks are now under way in the United States between the Chairman of the PRC and the President of the United States. How do you view that? Are you jealous? And do you intend to go to the APEC summit in China, where a trilateral meeting with you could be held? **Vladimir Putin:** Jealousy belongs to an entirely different sphere — the humanitarian sphere, relations between a man and a woman. In international politics I do not think such categories are used. We welcome the talks between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Why? Because these are the two largest economies in the world, and depending on how they agree on disputed issues, on the problematic issues arising from illegitimate sanctions on the part of the United States, and on what agreements are reached, that will affect the entire world economy, including our own. Yes, today almost everything between us and the United States has been reduced to zero. But with the People’s Republic of China our trade turnover is 240 billion dollars. That is substantial. And the volume of trade is growing. In addition, we have a very important line of further development both for us and for the People’s Republic of China. And of course it matters how international economic relations as a whole take shape. Therefore we welcome any agreements of a positive nature between China and the United States. **Remark:** And as for the APEC summit? **Vladimir Putin:** Ah, the APEC summit. A final decision still has to be made. Everything will depend on the situation in the country — in our country. Whenever I decide whether or not to take part in some international event, I proceed from the situation that is developing inside the Russian Federation. But overall this is a major, serious event, and I have an invitation. I proceed from the view that it is useful to work on such a platform. I told Chairman Xi Jinping that as well. I am inclined to take part in that work. But, I repeat once again, in the end it will still depend on the situation in Russia.
12:21

PUTIN 12 minutes Answers to questions from media representatives **Question:** Vladimir Vladimirovich, you said earlier that after the State Duma elections, talks in a trilateral format — Russia, the United States, and Ukraine — might resume. The elections have taken place. Where and when might a new round of negotiations be held? **Vladimir Putin:** It is well known that the Ukrainian side broke off the talks that were under way in Istanbul. But now — or rather even before the elections, about ten days or a couple of weeks beforehand — it declared its readiness to resume those talks. And indeed, we said that negotiations were hardly possible before the State Duma elections, and that after that we would be ready to resume those contacts. But what has happened recently is also well known to everyone. On the night of the 19th to the 20th, that is, on the main voting day itself, an attempt was made to carry out a massive strike on Moscow. More than 1,600 unmanned aerial vehicles entered practically the Moscow zone. That is the first point. Second. Strikes were carried out against polling stations. In one place the polling station was in a school, and the school was practically destroyed by the strike. They began attacking the residential buildings of the chairs of territorial election commissions. In one case the chair of a territorial commission was wounded, her husband was wounded, and a child was wounded; in another case, unfortunately, it ended in tragedy, and as you know, the chair of a territorial election commission was killed — the strike was delivered against her home. In addition. We are in St. Petersburg right now. I think everyone remembers how the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum went, when the Ukrainian authorities tried to strike St. Petersburg, hit the so-called coal harbour in the port, and set it on fire. Who were they trying to frighten — us or our guests? People who work with Russia are hardly going to take fright and run off somewhere. No one ran anywhere. We held the forum through to the end. Then, starting in June, they began striking our oil refineries. As is also well known, in June they announced the start of a forty-day operation. Well, it led to certain losses on our side. On top of that they tried to organize a naval blockade of our Black Sea coast. They damaged more than 100 ships — 100 vessels — both Russian ones and those sailing under foreign flags. Yes, we restored all of that. But these were active operations that… Then — against such civilian facilities as Wildberries or Ozon warehouses. What is that? What is it for? Nevertheless, it was done. After that we began to respond on each of these points. And, by all appearances, the retaliatory actions of the Russian Armed Forces proved so painful and destructive for the adversary that now they are again actively raising the issue of a truce on several tracks, as they themselves put it: an energy track (that is, they are already prepared to stop striking our refineries), an air track (a mutual halt to strikes). We can see that they especially need to stop the strikes of our Geran drones — the modern Gerans — against which they have, at least for now, no countermeasure, no antidote — and to end the blockade we have imposed on the Black Sea coast. But they started all of this. They started it on every one of these tracks. Is this some kind of game? Children’s games of some sort? Therefore they must feel these retaliatory strikes by Russia and understand that no provocative actions and no whipping up of tensions will produce the result they want. They only make their own position worse. So all of these moves aimed at so-called reconciliation, and the proposal to resume negotiations — yes, they are all on the table; all of that is possible. But after everything they have done, we will still think carefully about what we need to do in response. And in any case, all decisions in this area, including on a possible resumption of the negotiating process, we will take on the basis of the interests of the Russian Federation. **Question:** Unfortunately, we have already grown used to a wave of Russophobia from Europe. But the other day Estonia’s Minister of Defence, Martin Herem, said they are ready to kill every Russian who crosses the border, and — note this — if the Russians do not attack first, it would be more advantageous for the Estonians to do it themselves. Madness. But this is being said by the defence minister of a neighbouring country, a NATO country. How should one respond? **Vladimir Putin:** On the part of European countries this is, without any doubt, a deliberate inflaming of the situation and a provocation. Everyone is saying — many in Europe are saying — that they expect an attack from the Russian Federation and therefore must themselves prepare for combat operations, for a war with Russia. I want to stress once again: we are not preparing for any combat operations with Europe whatsoever. We have no such plans and, most importantly, no grounds, no real motives for aggravating the situation with Europe, no matter what anyone says, including from the Baltic states. Yes, we know that the rights of the Russian-speaking population are being violated there, but we already know how to respond, and we have worked out a certain approach to this. We respond in the humanitarian sphere and in the sphere of international law. What they invented with “non-citizenship” — that is all a fabrication in the Baltic countries. They are not citizens, not foreigners, not dual nationals — they are “non-citizens.” But that is nonsense. It is nonsense that has already been a fact of international life for more than a year. We will continue to fight for the rights of our compatriots, but in the international legal field. We have never intended to use other instruments, we have not used them, and we do not intend to do so. The whipping up of tensions by certain aggressively minded circles can be explained by only one thing: they want to go on using Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder, and Ukraine as a state as an instrument of struggle against Russia, in order to prevent our development, to constrain our development, to slow Russia’s forward movement. And in order to keep pouring money into this thoroughly aggressive behaviour and to explain to their own citizens why they are doing it, they try to deceive the citizens of European countries with the thesis that Russia itself is supposedly going to attack someone. That is complete nonsense. Just as it is nonsense coming from this individual who says that they… What will they do? **Remark:** That it would be more advantageous for them to attack us themselves, and they will kill every Russian. **Vladimir Putin:** Look, this is one of those cases where, as we say jokingly, the circus has left town but the clowns have stayed behind. This is political clowning. Estonia’s population, I believe, is a little over 1.3 million people. And the Russian army — the Russian army alone, I am not even talking about the population of the Russian Federation — is 1.535 million. One million three hundred thousand are Estonia’s citizens, and that includes infants and elderly people. Clearly this is complete nonsense, complete rubbish. But unfortunately these are the kind of people we have to deal with today in Western Europe. **Question:** As is well known, talks are now under way in the United States between the Chairman of the PRC and the President of the United States. How do you view that? Are you jealous? And do you intend to go to the APEC summit in China, where a trilateral meeting with you could be held? **Vladimir Putin:** Jealousy belongs to an entirely different sphere — the humanitarian sphere, relations between a man and a woman. In international politics I do not think such categories are used. We welcome the talks between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Why? Because these are the two largest economies in the world, and depending on how they agree on disputed issues, on the problematic issues arising from illegitimate sanctions on the part of the United States, and on what agreements are reached, that will affect the entire world economy, including our own. Yes, today almost everything between us and the United States has been reduced to zero. But with the People’s Republic of China our trade turnover is 240 billion dollars. That is substantial. And the volume of trade is growing. In addition, we have a very important line of further development both for us and for the People’s Republic of China. And of course it matters how international economic relations as a whole take shape. Therefore we welcome any agreements of a positive nature between China and the United States. **Remark:** And as for the APEC summit? **Vladimir Putin:** Ah, the APEC summit. A final decision still has to be made. Everything will depend on the situation in the country — in our country. Whenever I decide whether or not to take part in some international event, I proceed from the situation that is developing inside the Russian Federation. But overall this is a major, serious event, and I have an invitation. I proceed from the view that it is useful to work on such a platform. I told Chairman Xi Jinping that as well. I am inclined to take part in that work. But, I repeat once again, in the end it will still depend on the situation in Russia.

🇷🇺 STANISLAV KRAPIVNIK 🇷🇺

13,639 次观看 • 1 天前

Tension and uncertainty among Russians are growing. In the spring of 2026, Russian polling agencies recorded a noticeable decline in several key indicators: approval of Putin's performance, trust in him, and the overall emotional mood. The most intriguing point was the closure of Russian Public Opinion Research Center’s (VCIOM) open trust rating: when respondents are asked to name politicians they trust without being prompted with names. In March 2026, this indicator for Putin fell to 29.5% - the lowest level since the start of the full-scale war. After that, VCIOM did not publish the figures for April and May. The gap between the open trust rating (29.5%) and the closed trust rating (72-73%) is roughly 1:2.5. It reflects the distance between Putin's actual political weight and the ritual of loyalty to the "tsar." The reason is simple: Russians do not want a loser president. Putin's ratings were sustained not simply by war, but by the prospect of a victorious war. He traded Russia's development and prosperity for greatness, but now Russians see neither greatness nor prosperity. Let’s take a closer look at what is happening within Russian society. First, most Russians continue to support the war. This is illustrated by Levada Center's May data. Support for the actions of the Russian army, which had been declining since the end of last year, suddenly rebounded by six points in May, reaching 74%. At the same time, the share of those favoring peace negotiations, which had remained at around two-thirds since December, has been slowly shrinking for three consecutive months - down seven points, to six out of ten. Meanwhile, the camp supporting the continuation of military operations has grown to 30%. The main motive among supporters of peace has not changed: "too many casualties and heavy losses." What happened? Television stopped talking about peace negotiations. As long as negotiations seemed realistic, peace appeared to be a way out. Once they collapsed, part of Russian society obediently switched back to supporting the war. This is conformism. Russians do not want peace or war - they want to be on the side of the winner. The demand for negotiations was, in fact, a demand for a victorious peace. Since no victorious peace was granted, they have taken back the war. However, there is a dangerous trap here for the Kremlin: Russians agree to war, but not to a war without victory. They agree to anything except a compromise that would be perceived as defeat. This is dangerous for the Kremlin because it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire system of power - and Putin above all - if Russian society is no longer given proof of greatness and victory. Putin is doomed to constant escalation. The situation is further complicated by public fatigue and rising anxiety among Russians. The state of the Russian economy is deteriorating, while the defense sector is no longer able to offset the decline in the civilian economy. This is especially noticeable in the regions. By the end of 2025, the deficit of consolidated regional budgets had reached a record 1.48 trillion rubles ($20.56 billion) - 3.6 times more than a year earlier. Seventy-four regions, including Moscow and the oil and gas districts, ended up in deficit. The first months of 2026 did not reverse the trend: industry is stagnating, construction is shrinking, corporate profits are falling, and debt burdens are increasing. The accompanying symptoms include a sharp rise in wage arrears, large-scale revisions of regional budgets for 2026 involving spending cuts, primarily social, as well as a hidden employment crisis - where there is no work, but employees are not laid off; instead, they are shifted to reduced working weeks and unpaid leave. Official unemployment statistics barely reflect this. Yet since December 2025, part-time employment has been rising at large and medium-sized enterprises: 4.6 million out of 33 million workers. The map of Russian society’s concerns, which the Levada Center publishes annually, looks telling in May 2026. At the top - for twenty years in a row - is rising prices: 55%. The "special military operation" and related issues worry 35%. And then comes the most interesting part - the destruction of a comfortable life and the feeling of war at home have become additional drivers of tension: fear of explosions and terrorist attacks has jumped by 8 points since November - to 27%. One in five (22%) cites internet restrictions and the blocking of social media as among the most pressing issues - on the list of problems, the digital blockade now ranks alongside poverty and lack of access to healthcare (both at 19%). The state has managed to turn a disabled messenger app into a social problem on the level of poverty. That takes some doing. Many Western observers have been inspired by rumors of elite dissatisfaction in Russia. Indeed, Moscow's economic circles have seen unusually open criticism of the government from parts of the financial elite. However, I suggest we avoid wishful thinking: no direct scenario of a political crisis emerges from this data. The most realistic scenario is the continuation of the war, coupled with a search for political doping: events that can be sold to society as victories, as proof that Russia is moving in the right direction. The problem is that the bar has risen - what would have been considered a triumph a year ago would now look like capitulation. Therefore, stronger doses of doping will be required: escalation in Ukraine aimed at maximizing destruction, a military adventure somewhere in Europe, new strikes, nuclear signaling, or provocations against the West. The ground has already been prepared: 54% of Russians believe that the war in Ukraine could escalate into an armed conflict with NATO - half the population is living in anticipation of a major war. The Kremlin’s logic is as old as time: unite through fear. Putin may also be saved by an "unexpected event" - a black swan, as has already happened when the U.S. started a war with Iran. Here, it’s not even necessary to do anything: it’s enough to interpret it skillfully. A U.S. defeat or stalemate in the war with Iran could be presented as a victory of Russia and its allies over America - because in the minds of Russians, the war with Ukraine has long been just a fragment of a larger Russian war with the West. Within this worldview, any failure by Washington automatically counts as a point for Moscow, regardless of whether it had a hand in it. There is also a third scenario - not for Putin, but against him. This is not a scenario of popular uprising, but one of self-preservation by the Russian elites. But such an option is possible only under a sharp convergence of several factors: military defeat, economic collapse, the loss of the ability to allocate resources, and the emergence of a figure or group capable of guaranteeing the elite’s security after the transition. So far, there are few such signs.
1:54

Tension and uncertainty among Russians are growing. In the spring of 2026, Russian polling agencies recorded a noticeable decline in several key indicators: approval of Putin's performance, trust in him, and the overall emotional mood. The most intriguing point was the closure of Russian Public Opinion Research Center’s (VCIOM) open trust rating: when respondents are asked to name politicians they trust without being prompted with names. In March 2026, this indicator for Putin fell to 29.5% - the lowest level since the start of the full-scale war. After that, VCIOM did not publish the figures for April and May. The gap between the open trust rating (29.5%) and the closed trust rating (72-73%) is roughly 1:2.5. It reflects the distance between Putin's actual political weight and the ritual of loyalty to the "tsar." The reason is simple: Russians do not want a loser president. Putin's ratings were sustained not simply by war, but by the prospect of a victorious war. He traded Russia's development and prosperity for greatness, but now Russians see neither greatness nor prosperity. Let’s take a closer look at what is happening within Russian society. First, most Russians continue to support the war. This is illustrated by Levada Center's May data. Support for the actions of the Russian army, which had been declining since the end of last year, suddenly rebounded by six points in May, reaching 74%. At the same time, the share of those favoring peace negotiations, which had remained at around two-thirds since December, has been slowly shrinking for three consecutive months - down seven points, to six out of ten. Meanwhile, the camp supporting the continuation of military operations has grown to 30%. The main motive among supporters of peace has not changed: "too many casualties and heavy losses." What happened? Television stopped talking about peace negotiations. As long as negotiations seemed realistic, peace appeared to be a way out. Once they collapsed, part of Russian society obediently switched back to supporting the war. This is conformism. Russians do not want peace or war - they want to be on the side of the winner. The demand for negotiations was, in fact, a demand for a victorious peace. Since no victorious peace was granted, they have taken back the war. However, there is a dangerous trap here for the Kremlin: Russians agree to war, but not to a war without victory. They agree to anything except a compromise that would be perceived as defeat. This is dangerous for the Kremlin because it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire system of power - and Putin above all - if Russian society is no longer given proof of greatness and victory. Putin is doomed to constant escalation. The situation is further complicated by public fatigue and rising anxiety among Russians. The state of the Russian economy is deteriorating, while the defense sector is no longer able to offset the decline in the civilian economy. This is especially noticeable in the regions. By the end of 2025, the deficit of consolidated regional budgets had reached a record 1.48 trillion rubles ($20.56 billion) - 3.6 times more than a year earlier. Seventy-four regions, including Moscow and the oil and gas districts, ended up in deficit. The first months of 2026 did not reverse the trend: industry is stagnating, construction is shrinking, corporate profits are falling, and debt burdens are increasing. The accompanying symptoms include a sharp rise in wage arrears, large-scale revisions of regional budgets for 2026 involving spending cuts, primarily social, as well as a hidden employment crisis - where there is no work, but employees are not laid off; instead, they are shifted to reduced working weeks and unpaid leave. Official unemployment statistics barely reflect this. Yet since December 2025, part-time employment has been rising at large and medium-sized enterprises: 4.6 million out of 33 million workers. The map of Russian society’s concerns, which the Levada Center publishes annually, looks telling in May 2026. At the top - for twenty years in a row - is rising prices: 55%. The "special military operation" and related issues worry 35%. And then comes the most interesting part - the destruction of a comfortable life and the feeling of war at home have become additional drivers of tension: fear of explosions and terrorist attacks has jumped by 8 points since November - to 27%. One in five (22%) cites internet restrictions and the blocking of social media as among the most pressing issues - on the list of problems, the digital blockade now ranks alongside poverty and lack of access to healthcare (both at 19%). The state has managed to turn a disabled messenger app into a social problem on the level of poverty. That takes some doing. Many Western observers have been inspired by rumors of elite dissatisfaction in Russia. Indeed, Moscow's economic circles have seen unusually open criticism of the government from parts of the financial elite. However, I suggest we avoid wishful thinking: no direct scenario of a political crisis emerges from this data. The most realistic scenario is the continuation of the war, coupled with a search for political doping: events that can be sold to society as victories, as proof that Russia is moving in the right direction. The problem is that the bar has risen - what would have been considered a triumph a year ago would now look like capitulation. Therefore, stronger doses of doping will be required: escalation in Ukraine aimed at maximizing destruction, a military adventure somewhere in Europe, new strikes, nuclear signaling, or provocations against the West. The ground has already been prepared: 54% of Russians believe that the war in Ukraine could escalate into an armed conflict with NATO - half the population is living in anticipation of a major war. The Kremlin’s logic is as old as time: unite through fear. Putin may also be saved by an "unexpected event" - a black swan, as has already happened when the U.S. started a war with Iran. Here, it’s not even necessary to do anything: it’s enough to interpret it skillfully. A U.S. defeat or stalemate in the war with Iran could be presented as a victory of Russia and its allies over America - because in the minds of Russians, the war with Ukraine has long been just a fragment of a larger Russian war with the West. Within this worldview, any failure by Washington automatically counts as a point for Moscow, regardless of whether it had a hand in it. There is also a third scenario - not for Putin, but against him. This is not a scenario of popular uprising, but one of self-preservation by the Russian elites. But such an option is possible only under a sharp convergence of several factors: military defeat, economic collapse, the loss of the ability to allocate resources, and the emergence of a figure or group capable of guaranteeing the elite’s security after the transition. So far, there are few such signs.

Anton Gerashchenko

36,205 次观看 • 3 个月前

معلومات صادمة لبيروت بوليتيكس في تحرّك دبلوماسي غير مسبوق، أجرى سفراء دول الاتحاد الأوروبي السبع والعشرين، إلى جانب سفراء كندا، والمملكة المتحدة، والنرويج، وسويسرا، وأستراليا، سلسلة لقاءات مع كبار المسؤولين اللبنانيين، في مقدّمهم رئيس الحكومة نواف سلام ورئيس حزب القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع، وذلك بين 7 و13 تموز. وبحسب المعلومات، فإن هذه الجولة ليست سوى البداية، إذ يُنتظر أن تشمل الأيام والأسابيع المقبلة سبع زيارات إضافية إلى مراجع سياسية ونيابية. الرسالة الغربية، وفق ما تنقله مصادر مطّلعة، كانت واضحة وحاسمة: ضرورة الإسراع في التوصل إلى اتفاق مع صندوق النقد الدولي. عدم الالتفاف على التعديلات المطلوبة في قانون إصلاح المصارف. وعدم إفراغ مشروع قانون الاستقرار المالي واسترداد الودائع من مضمونه الإصلاحي. وتؤكد المصادر أن هذا الحشد الدبلوماسي شدّد على ضرورة أن تأتي التشريعات اللبنانية مطابقة بالكامل لما يتم الاتفاق عليه مع صندوق النقد الدولي، من دون تعديلات تُفرغ الإصلاحات من أهدافها. ويأتي هذا التحرّك بعد انسحاب مصرف لبنان من مسار التفاوض مع الصندوق، وبالتزامن مع بدء مجلس النواب مناقشة التعديلات على قانون إصلاح المصارف. وبحسب معلومات خاصة حصلت عليها بيروت بوليتيكس، حملت اللقاءات رسالتين أساسيتين: الرسالة الأولى: عدم العبث بالتشريعات الإصلاحية أو محاولة الالتفاف عليها، لأن ذلك سيؤدي إلى إعادة إنتاج الأزمة نفسها التي يعيشها لبنان منذ سبع سنوات. الرسالة الثانية: لا تمويل دولياً حقيقياً للبنان، ولا استعادة للثقة، ولا عودة للاستثمارات، من دون اتفاق رسمي مع صندوق النقد الدولي. وتضيف المعلومات أن عدداً من السفراء يعتبرون أن بعض الجهات المعارضة للاتفاق مع الصندوق لا تنطلق من الحرص على أموال المودعين، التي تستمر قيمتها بالتآكل منذ سنوات، بل من اعتبارات تتعلق بالحفاظ على الصلاحيات والنفوذ، وحماية مصالح قوى مالية ومصرفية نافذة. وبحسب هذه المصادر، فإن القوى التي تعرقل الاتفاق لا تطرح أي بديل اقتصادي أو مالي قابل للتنفيذ. أما الخلاصة التي ينقلها عدد من السفراء والمؤسسات المالية الدولية، فهي أن استمرار تعطيل الاتفاق مع صندوق النقد قد يُبقي لبنان تحت وطأة تداعيات أزمته الاقتصادية لعشرين عاماً على الأقل. تبقى هذه المواقف منسوبة إلى مصادر دبلوماسية وإلى مؤسسات مالية دولية، لكنها تعكس حجم القلق الدولي من مسار الإصلاحات في لبنان. لقد أَعذر من أنذر. Shocking information obtained by Beirut Politics In an unprecedented diplomatic move, the ambassadors of the 27 European Union member states, along with the ambassadors of Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia, held a series of meetings with senior Lebanese officials, including Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, between July 7 and July 13. According to the information, this round of meetings is only the beginning, with seven additional visits to political and parliamentary leaders expected in the coming days and weeks. According to informed sources, the Western message was clear and firm: The need to swiftly reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. No circumvention of the required amendments to the Banking Reform Law. No weakening of the Financial Stability and Deposit Recovery Law by stripping it of its reform content. The sources confirmed that this broad diplomatic effort stressed that Lebanese legislation must fully comply with whatever is agreed upon with the International Monetary Fund, without amendments that would undermine the purpose of the reforms. This diplomatic initiative comes after Banque du Liban withdrew from the negotiation process with the IMF, while Parliament has begun discussing amendments to the Banking Reform Law. According to exclusive information obtained by Beirut Politics, the meetings carried two key messages: The first message: Do not tamper with reform legislation or attempt to circumvent it, because doing so would reproduce the very crisis Lebanon has been suffering from for the past seven years. The second message: There will be no meaningful international financing for Lebanon, no restoration of confidence, and no return of investments without a formal agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The information further states that several ambassadors believe some of the parties opposing an agreement with the IMF are not motivated by concern for depositors’ money, whose value continues to erode year after year, but rather by considerations related to preserving influence and authority, and protecting the interests of powerful financial and banking groups. According to these sources, the forces obstructing an agreement have failed to present any viable economic or financial alternative. The conclusion conveyed by several ambassadors and international financial institutions is that continued obstruction of an agreement with the IMF could leave Lebanon burdened by the consequences of its economic crisis for at least another twenty years. These positions remain attributed to diplomatic sources and international financial institutions, but they reflect the extent of international concern over the course of Lebanon’s reform process. Those who have warned have fulfilled their duty. Mounir Younès/منير يونس #لبنان #صندوق_النقد_الدولي #الإصلاحات #مجلس_النواب #المصارف #الاقتصاد #BeirutPolitics #Lebanon #IMF #Reforms #Parliament #Banking #Economy #BeirutPolitics
2:14

معلومات صادمة لبيروت بوليتيكس في تحرّك دبلوماسي غير مسبوق، أجرى سفراء دول الاتحاد الأوروبي السبع والعشرين، إلى جانب سفراء كندا، والمملكة المتحدة، والنرويج، وسويسرا، وأستراليا، سلسلة لقاءات مع كبار المسؤولين اللبنانيين، في مقدّمهم رئيس الحكومة نواف سلام ورئيس حزب القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع، وذلك بين 7 و13 تموز. وبحسب المعلومات، فإن هذه الجولة ليست سوى البداية، إذ يُنتظر أن تشمل الأيام والأسابيع المقبلة سبع زيارات إضافية إلى مراجع سياسية ونيابية. الرسالة الغربية، وفق ما تنقله مصادر مطّلعة، كانت واضحة وحاسمة: ضرورة الإسراع في التوصل إلى اتفاق مع صندوق النقد الدولي. عدم الالتفاف على التعديلات المطلوبة في قانون إصلاح المصارف. وعدم إفراغ مشروع قانون الاستقرار المالي واسترداد الودائع من مضمونه الإصلاحي. وتؤكد المصادر أن هذا الحشد الدبلوماسي شدّد على ضرورة أن تأتي التشريعات اللبنانية مطابقة بالكامل لما يتم الاتفاق عليه مع صندوق النقد الدولي، من دون تعديلات تُفرغ الإصلاحات من أهدافها. ويأتي هذا التحرّك بعد انسحاب مصرف لبنان من مسار التفاوض مع الصندوق، وبالتزامن مع بدء مجلس النواب مناقشة التعديلات على قانون إصلاح المصارف. وبحسب معلومات خاصة حصلت عليها بيروت بوليتيكس، حملت اللقاءات رسالتين أساسيتين: الرسالة الأولى: عدم العبث بالتشريعات الإصلاحية أو محاولة الالتفاف عليها، لأن ذلك سيؤدي إلى إعادة إنتاج الأزمة نفسها التي يعيشها لبنان منذ سبع سنوات. الرسالة الثانية: لا تمويل دولياً حقيقياً للبنان، ولا استعادة للثقة، ولا عودة للاستثمارات، من دون اتفاق رسمي مع صندوق النقد الدولي. وتضيف المعلومات أن عدداً من السفراء يعتبرون أن بعض الجهات المعارضة للاتفاق مع الصندوق لا تنطلق من الحرص على أموال المودعين، التي تستمر قيمتها بالتآكل منذ سنوات، بل من اعتبارات تتعلق بالحفاظ على الصلاحيات والنفوذ، وحماية مصالح قوى مالية ومصرفية نافذة. وبحسب هذه المصادر، فإن القوى التي تعرقل الاتفاق لا تطرح أي بديل اقتصادي أو مالي قابل للتنفيذ. أما الخلاصة التي ينقلها عدد من السفراء والمؤسسات المالية الدولية، فهي أن استمرار تعطيل الاتفاق مع صندوق النقد قد يُبقي لبنان تحت وطأة تداعيات أزمته الاقتصادية لعشرين عاماً على الأقل. تبقى هذه المواقف منسوبة إلى مصادر دبلوماسية وإلى مؤسسات مالية دولية، لكنها تعكس حجم القلق الدولي من مسار الإصلاحات في لبنان. لقد أَعذر من أنذر. Shocking information obtained by Beirut Politics In an unprecedented diplomatic move, the ambassadors of the 27 European Union member states, along with the ambassadors of Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia, held a series of meetings with senior Lebanese officials, including Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, between July 7 and July 13. According to the information, this round of meetings is only the beginning, with seven additional visits to political and parliamentary leaders expected in the coming days and weeks. According to informed sources, the Western message was clear and firm: The need to swiftly reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. No circumvention of the required amendments to the Banking Reform Law. No weakening of the Financial Stability and Deposit Recovery Law by stripping it of its reform content. The sources confirmed that this broad diplomatic effort stressed that Lebanese legislation must fully comply with whatever is agreed upon with the International Monetary Fund, without amendments that would undermine the purpose of the reforms. This diplomatic initiative comes after Banque du Liban withdrew from the negotiation process with the IMF, while Parliament has begun discussing amendments to the Banking Reform Law. According to exclusive information obtained by Beirut Politics, the meetings carried two key messages: The first message: Do not tamper with reform legislation or attempt to circumvent it, because doing so would reproduce the very crisis Lebanon has been suffering from for the past seven years. The second message: There will be no meaningful international financing for Lebanon, no restoration of confidence, and no return of investments without a formal agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The information further states that several ambassadors believe some of the parties opposing an agreement with the IMF are not motivated by concern for depositors’ money, whose value continues to erode year after year, but rather by considerations related to preserving influence and authority, and protecting the interests of powerful financial and banking groups. According to these sources, the forces obstructing an agreement have failed to present any viable economic or financial alternative. The conclusion conveyed by several ambassadors and international financial institutions is that continued obstruction of an agreement with the IMF could leave Lebanon burdened by the consequences of its economic crisis for at least another twenty years. These positions remain attributed to diplomatic sources and international financial institutions, but they reflect the extent of international concern over the course of Lebanon’s reform process. Those who have warned have fulfilled their duty. Mounir Younès/منير يونس #لبنان #صندوق_النقد_الدولي #الإصلاحات #مجلس_النواب #المصارف #الاقتصاد #BeirutPolitics #Lebanon #IMF #Reforms #Parliament #Banking #Economy #BeirutPolitics

Beirut Politics

18,060 次观看 • 2 个月前

Really devastating lines of questioning from @SenJamesLankford.... Lankford: “There are a lot of issues and a lot of questions that have come up, and hopefully, some day in the future, we’ll be able to get all this clarity and pull it together. More than a million Americans that died of COVID. You know it well. You were tracking the number every single day. Those affected and those that died from the earliest days. There are a lot of lessons that we have to learn from this that we should put into history to be able to determine what happens in the future, how do we respond in the future, how do we deal with something like this again. It was uncharted territory for everyone. But I will tell you countless families, including my own, watched a loved one die behind a screen because we couldn’t get access to them. Children couldn’t get to school. People missed their prom or graduation ceremonies. There were lots of things that happened that dramatically changed the future of the country. The mental health issues that we have continued to deal with from the isolation have been profound. Even something as simple as children that wore masks or around adults wearing masks for all that time are slower in learning language now because they couldn’t watch someone’s lips moving, and so they’re slower in that. Amazingly enough, churches and places of worship were forced to be closed down. There were even churches that met with the pastor, preached in the parking lot, and the congregants all met in their cars with windows up, and police came and scattered them and said, you can’t be here. The simple act of social distancing became an issue, as everyone guessed, what’s the right distance to be away from someone else? Literacy rates have declined. All these things are results, not to mention the loss of lives and the health experiences that have been out there for many Americans. So, there are legitimate questions. I wanted to be able to raise some of those, to be able to walk through some of this, because it has been very, very challenging. As we’ve gone through some of your — your notes and your diary and other things that are out there, we’re trying to be able to pull bits and pieces of things to be able to learn lessons. On May 6, 2020, you wrote, at that time, ‘I had a conversation with Robert Redfield,’ as you know well, was then the director of CDC, ‘about the fact that greater than 1 million children worldwide have missed their measles vaccination because of the shutdown.’ You stated, ‘this is terrible and needs to be addressed, since on that basis alone, there would be far, far, far, far more excess deaths from measles among children than coronavirus deaths among children. I need to bring this up to the TF” — the task force. Did you ever have an opportunity to bring up the potential of measles deaths among children and an infection rate going around the world from measles, based on the fact that so many children would not get their measles vaccine because of the shutdown?” Dr. Fauci: “I’m sorry, Senator, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.” Lankford: “That is your right to do. One of the big issues is really coming up is on the lab issue. This was greatly discussed about whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature. There are obvious issues and differences between the two — to be able to know this, you had a lot of conversation on this. Scientists around the world were — were in conversation on this. There are different statements that you even made in your private notes and your public notes on it. In January the 26th of 2020, this is before we had our even our first tragic death of coronavirus in the United States, you wrote, ‘it now appears using EPI data that the genomic data in the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market,’ which was the big rumor that was out there — was this wet market in China. ‘We know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier.’ On January the 31st, you wrote about a phone call. You wrote the people on the phone, on the phone, ‘felt the mutations around the fur-and-cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally, since it would require an evolutionary jump that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility this could have been deliberately inserted in either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy person in the lab, the former being the most likely. February the 1st, same year, 2020 — this is again still before our first death, “there was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron said he was.’ – ‘he was sure that this could occur naturally, and we should not waste our time and divert our efforts to pursue this. This is expected of him since he was the original gain-of-function person with Yoshi. Also, Christian was withdrawn. The rest felt deliberate insertion was possible, and given the fact that Doctor Shi Zhengli at the University of Wuhan has been working for years in gain of function in coronaviruses to allow adaptation of the spike protein to bind to the human AC-2 receptor. We could not let this go. That’s a remarkable statement for February the 1st of 2020, when there hadn’t even been the first death here. But we knew something was moving. You knew well that something was moving. You identified February the 1st, before any of us had ever heard of the Wuhan lab, not only the Wuhan lab in the conversation, but literally the scientists that you named in your own notes, the lead scientist that was there. It’s interesting to me on that. And the questions I was going to ask you was just your background and knowledge about the Wuhan lab and Doctor Shi and, and all the details. I’m aware of where you have been on trying to be able to plead your Fifth Amendment right, which is your right to be able to do. But I also want to be able to find out some facts to be able to help us for the future on this. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May of 2020 put out a classified document that has only been recently unclassified on this — that had this statement: ‘We assess all the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory=modified coronavirus, specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors, were present at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid-to-late 2019. Now, the question that I have for you is this is May the 27th of 2020. This is the report that most people will see is this. I have — I have clearance, I serve on the Intelligence Committee. I’ve actually read this complete document unredacted. My concern is we’re you given the ability to see this document unredacted, based on your position, were you able to see this and to be able to get this information, I could I could see it, and I know what’s here. Everybody else just has their conclusion at the beginning of it. Not this. My question to you was going to be, did you have access — because it’s important for the future that people in your position do have access to this kind of information and insight? Is there any way you could answer that question? Were you able to give access to this data?” Fauci: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.” Lankford: “You wrote on January the 26th of 2020, we should be allowed to send our CDC epidemiologists to China to work with them, so you could — So they could see the data firsthand. You — you also wrote in February 12th, 2020 that you had great concerns about the World Health Organization because they Depends greatly on China and, as you stated, often bows to them. Now, this is a really important issue that we’ve got to resolve for the future. It’s not just our cooperation with Chinese scientists, it’s our acknowledgment that China covered up their data, wouldn’t allow our scientists to be able to come in. They cleaned up the wet market. They cleaned up the other areas. They wouldn’t allow you to get access to — all the other scientists are there, including their health records, what happened to them, or even all the sequencing that they had done in advance for the future of our research and our cooperation with any scientists around the world? I think it’s really important that we resolve, if we’re going to fund research and cooperate with you, we’ve got to have certain things from you. If things go sideways, we’ve got to have access to all information in all places. You were noting not only that China was affecting the World Health Organization and that China was bending them to their will, and so, the World Health Organization was putting out data that you saw, at least at that point, as being, from a Chinese perspective, covering up what was going on. But you also noted we weren’t able to get access to all this information. We’ve got to be able to figure this out for the future, to be able to make sure that research that is done, we have access to all information if something goes sideways at some point, which clearly it did at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that being, as was noted by many people, the only lab in the world that was doing research like this that had a lower standard of actually their security standards there than many other labs around the world, yet they were doing this very dangerous research. What can we gain and what advice would you give us to say in a future setting, We’ve got to make sure that we actually get information from people, and we can be guaranteed that we’re going to get that insight. Yes, sir.” Fauci: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”
9:48

Really devastating lines of questioning from @SenJamesLankford.... Lankford: “There are a lot of issues and a lot of questions that have come up, and hopefully, some day in the future, we’ll be able to get all this clarity and pull it together. More than a million Americans that died of COVID. You know it well. You were tracking the number every single day. Those affected and those that died from the earliest days. There are a lot of lessons that we have to learn from this that we should put into history to be able to determine what happens in the future, how do we respond in the future, how do we deal with something like this again. It was uncharted territory for everyone. But I will tell you countless families, including my own, watched a loved one die behind a screen because we couldn’t get access to them. Children couldn’t get to school. People missed their prom or graduation ceremonies. There were lots of things that happened that dramatically changed the future of the country. The mental health issues that we have continued to deal with from the isolation have been profound. Even something as simple as children that wore masks or around adults wearing masks for all that time are slower in learning language now because they couldn’t watch someone’s lips moving, and so they’re slower in that. Amazingly enough, churches and places of worship were forced to be closed down. There were even churches that met with the pastor, preached in the parking lot, and the congregants all met in their cars with windows up, and police came and scattered them and said, you can’t be here. The simple act of social distancing became an issue, as everyone guessed, what’s the right distance to be away from someone else? Literacy rates have declined. All these things are results, not to mention the loss of lives and the health experiences that have been out there for many Americans. So, there are legitimate questions. I wanted to be able to raise some of those, to be able to walk through some of this, because it has been very, very challenging. As we’ve gone through some of your — your notes and your diary and other things that are out there, we’re trying to be able to pull bits and pieces of things to be able to learn lessons. On May 6, 2020, you wrote, at that time, ‘I had a conversation with Robert Redfield,’ as you know well, was then the director of CDC, ‘about the fact that greater than 1 million children worldwide have missed their measles vaccination because of the shutdown.’ You stated, ‘this is terrible and needs to be addressed, since on that basis alone, there would be far, far, far, far more excess deaths from measles among children than coronavirus deaths among children. I need to bring this up to the TF” — the task force. Did you ever have an opportunity to bring up the potential of measles deaths among children and an infection rate going around the world from measles, based on the fact that so many children would not get their measles vaccine because of the shutdown?” Dr. Fauci: “I’m sorry, Senator, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.” Lankford: “That is your right to do. One of the big issues is really coming up is on the lab issue. This was greatly discussed about whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature. There are obvious issues and differences between the two — to be able to know this, you had a lot of conversation on this. Scientists around the world were — were in conversation on this. There are different statements that you even made in your private notes and your public notes on it. In January the 26th of 2020, this is before we had our even our first tragic death of coronavirus in the United States, you wrote, ‘it now appears using EPI data that the genomic data in the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market,’ which was the big rumor that was out there — was this wet market in China. ‘We know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier.’ On January the 31st, you wrote about a phone call. You wrote the people on the phone, on the phone, ‘felt the mutations around the fur-and-cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally, since it would require an evolutionary jump that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility this could have been deliberately inserted in either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy person in the lab, the former being the most likely. February the 1st, same year, 2020 — this is again still before our first death, “there was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron said he was.’ – ‘he was sure that this could occur naturally, and we should not waste our time and divert our efforts to pursue this. This is expected of him since he was the original gain-of-function person with Yoshi. Also, Christian was withdrawn. The rest felt deliberate insertion was possible, and given the fact that Doctor Shi Zhengli at the University of Wuhan has been working for years in gain of function in coronaviruses to allow adaptation of the spike protein to bind to the human AC-2 receptor. We could not let this go. That’s a remarkable statement for February the 1st of 2020, when there hadn’t even been the first death here. But we knew something was moving. You knew well that something was moving. You identified February the 1st, before any of us had ever heard of the Wuhan lab, not only the Wuhan lab in the conversation, but literally the scientists that you named in your own notes, the lead scientist that was there. It’s interesting to me on that. And the questions I was going to ask you was just your background and knowledge about the Wuhan lab and Doctor Shi and, and all the details. I’m aware of where you have been on trying to be able to plead your Fifth Amendment right, which is your right to be able to do. But I also want to be able to find out some facts to be able to help us for the future on this. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May of 2020 put out a classified document that has only been recently unclassified on this — that had this statement: ‘We assess all the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory=modified coronavirus, specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors, were present at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid-to-late 2019. Now, the question that I have for you is this is May the 27th of 2020. This is the report that most people will see is this. I have — I have clearance, I serve on the Intelligence Committee. I’ve actually read this complete document unredacted. My concern is we’re you given the ability to see this document unredacted, based on your position, were you able to see this and to be able to get this information, I could I could see it, and I know what’s here. Everybody else just has their conclusion at the beginning of it. Not this. My question to you was going to be, did you have access — because it’s important for the future that people in your position do have access to this kind of information and insight? Is there any way you could answer that question? Were you able to give access to this data?” Fauci: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.” Lankford: “You wrote on January the 26th of 2020, we should be allowed to send our CDC epidemiologists to China to work with them, so you could — So they could see the data firsthand. You — you also wrote in February 12th, 2020 that you had great concerns about the World Health Organization because they Depends greatly on China and, as you stated, often bows to them. Now, this is a really important issue that we’ve got to resolve for the future. It’s not just our cooperation with Chinese scientists, it’s our acknowledgment that China covered up their data, wouldn’t allow our scientists to be able to come in. They cleaned up the wet market. They cleaned up the other areas. They wouldn’t allow you to get access to — all the other scientists are there, including their health records, what happened to them, or even all the sequencing that they had done in advance for the future of our research and our cooperation with any scientists around the world? I think it’s really important that we resolve, if we’re going to fund research and cooperate with you, we’ve got to have certain things from you. If things go sideways, we’ve got to have access to all information in all places. You were noting not only that China was affecting the World Health Organization and that China was bending them to their will, and so, the World Health Organization was putting out data that you saw, at least at that point, as being, from a Chinese perspective, covering up what was going on. But you also noted we weren’t able to get access to all this information. We’ve got to be able to figure this out for the future, to be able to make sure that research that is done, we have access to all information if something goes sideways at some point, which clearly it did at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that being, as was noted by many people, the only lab in the world that was doing research like this that had a lower standard of actually their security standards there than many other labs around the world, yet they were doing this very dangerous research. What can we gain and what advice would you give us to say in a future setting, We’ve got to make sure that we actually get information from people, and we can be guaranteed that we’re going to get that insight. Yes, sir.” Fauci: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Curtis Houck

31,416 次观看 • 1 个月前

"If I'm able to only leave you with that one message - that we are being deceived in many ways by these interactions (with a non-human intelligence) - then I'm gonna be happy with my work today." ~Dr. Karla Turner (KT) "The nature of these entities and their intentions IS the big question. I believe we are still in a state of ignorance because the entities deliberately deceive us in their interactions with us. This is the number one fact that's emerged from my research in this field." ~KT ~ Dr. Karla Turner's Final Lecture May 7, 1995 Location: Quality Resort, Mission Valley, San Diego, California Topic: "UFO and Alien Masquerade" (focused on the complexities and implications of the alien-human abduction phenomenon) ~❤️ KT is REALLY missed in this field ❤️~ KT: "I'm talking about abductors, not any other group or agency or entities that may be interacting with us. I'm talking about those who abduct. So please don't take what I have to say as a blanket statement about all the possible entities that we may be interacting with." (And I would say: We don't know how many different intelligences (non-human, or presenting themselves as such) we're interacting with. It may be one, but it could be twenty, or more. I don't know. And just because we may have cadavers of different types (reptilian-like, mantis-like, grays, nordics), that doesn't mean they're four different species. They may all originate from the same intelligence if said intelligence has the ability to create different forms of itself and maybe infuse them with artificial intelligence.) KT: "For 50 years, we've had experts and scientists measuring trajectories of flights of unidentified craft, examining landing traces and artifacts, doing analysis on the photos and the radar. And every single test that could be run from a scientific point of view has been pursued in this field for 50 years. And yet, today, half a century later, we don't have a single reliable answer to the basic questions: Who are they? Where do they come from? And why are they here? "Which tells us something about the scientific approach. It also tells us something about the nature of this phenomenon. So far, in fact, all we've really done is come up with a lot of complex theories and a lot of labels for a phenomenon that we don't clearly understand. We have labels ranging on the one side, one extreme, to our wonderful space brothers here to save us, all the way to the invading aliens here to use us, and every level in between. "And we still have the same questions we started with: Are they friendly? Are they angelic? Are they demonic? Are they curious? Are they aggressive? What are they? The fact is that the nature of these entities and their intentions IS the big question. All the other questions are secondary to that, in my opinion. Because without an understanding of who they are and what they want, we humans have no idea of what proper response we should be making. I think we can agree on that. "When we act in ignorance, we do not know if we're acting properly or not. "So why is it that after all this time, we still disagree so radically about the nature of the UFO phenomena and the occupants of these craft? Why is that? And, in my opinion, it is because after half a century, we are still ignorant of the very basics of the field. And why are we ignorant? Why do we know no more than we know already at this point? "And I'm here to tell you, from my research and my own experiences, that I believe we are still in a state of ignorance because the entities deliberately deceive us in their interactions with us. This is the number one fact that's emerged from my research in this field. And if I'm able to only leave you with that one message - that we are being deceived in many ways by these interactions - then I'm gonna be happy with my work today. "Because of this essential deception, especially when it comes to human/alien contact and interaction, the cold-hard truth is that abductees and contactees report alien-controlled information when they report about their conscious memories. And often, even when they report what they retrieve through hypnotic-regression work." (In other words: KT was saying that the NHI control what experiencers see and perceive, so you can't trust it as being the truth. You just had an encounter with two human-looking beings? That may just be a screen memory or "them" making you see that. In reality, it may have been something else completely different. And KT thinks that's the case for conscious memories and memories retrieved via hypnosis. Again, don't trust the information as fact.) ~ KT: "There is no such thing as face value when it comes to the non-human entities that are interacting with us here. "And that's a cherished notion that's hard for people to give up. I know it was hard for me once I was aware of what was going on with my family, but the research has left me no choice. And I'm gonna share some of the findings with you here that have led me to this date, to this position."
3:33

"If I'm able to only leave you with that one message - that we are being deceived in many ways by these interactions (with a non-human intelligence) - then I'm gonna be happy with my work today." ~Dr. Karla Turner (KT) "The nature of these entities and their intentions IS the big question. I believe we are still in a state of ignorance because the entities deliberately deceive us in their interactions with us. This is the number one fact that's emerged from my research in this field." ~KT ~ Dr. Karla Turner's Final Lecture May 7, 1995 Location: Quality Resort, Mission Valley, San Diego, California Topic: "UFO and Alien Masquerade" (focused on the complexities and implications of the alien-human abduction phenomenon) ~❤️ KT is REALLY missed in this field ❤️~ KT: "I'm talking about abductors, not any other group or agency or entities that may be interacting with us. I'm talking about those who abduct. So please don't take what I have to say as a blanket statement about all the possible entities that we may be interacting with." (And I would say: We don't know how many different intelligences (non-human, or presenting themselves as such) we're interacting with. It may be one, but it could be twenty, or more. I don't know. And just because we may have cadavers of different types (reptilian-like, mantis-like, grays, nordics), that doesn't mean they're four different species. They may all originate from the same intelligence if said intelligence has the ability to create different forms of itself and maybe infuse them with artificial intelligence.) KT: "For 50 years, we've had experts and scientists measuring trajectories of flights of unidentified craft, examining landing traces and artifacts, doing analysis on the photos and the radar. And every single test that could be run from a scientific point of view has been pursued in this field for 50 years. And yet, today, half a century later, we don't have a single reliable answer to the basic questions: Who are they? Where do they come from? And why are they here? "Which tells us something about the scientific approach. It also tells us something about the nature of this phenomenon. So far, in fact, all we've really done is come up with a lot of complex theories and a lot of labels for a phenomenon that we don't clearly understand. We have labels ranging on the one side, one extreme, to our wonderful space brothers here to save us, all the way to the invading aliens here to use us, and every level in between. "And we still have the same questions we started with: Are they friendly? Are they angelic? Are they demonic? Are they curious? Are they aggressive? What are they? The fact is that the nature of these entities and their intentions IS the big question. All the other questions are secondary to that, in my opinion. Because without an understanding of who they are and what they want, we humans have no idea of what proper response we should be making. I think we can agree on that. "When we act in ignorance, we do not know if we're acting properly or not. "So why is it that after all this time, we still disagree so radically about the nature of the UFO phenomena and the occupants of these craft? Why is that? And, in my opinion, it is because after half a century, we are still ignorant of the very basics of the field. And why are we ignorant? Why do we know no more than we know already at this point? "And I'm here to tell you, from my research and my own experiences, that I believe we are still in a state of ignorance because the entities deliberately deceive us in their interactions with us. This is the number one fact that's emerged from my research in this field. And if I'm able to only leave you with that one message - that we are being deceived in many ways by these interactions - then I'm gonna be happy with my work today. "Because of this essential deception, especially when it comes to human/alien contact and interaction, the cold-hard truth is that abductees and contactees report alien-controlled information when they report about their conscious memories. And often, even when they report what they retrieve through hypnotic-regression work." (In other words: KT was saying that the NHI control what experiencers see and perceive, so you can't trust it as being the truth. You just had an encounter with two human-looking beings? That may just be a screen memory or "them" making you see that. In reality, it may have been something else completely different. And KT thinks that's the case for conscious memories and memories retrieved via hypnosis. Again, don't trust the information as fact.) ~ KT: "There is no such thing as face value when it comes to the non-human entities that are interacting with us here. "And that's a cherished notion that's hard for people to give up. I know it was hard for me once I was aware of what was going on with my family, but the research has left me no choice. And I'm gonna share some of the findings with you here that have led me to this date, to this position."

Joe Murgia

19,144 次观看 • 1 个月前

BDS is what would have made the difference, turning an empty gesture - the recognition of Palestine - into an ethical, useful, game changer. Hello, I am Yanis Varoufakis here to discuss the (hugely) belated recognition of the State of Palestine by a number of Western governments – Britain’s, France’s, Canada’s and Australia’s. If only they had done this many decades ago, maybe Israel’s ethnic cleansing of a people whose existence Israel did not recognise, on a land that Israel was keen to expropriate from these unrecognised people, maybe that ethnic cleansing project would have been halted - maybe it would not have morphed into the genocide that is unfolding with untold cruelty as we speak. Is it not a good thing that the governments of Britain, France, Canada and Australia were forced by public opinion, by sensational losses in voter support, to recognise the State of Palestine. I suppose it is a good thing. But, friends, make no mistake. I am very much afraid that Keir Starmer, Emanuel Macron, Mark Carney and Anthony Albanese did not recognise Palestine so as to ensure that it comes into existence as a real, a sovereign state for a people Israel has put on death row but only so that they do not actually do what they can to end the genocide and to make the Palestinian state a possibility. In a nutshell, these Western governments, after decades of complicity, are suddenly falling over themselves to perform a performative act in a manner that does nothing to bring about that which they proclaim: a functioning Palestinian State. So: Let us not applaud them. Let us not be fooled by them. Theirs is not an ethical awakening. It is merely the calculated management of a genocide they are doing nothing to stop. It is hypocrisy polished to a fine sheen, designed not to end the suffering in Gaza, but to sanitise their role in perpetuating it. On the one hand, we observe the grand theatre of great power diplomacy. The press conferences, the solemn declarations, the recognition of a state that exists on paper. Meanwhile, on the ground, the very foundation of such a state – its people and its institutions – are being systematically erased. These governments—the Starmer, the Macron, the Albanese, the Carney administrations—they want you to be distracted by their "brave" and "principled" stand while they remain complicit in the war crimes, in the ethnic cleansing, in the genocide. And why now? Why, after the tens of thousands dead, after the schools and hospitals turned to rubble, after thousands of wounded children were forced to survive alone, without their families who now lie buried under blocks of cement? Because global outrage has reached a boiling point that can no longer be contained by their usual pro-Israeli propaganda. Their recognition of Palestine is a pressure valve, designed precisely to defuse that outrage, to save Israel’s legitimacy, safe in the knowledge that Israel will continue, with their tacit support, to block each and every move toward a viable Palestinian state. They are recognising a Palestinian state while tacitly conniving with Israel's leaders to ensure it never comes into being. How? By actively refusing to take the one set of actions that has a proven historical record of ending oppression and Apartheid: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions on the perpetrator. Thankfully that’s not all. Mercifully, something else is going on. While Western leaders perform their diplomatic pantomime, hundreds of people are sailing right now in the Mediterranean Sea. The Global Sumud Flotilla. A flotilla of teachers, journalists, activists, dreamers, parliamentarians, carrying with them the global majority’s commitment that Israel’s Siege on Gaza, that the planned and meticulously implemented genocide of Palestinians will be terminated – that it will not continue in our name – that the impending acts of piracy by the Israeli state will be exposed for what they are: misanthropic violations of minimum ethical standards, of International Law. Israeli propaganda, echoed by its apologists, claims these brave souls are "choosing to enter a war zone, to violate prohibited security zones." This is a shameless lie. The flotilla's ships are not entering a war zone. They are heading towards a site of genocide on a land that Israel is illegally occupying—a fact confirmed by the International Court of Justice, which in June 2024 ordered Israel to vacate it. So, I ask you: if Starmer, Macron, Carney and Albanese really wanted to end the genocide, what would they do? They would not be issuing statements. They would be sending a naval vessel to protect the flotilla! They would be enforcing international law. But they will not. Because their recognition is an empty gesture, and actual solidarity requires a break with organised misanthropy and with the arms dealers who fund them and their political campaigns. This duality, this chasm between Western governments’ words and deeds, is the essence of their hypocrisy. They grant a piece of paper called ‘statehood’ with one hand, while with the other they continue to arm, fund, and diplomatically shield the very power that ensures this statehood remains a cruel fiction. They remind me of a monument I once saw in Canberra, Australia’s capital. Walking from the High Court to the National Library, you stumble in a unique monument — a monument celebrating a High Court of Australia judgment. On it are inscribed the magnificent words of Sir Gerard Brennan from the Mabo case: “The common law of this country will perpetuate injustice if it were to continue to persist in characterising the indigenous inhabitants of Australian colonies as people too low in the scale of social organisation to be acknowledged as possessing rights and interests in land.” A magnificent sentiment. A legal revolution. But what followed? Words on a monument. The recognition of native title was granted, but the power structures, the economic dispossession, the systemic inequality—they were largely left intact. The recognition became a shield *against* more substantive justice. This is the playbook of imperialist white settlers. Recognise a right in theory to avoid implementing it in practice. This is what is on offer today for Palestine. A state recognised on an imaginary map in a European capital, while on the ground, the apartheid reality is reinforced with every bomb, every bullet, every checkpoint. The key, the only key that unlocks the door to freedom, is not recognition. It is BDS: boycott, divest and sanction. And its goal? Its goal must be to bring about equal political rights from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Recognition would have mattered at Oslo. It was the leverage that was squandered. Now, in the absence of any peace process, it is merely symbolic. And in its current form, it is worse than symbolic—it is a pacifier. We must understand the fundamental truth, so elegantly captured by that Mabo judgment but so tragically ignored in its aftermath: “Violent instability is baked into any system where one side has power and rights and the other has none.” You cannot have peace, you cannot have security, for anyone—Israeli or Palestinian—under a system of apartheid. The violence of the occupier begets resistance; the violence of the oppressed is then used to justify further, overwhelming state violence. It is a vicious cycle engineered by the powerful. So, when these Western leaders herald their recognition as a progressive move, ask them one question: Where are the sanctions? Where is the arms embargo? Where are the trade restrictions? Where is the protection for the flotillas? Until they answer you convincingly, their words are not just hollow. They are weapons. They are the grease for the machinery of genocide. They are the modern-day equivalent of the colonial administrator who acknowledges the humanity of the native in a London speech, while signing the order to clear their land. Let us not let them get away with it. See their recognition for what it is: a desperate attempt to save a crumbling system of oppression, not to end it. Our duty is clear. To amplify the call for BDS. To stand with the flotillas. To demand not words on paper, but justice on the ground. The Palestinian people do not need their hypocritical recognition. They need their freedom. And freedom only comes when the cost of oppression becomes too high for the oppressor to bear.
11:07

BDS is what would have made the difference, turning an empty gesture - the recognition of Palestine - into an ethical, useful, game changer. Hello, I am Yanis Varoufakis here to discuss the (hugely) belated recognition of the State of Palestine by a number of Western governments – Britain’s, France’s, Canada’s and Australia’s. If only they had done this many decades ago, maybe Israel’s ethnic cleansing of a people whose existence Israel did not recognise, on a land that Israel was keen to expropriate from these unrecognised people, maybe that ethnic cleansing project would have been halted - maybe it would not have morphed into the genocide that is unfolding with untold cruelty as we speak. Is it not a good thing that the governments of Britain, France, Canada and Australia were forced by public opinion, by sensational losses in voter support, to recognise the State of Palestine. I suppose it is a good thing. But, friends, make no mistake. I am very much afraid that Keir Starmer, Emanuel Macron, Mark Carney and Anthony Albanese did not recognise Palestine so as to ensure that it comes into existence as a real, a sovereign state for a people Israel has put on death row but only so that they do not actually do what they can to end the genocide and to make the Palestinian state a possibility. In a nutshell, these Western governments, after decades of complicity, are suddenly falling over themselves to perform a performative act in a manner that does nothing to bring about that which they proclaim: a functioning Palestinian State. So: Let us not applaud them. Let us not be fooled by them. Theirs is not an ethical awakening. It is merely the calculated management of a genocide they are doing nothing to stop. It is hypocrisy polished to a fine sheen, designed not to end the suffering in Gaza, but to sanitise their role in perpetuating it. On the one hand, we observe the grand theatre of great power diplomacy. The press conferences, the solemn declarations, the recognition of a state that exists on paper. Meanwhile, on the ground, the very foundation of such a state – its people and its institutions – are being systematically erased. These governments—the Starmer, the Macron, the Albanese, the Carney administrations—they want you to be distracted by their "brave" and "principled" stand while they remain complicit in the war crimes, in the ethnic cleansing, in the genocide. And why now? Why, after the tens of thousands dead, after the schools and hospitals turned to rubble, after thousands of wounded children were forced to survive alone, without their families who now lie buried under blocks of cement? Because global outrage has reached a boiling point that can no longer be contained by their usual pro-Israeli propaganda. Their recognition of Palestine is a pressure valve, designed precisely to defuse that outrage, to save Israel’s legitimacy, safe in the knowledge that Israel will continue, with their tacit support, to block each and every move toward a viable Palestinian state. They are recognising a Palestinian state while tacitly conniving with Israel's leaders to ensure it never comes into being. How? By actively refusing to take the one set of actions that has a proven historical record of ending oppression and Apartheid: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions on the perpetrator. Thankfully that’s not all. Mercifully, something else is going on. While Western leaders perform their diplomatic pantomime, hundreds of people are sailing right now in the Mediterranean Sea. The Global Sumud Flotilla. A flotilla of teachers, journalists, activists, dreamers, parliamentarians, carrying with them the global majority’s commitment that Israel’s Siege on Gaza, that the planned and meticulously implemented genocide of Palestinians will be terminated – that it will not continue in our name – that the impending acts of piracy by the Israeli state will be exposed for what they are: misanthropic violations of minimum ethical standards, of International Law. Israeli propaganda, echoed by its apologists, claims these brave souls are "choosing to enter a war zone, to violate prohibited security zones." This is a shameless lie. The flotilla's ships are not entering a war zone. They are heading towards a site of genocide on a land that Israel is illegally occupying—a fact confirmed by the International Court of Justice, which in June 2024 ordered Israel to vacate it. So, I ask you: if Starmer, Macron, Carney and Albanese really wanted to end the genocide, what would they do? They would not be issuing statements. They would be sending a naval vessel to protect the flotilla! They would be enforcing international law. But they will not. Because their recognition is an empty gesture, and actual solidarity requires a break with organised misanthropy and with the arms dealers who fund them and their political campaigns. This duality, this chasm between Western governments’ words and deeds, is the essence of their hypocrisy. They grant a piece of paper called ‘statehood’ with one hand, while with the other they continue to arm, fund, and diplomatically shield the very power that ensures this statehood remains a cruel fiction. They remind me of a monument I once saw in Canberra, Australia’s capital. Walking from the High Court to the National Library, you stumble in a unique monument — a monument celebrating a High Court of Australia judgment. On it are inscribed the magnificent words of Sir Gerard Brennan from the Mabo case: “The common law of this country will perpetuate injustice if it were to continue to persist in characterising the indigenous inhabitants of Australian colonies as people too low in the scale of social organisation to be acknowledged as possessing rights and interests in land.” A magnificent sentiment. A legal revolution. But what followed? Words on a monument. The recognition of native title was granted, but the power structures, the economic dispossession, the systemic inequality—they were largely left intact. The recognition became a shield *against* more substantive justice. This is the playbook of imperialist white settlers. Recognise a right in theory to avoid implementing it in practice. This is what is on offer today for Palestine. A state recognised on an imaginary map in a European capital, while on the ground, the apartheid reality is reinforced with every bomb, every bullet, every checkpoint. The key, the only key that unlocks the door to freedom, is not recognition. It is BDS: boycott, divest and sanction. And its goal? Its goal must be to bring about equal political rights from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Recognition would have mattered at Oslo. It was the leverage that was squandered. Now, in the absence of any peace process, it is merely symbolic. And in its current form, it is worse than symbolic—it is a pacifier. We must understand the fundamental truth, so elegantly captured by that Mabo judgment but so tragically ignored in its aftermath: “Violent instability is baked into any system where one side has power and rights and the other has none.” You cannot have peace, you cannot have security, for anyone—Israeli or Palestinian—under a system of apartheid. The violence of the occupier begets resistance; the violence of the oppressed is then used to justify further, overwhelming state violence. It is a vicious cycle engineered by the powerful. So, when these Western leaders herald their recognition as a progressive move, ask them one question: Where are the sanctions? Where is the arms embargo? Where are the trade restrictions? Where is the protection for the flotillas? Until they answer you convincingly, their words are not just hollow. They are weapons. They are the grease for the machinery of genocide. They are the modern-day equivalent of the colonial administrator who acknowledges the humanity of the native in a London speech, while signing the order to clear their land. Let us not let them get away with it. See their recognition for what it is: a desperate attempt to save a crumbling system of oppression, not to end it. Our duty is clear. To amplify the call for BDS. To stand with the flotillas. To demand not words on paper, but justice on the ground. The Palestinian people do not need their hypocritical recognition. They need their freedom. And freedom only comes when the cost of oppression becomes too high for the oppressor to bear.

Yanis Varoufakis

106,921 次观看 • 1 年前

Powerful speech by Naturalist Chris Packham speaking alongside Zack Polanski on the subject of Climate Change, "To the disappointment of many, football didn’t come home this summer, but to the pain and suffering of millions, climate breakdown has. And our government and media response has displayed a total dereliction of duty in a time of extreme crisis." "As we’ve heard, in May and June there were 3,000 deaths attributed to the heat domes that have hung over the UK. Heat exhaustion, heat stroke, stress on the heart and kidneys, and of course those mental health issues that you’ve just talked about." "In Europe, the figure is somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 up until the end of July, and it’s expected to double by the end of this summer. So we’re looking at potentially 50,000 deaths across Europe." "If these deaths had been the result of terrorism or a pandemic, the government would have cancelled its summer holiday, it would have held COBRA meetings, and there would be public information campaigns the likes of which we saw during COVID, designed to protect us in this time of crisis." "And yet what do we get? We get rumours of possibly more drilling for oil and gas, and we get articles in the Telegraph which suggest that we ought to adapt to a Mediterranean climate. If that isn’t reckless and irresponsible, I don’t know what is." "What we do need at this point is to listen to the science, not to the ongoing malevolent raft of mis- and disinformation that’s perpetuated in politics, in public life and certainly across social media." "If we listen to the science, we see that the climate models that were devised in the 1990s have actually proved to be pretty accurate. But those who do try and transmit the information to us, people like the IPCC, which are often derided as alarmists by the right and the far right, have actually been too cautious." "What we see, for instance, when it comes to the heatwaves, is that they are occurring more quickly and more regularly than those models suggest. We’re updating the science as it happens. What we also see is that it’s not just a lack of water which is leading to the drought, although that might seem painfully obvious. It’s actually being exacerbated by extremely high temperatures." "And that has an impact on the environment, the environment that I care so much about and we are all dependent upon. Across the world, there have been 35,000 wildfires. In the UK, there have been 66 major wildfires. But let’s not focus on 66, because that sounds quite a small number. In one fire and rescue service, Berkshire, they’ve attended over 250 outdoor fires so far this summer. So the number of grass fires and so forth is going to be significantly higher than that." "Drawing upon an underfunded, under-resourced organisation at the front line of dealing with a crisis that is impacting all of us. So lives have been lost, homes have been destroyed, businesses have been ruined. The clean-up cost – just look at Palisades in America – is incomprehensible. We simply can’t afford it." "And then from my perspective, the damage to wildlife, which has got scant mention, of course, because as ever we put human interest first because they’re most immediate. And you might think, well, Chris is bound to bang on about the wildlife because he loves the birds and the bees. Yes, the birds and the bees, which form resilient ecosystems which allow us to produce the food that we eat. We have to protect nature in order to protect ourselves." "So you might think, okay, the UK, the wildfires – they’ve all been out there on the heaths in Suffolk, they’ve been burning patches of heathland on the Isle of Wight. Not many homes have been destroyed. Well, the Ordnance Survey say that 1.8 million homes are at risk in the UK by looking at their maps and seeing which homes are adjacent to areas which have significant wildfire risk. 1.8 million homes at risk. So far, compared to Europe, we’ve just got away lightly and we’ve just been lucky." "How many firefighting planes do you think that we’ve got in the UK? How many firefighting planes in the UK, exactly? Zero planes. Which is why, as Zack said, when that fire was burning at Dunwich, the National Trust had to hire a helicopter and pay for it to drag water out of the sea and dump it on that precious piece of habitat, because there are no firefighting planes." "Is there a public warning system in place which will tell people when there’s a risk of wildfire so that they can be prepared to evacuate and have evacuation plans in place? Well, do you know what? There is. It’s available to the fire and rescue service, but it isn’t available to the public because it’s deemed to be unreliable. Is it unreliable, or is it just a bit too scary? We couldn’t even instigate a ban on disposable barbecues." "Okay, there are the problems. What about the solutions? Because look, there’s no point in just pointing out the problems. What we must do at this point is offer people real and accessible opportunities to be part of a solution rather than an ongoing part of the problem." "Well, the first thing already: we’ve got to enact far more rapidly that transition to renewable energy for energy security, to reduce the cost of energy and its volatility that we’ve seen constantly across the world this year, which is having a significant impact not just on the cost of oil, but on the cost of living and global economic stability. It would also generate jobs, as it has in those countries that have invested significantly in those industries, most notably China. Talk of drilling oil – Rosebank, Blackbird, Jackdaw – is simply madness. We’ve got to just stop oil." "We also need a transition in the way that we eat. This is intricately important when it comes to protecting the environment, everything that lives there, and ourselves. We need a transition to a plant-based diet. It’s healthier for people. If any of you have had bacon or sausage for breakfast this morning, do you know that you’ve ingested a category A carcinogen? That’s it – as toxic as tobacco. You may not. You may have just enjoyed your sausage and bacon. Why do you not know that processed red meat is actually really bad for you?" "Animal agriculture is responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. It is also the leading driver of biodiversity loss. That biodiversity, that richness of life, that resilience in those ecological communities which we use to produce our food – we’ve got to change the way that we eat and produce that food, and we’ve got to provide sufficient support for farmers through that transition. And at the moment, they’re not getting that. In fact, they’re getting less and less and their life is becoming increasingly difficult." "We’ve got to address the mis- and disinformation, and we’ve got to do that with positive information campaigns. We’ve got to have people’s minds on the front foot so they know what’s true before they hear the lies. Then they will question the lies. Otherwise we know what happens. If you tell a lie frequently enough, it eventually becomes the truth, and that’s what we’re suffering from. We can’t afford net zero? We can’t not afford net zero. And we’re beginning to see that that’s the case." "We’ve got to sort out the media. I’ve been fantasising this year that we could perhaps criminalise climate denial. We should certainly criminalise irresponsible journalism. I’ve highlighted the Telegraph, but I’m going to leave you with something that I read on the BBC yesterday: ‘How to survive a heatwave wedding.’ How to survive a heatwave wedding. Point number five: beware of buttercream. This popular wedding cake ingredient is likely to melt if not kept cool. Likely to melt? A bit like my patience and all of our hope." "It’s time for bold, brave, informed leadership. And we are not getting it. We need Andy Burnham to step up before we and our only home burn down. Thank you."
9:32

Powerful speech by Naturalist Chris Packham speaking alongside Zack Polanski on the subject of Climate Change, "To the disappointment of many, football didn’t come home this summer, but to the pain and suffering of millions, climate breakdown has. And our government and media response has displayed a total dereliction of duty in a time of extreme crisis." "As we’ve heard, in May and June there were 3,000 deaths attributed to the heat domes that have hung over the UK. Heat exhaustion, heat stroke, stress on the heart and kidneys, and of course those mental health issues that you’ve just talked about." "In Europe, the figure is somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 up until the end of July, and it’s expected to double by the end of this summer. So we’re looking at potentially 50,000 deaths across Europe." "If these deaths had been the result of terrorism or a pandemic, the government would have cancelled its summer holiday, it would have held COBRA meetings, and there would be public information campaigns the likes of which we saw during COVID, designed to protect us in this time of crisis." "And yet what do we get? We get rumours of possibly more drilling for oil and gas, and we get articles in the Telegraph which suggest that we ought to adapt to a Mediterranean climate. If that isn’t reckless and irresponsible, I don’t know what is." "What we do need at this point is to listen to the science, not to the ongoing malevolent raft of mis- and disinformation that’s perpetuated in politics, in public life and certainly across social media." "If we listen to the science, we see that the climate models that were devised in the 1990s have actually proved to be pretty accurate. But those who do try and transmit the information to us, people like the IPCC, which are often derided as alarmists by the right and the far right, have actually been too cautious." "What we see, for instance, when it comes to the heatwaves, is that they are occurring more quickly and more regularly than those models suggest. We’re updating the science as it happens. What we also see is that it’s not just a lack of water which is leading to the drought, although that might seem painfully obvious. It’s actually being exacerbated by extremely high temperatures." "And that has an impact on the environment, the environment that I care so much about and we are all dependent upon. Across the world, there have been 35,000 wildfires. In the UK, there have been 66 major wildfires. But let’s not focus on 66, because that sounds quite a small number. In one fire and rescue service, Berkshire, they’ve attended over 250 outdoor fires so far this summer. So the number of grass fires and so forth is going to be significantly higher than that." "Drawing upon an underfunded, under-resourced organisation at the front line of dealing with a crisis that is impacting all of us. So lives have been lost, homes have been destroyed, businesses have been ruined. The clean-up cost – just look at Palisades in America – is incomprehensible. We simply can’t afford it." "And then from my perspective, the damage to wildlife, which has got scant mention, of course, because as ever we put human interest first because they’re most immediate. And you might think, well, Chris is bound to bang on about the wildlife because he loves the birds and the bees. Yes, the birds and the bees, which form resilient ecosystems which allow us to produce the food that we eat. We have to protect nature in order to protect ourselves." "So you might think, okay, the UK, the wildfires – they’ve all been out there on the heaths in Suffolk, they’ve been burning patches of heathland on the Isle of Wight. Not many homes have been destroyed. Well, the Ordnance Survey say that 1.8 million homes are at risk in the UK by looking at their maps and seeing which homes are adjacent to areas which have significant wildfire risk. 1.8 million homes at risk. So far, compared to Europe, we’ve just got away lightly and we’ve just been lucky." "How many firefighting planes do you think that we’ve got in the UK? How many firefighting planes in the UK, exactly? Zero planes. Which is why, as Zack said, when that fire was burning at Dunwich, the National Trust had to hire a helicopter and pay for it to drag water out of the sea and dump it on that precious piece of habitat, because there are no firefighting planes." "Is there a public warning system in place which will tell people when there’s a risk of wildfire so that they can be prepared to evacuate and have evacuation plans in place? Well, do you know what? There is. It’s available to the fire and rescue service, but it isn’t available to the public because it’s deemed to be unreliable. Is it unreliable, or is it just a bit too scary? We couldn’t even instigate a ban on disposable barbecues." "Okay, there are the problems. What about the solutions? Because look, there’s no point in just pointing out the problems. What we must do at this point is offer people real and accessible opportunities to be part of a solution rather than an ongoing part of the problem." "Well, the first thing already: we’ve got to enact far more rapidly that transition to renewable energy for energy security, to reduce the cost of energy and its volatility that we’ve seen constantly across the world this year, which is having a significant impact not just on the cost of oil, but on the cost of living and global economic stability. It would also generate jobs, as it has in those countries that have invested significantly in those industries, most notably China. Talk of drilling oil – Rosebank, Blackbird, Jackdaw – is simply madness. We’ve got to just stop oil." "We also need a transition in the way that we eat. This is intricately important when it comes to protecting the environment, everything that lives there, and ourselves. We need a transition to a plant-based diet. It’s healthier for people. If any of you have had bacon or sausage for breakfast this morning, do you know that you’ve ingested a category A carcinogen? That’s it – as toxic as tobacco. You may not. You may have just enjoyed your sausage and bacon. Why do you not know that processed red meat is actually really bad for you?" "Animal agriculture is responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. It is also the leading driver of biodiversity loss. That biodiversity, that richness of life, that resilience in those ecological communities which we use to produce our food – we’ve got to change the way that we eat and produce that food, and we’ve got to provide sufficient support for farmers through that transition. And at the moment, they’re not getting that. In fact, they’re getting less and less and their life is becoming increasingly difficult." "We’ve got to address the mis- and disinformation, and we’ve got to do that with positive information campaigns. We’ve got to have people’s minds on the front foot so they know what’s true before they hear the lies. Then they will question the lies. Otherwise we know what happens. If you tell a lie frequently enough, it eventually becomes the truth, and that’s what we’re suffering from. We can’t afford net zero? We can’t not afford net zero. And we’re beginning to see that that’s the case." "We’ve got to sort out the media. I’ve been fantasising this year that we could perhaps criminalise climate denial. We should certainly criminalise irresponsible journalism. I’ve highlighted the Telegraph, but I’m going to leave you with something that I read on the BBC yesterday: ‘How to survive a heatwave wedding.’ How to survive a heatwave wedding. Point number five: beware of buttercream. This popular wedding cake ingredient is likely to melt if not kept cool. Likely to melt? A bit like my patience and all of our hope." "It’s time for bold, brave, informed leadership. And we are not getting it. We need Andy Burnham to step up before we and our only home burn down. Thank you."

Farrukh

207,619 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨Why Russia launched “Special Military Operation” I publicly announced the reasons for and the main goal of Russia’s actions. It is to help our people in Donbass, who have been subjected to real genocide for nearly eight years in the most barbarous ways, that is, through blockade, large-scale punitive operations, terrorist attacks and constant artillery raids. Their only guilt was that they demanded basic human rights: to live according to their forefathers’ laws and traditions, to speak their native language, and to bring up their children as they want. During these years, the Kiev authorities have ignored and sabotaged the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures for a peaceful settlement of the crisis and ultimately late last year openly refused to implement it. They also started to implement plans to join NATO. Moreover, the Kiev authorities also announced their intention to have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. This was a real threat. With foreign technical support, the pro-Nazi Kiev regime would have obtained weapons of mass destruction in the foreseeable future and, of course, would have targeted them against Russia. There was a network of dozens of laboratories in Ukraine, where military biological programmes were conducted under the guidance and with the financial support of the Pentagon, including experiments with coronavirus strains, anthrax, cholera, African swine fever and other deadly diseases. Frantic attempts are being made to conceal traces of these secret programmes. However, we have grounds to assume that components of biological weapons were being created in direct proximity to Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Our numerous warnings that such developments posed a direct threat to the security of Russia were rejected with open and cynical arrogance by Ukraine and its US and NATO patrons. In other words, all our diplomatic efforts were fully in vain. We have been left with no peaceful alternative to settle the problems that developed through no fault of ours. In this situation, we were forced to begin this special military operation. The movement of Russian forces against Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is not connected with a desire to occupy that country. This is not our goal, as I pointed out openly in my statement on February 24. As for the combat tactics drafted by the Defence Ministry of Russia and the General Staff, this has fully justified itself. Our fellows – soldiers and officers – are displaying courage and heroism and are doing all they can to avoid civilian losses in Ukrainian cities. This is what I would like to say for the first time: at the very start of the operation in Donbass, the Kiev authorities were offered opportunities to avoid hostilities, via different channels, to simply withdraw their troops from Donbass as an alternative to bloodshed. They did not want to do this. Well, this was their decision; now they will understand what is happening in reality, on the ground. The operation is being carried out successfully, in strict conformity with the approved plan. I must note that, encouraged by the United States and other Western countries, Ukraine was purposefully preparing for a scenario of force, a massacre and an ethnic cleansing in Donbass. A massive onslaught on Donbass and later Crimea was just a matter of time. However, our Armed Forces have shattered these plans. Kiev was not just preparing for war, for aggression against Russia – it was conducting it. There were endless attempts to stage acts of subversion and organise a terrorist underground in Crimea. Hostilities in Donbass and the shelling of peaceful residential areas have continued all these years. Almost 14,000 civilians, including children have been killed over this time. As you know, there was a missile strike at the centre of Donetsk on March 14. This was an overt bloody act of terror that took over 20 lives. Shelling has been ongoing during the past few days. They are striking randomly at squares with the fervor of fanatics and the exasperation of the doomed. They are acting like the Nazis did when they tried to drag as many innocent victims as they could to their graves. But what is shocking in its extreme cynicism is not just Kiev’s blatant lies and statements that Russia allegedly launched this missile at Donetsk (they have gone as far as this), but the attitude of the so-called civilised world. The European and American press did not even notice this tragedy in Donetsk, as if nothing happened. This is how they have been hypocritically looking the other way over the past eight years as mothers buried their children in Donbass, as elderly people were killed. This is simply moral degradation, complete de-humanisation. It was no longer possible to tolerate this outrageous attitude towards the people of Donbass. To put an end to this genocide, Russia recognized the people’s republics of Donbass and signed treaties of friendship and mutual aid with them. Based on these treaties, the republics appealed to Russia for military aid in rebuffing the aggression. We rendered this aid because we simply could not do otherwise. We had no right to act otherwise. I would like to emphasise this point and draw your attention to it: if our troops had acted only within the people's republics and helped them liberate their territory, it would not have been a final solution, it would not have led to peace and would not have ultimately removed the threat – to our country, this time to Russia. On the contrary, a new frontline would have been extended around Donbass and its borders, and shelling and provocations would have continued. In other words, this armed conflict would have continued indefinitely. It would have been fuelled by the revanchist hysteria of the Kiev regime, as NATO deployed its military infrastructure faster and more aggressively. In this case, we would have been faced with the fact that the attack, the offensive weapons of the alliance were already at our borders. I will repeat – we had no alternative for self-defence, for ensuring Russia's security, to this special military operation. We will reach the goals we set. We will certainly ensure the security of Russia and our people and will never allow Ukraine to be a bridgehead for aggressive actions against our country.
8:03

🚨Why Russia launched “Special Military Operation” I publicly announced the reasons for and the main goal of Russia’s actions. It is to help our people in Donbass, who have been subjected to real genocide for nearly eight years in the most barbarous ways, that is, through blockade, large-scale punitive operations, terrorist attacks and constant artillery raids. Their only guilt was that they demanded basic human rights: to live according to their forefathers’ laws and traditions, to speak their native language, and to bring up their children as they want. During these years, the Kiev authorities have ignored and sabotaged the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures for a peaceful settlement of the crisis and ultimately late last year openly refused to implement it. They also started to implement plans to join NATO. Moreover, the Kiev authorities also announced their intention to have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. This was a real threat. With foreign technical support, the pro-Nazi Kiev regime would have obtained weapons of mass destruction in the foreseeable future and, of course, would have targeted them against Russia. There was a network of dozens of laboratories in Ukraine, where military biological programmes were conducted under the guidance and with the financial support of the Pentagon, including experiments with coronavirus strains, anthrax, cholera, African swine fever and other deadly diseases. Frantic attempts are being made to conceal traces of these secret programmes. However, we have grounds to assume that components of biological weapons were being created in direct proximity to Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Our numerous warnings that such developments posed a direct threat to the security of Russia were rejected with open and cynical arrogance by Ukraine and its US and NATO patrons. In other words, all our diplomatic efforts were fully in vain. We have been left with no peaceful alternative to settle the problems that developed through no fault of ours. In this situation, we were forced to begin this special military operation. The movement of Russian forces against Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is not connected with a desire to occupy that country. This is not our goal, as I pointed out openly in my statement on February 24. As for the combat tactics drafted by the Defence Ministry of Russia and the General Staff, this has fully justified itself. Our fellows – soldiers and officers – are displaying courage and heroism and are doing all they can to avoid civilian losses in Ukrainian cities. This is what I would like to say for the first time: at the very start of the operation in Donbass, the Kiev authorities were offered opportunities to avoid hostilities, via different channels, to simply withdraw their troops from Donbass as an alternative to bloodshed. They did not want to do this. Well, this was their decision; now they will understand what is happening in reality, on the ground. The operation is being carried out successfully, in strict conformity with the approved plan. I must note that, encouraged by the United States and other Western countries, Ukraine was purposefully preparing for a scenario of force, a massacre and an ethnic cleansing in Donbass. A massive onslaught on Donbass and later Crimea was just a matter of time. However, our Armed Forces have shattered these plans. Kiev was not just preparing for war, for aggression against Russia – it was conducting it. There were endless attempts to stage acts of subversion and organise a terrorist underground in Crimea. Hostilities in Donbass and the shelling of peaceful residential areas have continued all these years. Almost 14,000 civilians, including children have been killed over this time. As you know, there was a missile strike at the centre of Donetsk on March 14. This was an overt bloody act of terror that took over 20 lives. Shelling has been ongoing during the past few days. They are striking randomly at squares with the fervor of fanatics and the exasperation of the doomed. They are acting like the Nazis did when they tried to drag as many innocent victims as they could to their graves. But what is shocking in its extreme cynicism is not just Kiev’s blatant lies and statements that Russia allegedly launched this missile at Donetsk (they have gone as far as this), but the attitude of the so-called civilised world. The European and American press did not even notice this tragedy in Donetsk, as if nothing happened. This is how they have been hypocritically looking the other way over the past eight years as mothers buried their children in Donbass, as elderly people were killed. This is simply moral degradation, complete de-humanisation. It was no longer possible to tolerate this outrageous attitude towards the people of Donbass. To put an end to this genocide, Russia recognized the people’s republics of Donbass and signed treaties of friendship and mutual aid with them. Based on these treaties, the republics appealed to Russia for military aid in rebuffing the aggression. We rendered this aid because we simply could not do otherwise. We had no right to act otherwise. I would like to emphasise this point and draw your attention to it: if our troops had acted only within the people's republics and helped them liberate their territory, it would not have been a final solution, it would not have led to peace and would not have ultimately removed the threat – to our country, this time to Russia. On the contrary, a new frontline would have been extended around Donbass and its borders, and shelling and provocations would have continued. In other words, this armed conflict would have continued indefinitely. It would have been fuelled by the revanchist hysteria of the Kiev regime, as NATO deployed its military infrastructure faster and more aggressively. In this case, we would have been faced with the fact that the attack, the offensive weapons of the alliance were already at our borders. I will repeat – we had no alternative for self-defence, for ensuring Russia's security, to this special military operation. We will reach the goals we set. We will certainly ensure the security of Russia and our people and will never allow Ukraine to be a bridgehead for aggressive actions against our country.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

21,050 次观看 • 7 个月前

Why Russia launched “Special Military Operation” I publicly announced the reasons for and the main goal of Russia’s actions. It is to help our people in Donbass, who have been subjected to real genocide for nearly eight years in the most barbarous ways, that is, through blockade, large-scale punitive operations, terrorist attacks and constant artillery raids. Their only guilt was that they demanded basic human rights: to live according to their forefathers’ laws and traditions, to speak their native language, and to bring up their children as they want. During these years, the Kiev authorities have ignored and sabotaged the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures for a peaceful settlement of the crisis and ultimately late last year openly refused to implement it. They also started to implement plans to join NATO. Moreover, the Kiev authorities also announced their intention to have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. This was a real threat. With foreign technical support, the pro-Nazi Kiev regime would have obtained weapons of mass destruction in the foreseeable future and, of course, would have targeted them against Russia. There was a network of dozens of laboratories in Ukraine, where military biological programmes were conducted under the guidance and with the financial support of the Pentagon, including experiments with coronavirus strains, anthrax, cholera, African swine fever and other deadly diseases. Frantic attempts are being made to conceal traces of these secret programmes. However, we have grounds to assume that components of biological weapons were being created in direct proximity to Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Our numerous warnings that such developments posed a direct threat to the security of Russia were rejected with open and cynical arrogance by Ukraine and its US and NATO patrons. In other words, all our diplomatic efforts were fully in vain. We have been left with no peaceful alternative to settle the problems that developed through no fault of ours. In this situation, we were forced to begin this special military operation. The movement of Russian forces against Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is not connected with a desire to occupy that country. This is not our goal, as I pointed out openly in my statement on February 24. As for the combat tactics drafted by the Defence Ministry of Russia and the General Staff, this has fully justified itself. Our fellows – soldiers and officers – are displaying courage and heroism and are doing all they can to avoid civilian losses in Ukrainian cities. This is what I would like to say for the first time: at the very start of the operation in Donbass, the Kiev authorities were offered opportunities to avoid hostilities, via different channels, to simply withdraw their troops from Donbass as an alternative to bloodshed. They did not want to do this. Well, this was their decision; now they will understand what is happening in reality, on the ground. The operation is being carried out successfully, in strict conformity with the approved plan. I must note that, encouraged by the United States and other Western countries, Ukraine was purposefully preparing for a scenario of force, a massacre and an ethnic cleansing in Donbass. A massive onslaught on Donbass and later Crimea was just a matter of time. However, our Armed Forces have shattered these plans. Kiev was not just preparing for war, for aggression against Russia – it was conducting it. There were endless attempts to stage acts of subversion and organise a terrorist underground in Crimea. Hostilities in Donbass and the shelling of peaceful residential areas have continued all these years. Almost 14,000 civilians, including children have been killed over this time. As you know, there was a missile strike at the centre of Donetsk on March 14. This was an overt bloody act of terror that took over 20 lives. Shelling has been ongoing during the past few days. They are striking randomly at squares with the fervor of fanatics and the exasperation of the doomed. They are acting like the Nazis did when they tried to drag as many innocent victims as they could to their graves. But what is shocking in its extreme cynicism is not just Kiev’s blatant lies and statements that Russia allegedly launched this missile at Donetsk (they have gone as far as this), but the attitude of the so-called civilised world. The European and American press did not even notice this tragedy in Donetsk, as if nothing happened. This is how they have been hypocritically looking the other way over the past eight years as mothers buried their children in Donbass, as elderly people were killed. This is simply moral degradation, complete de-humanisation. It was no longer possible to tolerate this outrageous attitude towards the people of Donbass. To put an end to this genocide, Russia recognized the people’s republics of Donbass and signed treaties of friendship and mutual aid with them. Based on these treaties, the republics appealed to Russia for military aid in rebuffing the aggression. We rendered this aid because we simply could not do otherwise. We had no right to act otherwise. I would like to emphasise this point and draw your attention to it: if our troops had acted only within the people's republics and helped them liberate their territory, it would not have been a final solution, it would not have led to peace and would not have ultimately removed the threat – to our country, this time to Russia. On the contrary, a new frontline would have been extended around Donbass and its borders, and shelling and provocations would have continued. In other words, this armed conflict would have continued indefinitely. It would have been fuelled by the revanchist hysteria of the Kiev regime, as NATO deployed its military infrastructure faster and more aggressively. In this case, we would have been faced with the fact that the attack, the offensive weapons of the alliance were already at our borders. I will repeat – we had no alternative for self-defence, for ensuring Russia's security, to this special military operation. We will reach the goals we set. We will certainly ensure the security of Russia and our people and will never allow Ukraine to be a bridgehead for aggressive actions against our country.
8:03

Why Russia launched “Special Military Operation” I publicly announced the reasons for and the main goal of Russia’s actions. It is to help our people in Donbass, who have been subjected to real genocide for nearly eight years in the most barbarous ways, that is, through blockade, large-scale punitive operations, terrorist attacks and constant artillery raids. Their only guilt was that they demanded basic human rights: to live according to their forefathers’ laws and traditions, to speak their native language, and to bring up their children as they want. During these years, the Kiev authorities have ignored and sabotaged the implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures for a peaceful settlement of the crisis and ultimately late last year openly refused to implement it. They also started to implement plans to join NATO. Moreover, the Kiev authorities also announced their intention to have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. This was a real threat. With foreign technical support, the pro-Nazi Kiev regime would have obtained weapons of mass destruction in the foreseeable future and, of course, would have targeted them against Russia. There was a network of dozens of laboratories in Ukraine, where military biological programmes were conducted under the guidance and with the financial support of the Pentagon, including experiments with coronavirus strains, anthrax, cholera, African swine fever and other deadly diseases. Frantic attempts are being made to conceal traces of these secret programmes. However, we have grounds to assume that components of biological weapons were being created in direct proximity to Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Our numerous warnings that such developments posed a direct threat to the security of Russia were rejected with open and cynical arrogance by Ukraine and its US and NATO patrons. In other words, all our diplomatic efforts were fully in vain. We have been left with no peaceful alternative to settle the problems that developed through no fault of ours. In this situation, we were forced to begin this special military operation. The movement of Russian forces against Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is not connected with a desire to occupy that country. This is not our goal, as I pointed out openly in my statement on February 24. As for the combat tactics drafted by the Defence Ministry of Russia and the General Staff, this has fully justified itself. Our fellows – soldiers and officers – are displaying courage and heroism and are doing all they can to avoid civilian losses in Ukrainian cities. This is what I would like to say for the first time: at the very start of the operation in Donbass, the Kiev authorities were offered opportunities to avoid hostilities, via different channels, to simply withdraw their troops from Donbass as an alternative to bloodshed. They did not want to do this. Well, this was their decision; now they will understand what is happening in reality, on the ground. The operation is being carried out successfully, in strict conformity with the approved plan. I must note that, encouraged by the United States and other Western countries, Ukraine was purposefully preparing for a scenario of force, a massacre and an ethnic cleansing in Donbass. A massive onslaught on Donbass and later Crimea was just a matter of time. However, our Armed Forces have shattered these plans. Kiev was not just preparing for war, for aggression against Russia – it was conducting it. There were endless attempts to stage acts of subversion and organise a terrorist underground in Crimea. Hostilities in Donbass and the shelling of peaceful residential areas have continued all these years. Almost 14,000 civilians, including children have been killed over this time. As you know, there was a missile strike at the centre of Donetsk on March 14. This was an overt bloody act of terror that took over 20 lives. Shelling has been ongoing during the past few days. They are striking randomly at squares with the fervor of fanatics and the exasperation of the doomed. They are acting like the Nazis did when they tried to drag as many innocent victims as they could to their graves. But what is shocking in its extreme cynicism is not just Kiev’s blatant lies and statements that Russia allegedly launched this missile at Donetsk (they have gone as far as this), but the attitude of the so-called civilised world. The European and American press did not even notice this tragedy in Donetsk, as if nothing happened. This is how they have been hypocritically looking the other way over the past eight years as mothers buried their children in Donbass, as elderly people were killed. This is simply moral degradation, complete de-humanisation. It was no longer possible to tolerate this outrageous attitude towards the people of Donbass. To put an end to this genocide, Russia recognized the people’s republics of Donbass and signed treaties of friendship and mutual aid with them. Based on these treaties, the republics appealed to Russia for military aid in rebuffing the aggression. We rendered this aid because we simply could not do otherwise. We had no right to act otherwise. I would like to emphasise this point and draw your attention to it: if our troops had acted only within the people's republics and helped them liberate their territory, it would not have been a final solution, it would not have led to peace and would not have ultimately removed the threat – to our country, this time to Russia. On the contrary, a new frontline would have been extended around Donbass and its borders, and shelling and provocations would have continued. In other words, this armed conflict would have continued indefinitely. It would have been fuelled by the revanchist hysteria of the Kiev regime, as NATO deployed its military infrastructure faster and more aggressively. In this case, we would have been faced with the fact that the attack, the offensive weapons of the alliance were already at our borders. I will repeat – we had no alternative for self-defence, for ensuring Russia's security, to this special military operation. We will reach the goals we set. We will certainly ensure the security of Russia and our people and will never allow Ukraine to be a bridgehead for aggressive actions against our country.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

47,164 次观看 • 1 年前

//The Wire//2300Z March 26, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: STRATEGIC AMERICAN BOMBERS STAGE AT DIEGO GARCIA. FALLOUT FROM GROUP CHAT SCANDAL CONTINUES.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events- Indian Ocean: Aviation watchers have noted a significant buildup of military aircraft at Diego Garcia. Several B2 bombers have forward deployed to the infamous island, along with almost a dozen KC-135R Stratotankers and other transport aircraft. AC: This morning, a Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM) was issued for Diego Garcia announcing ramp parking spot closures for the runway, indicating preparations to stage large numbers of military aircraft. This NOTAM is active until May 1, 2025. Lithuania: Four American service members were found deceased after a training accident this morning. Initial reporting indicates that an M88 recovery vehicle drove/overturned into a lake during a routine training exercise. The soldiers were assigned to 1st Brigade, 3ID. -HomeFront- Washington D.C. - Fallout from the Atlantic scandal continues in a variety of means. Various liberal politicians have called for various resignations due to this scandal, while conservatives have stated that no resignations will occur. As the initial release of screenshots did not achieve the desired effect, The Atlantic released more screenshots of group chat messages. AC: This morning, the activist group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against SECDEF Hegseth for the leak, and the judge assigned to this case has been announced as D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the same judge who is currently at the center of hot controversy for out-of-jurisdiction rulings. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: The events at Diego Garcia are a major indication and warning of an impending large-scale military conflict. Since these aircraft were not entirely covert in their movements, various intelligence services around the world know that this logistical staging is underway. What it's for, is anyone's guess. This could be for an escalation of the conflict in Yemen, or it could be staging for a large scale war with Iran. The use of Diego Garcia as a staging zone implies that the traditional staging sites (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc) probably do not want to be diplomatically involved in what is about to take place. The remote location of Diego Garcia (which is also not located in an Islamic nation) provides the added benefit of being out of range of most of Iran's weapons, and thus a vastly more secure site for the staging of strategic bombers. In short, if the United States were to seek a war with Iran, this is exactly the type of forward-deployment that would take place. Of course, despite the very clear and obvious military staging, a single phone call can result in all of these aircraft heading home without firing a shot. From the voyage of the Great White Fleet, to flying B-52's low and slow over various countries over the years, American history is full of examples of American power projection via the movement of very big weapons. However, using the information we have at the moment, the forward-deployment of national-level strategic assets indicates staging for a military campaign. Regarding the group chat scandal, now that we have a closer look at more screenshots provided by The Atlantic, a lot more information of questionable classification level has come to light. Even though the newly-posted screenshots are not the smoking-gun The Atlantic claims, if this information was not a deliberate plant, it would indeed have been a serious violation of Operational Security (OPSEC). Really the only communication that was a serious breach of OPSEC came from the SECDEF, who announced that the targeting missions against the Houthis in Yemen were a "GO", and detailed the number of strikes and estimated Time-on-Target. However, when determining the classification level of information, the source itself would dictate this. For instance, the SECDEF did not create this information himself, this was paraphrased from a slide deck or a briefing he was sent through proper channels. If an investigation were to be conducted, the classification of the information in that document would be the true source for whether or not Hegseth's comments were classified in any way. But therein lies the problem, he very likely paraphrased, and didn't copy directly from a classified intelligence product. It is this paraphrasing that gets into muddy waters really quickly, and highlights long-standing issues in government. When it comes to the higher levels of government organization, OPSEC is a nightmare under the best of conditions; regardless of party affiliation, anytime a politician gets their hands on any classified information one can rest assured that it will be held under the most lax security conditions possible. This does not excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. Similar story with the use of the Signal app in the first place; historically, this has very obviously not been an authorized form of communication. However it's been used for many years unofficially by staffers all over Washington (along with WhatsApp, before the security concerns prompted the general shift to Signal a few years ago). This morning DNI Tulsi Gabbard somewhat perplexingly confirmed that the Signal app is pre-installed on government-issued communications devices. If this is true, this would suggest a very new approach to the handling of official communications. Smartphones with access to classified information systems have existed for many years (such as the DMCC-S phones), but are highly compartmentalized and controlled, and do not usually have third party apps or app stores installed. However, if the DNI's testimony is to be believed, and the use of Signal itself was somehow authorized, the scandal then shifts to how an unauthorized person obtained access (since this clearly confirms that these communications were not compartmentalized in accordance with long-standing regulations). More generally, the use of Signal is mostly a byproduct of fast-paced comms being needed between high-ranking officials that are also convenient to use, even if they aren't as secure or official. This is also complicated by the fact that almost all politicians do not understand the concept of what's called Aggregation in the world of intelligence work. In short, a single detail can be unclassified...but if you get enough unclassified information together in the same report, this can add up to being a classified report. As Hegseth stated in response to the leak "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods." were stated in the group chat. However, all of this data could have been easily discerned from other sources, in conjunction with what was provided. Notably, Mr. Hegseth left out the Time-on-Target information, which is almost certainly classified SECRET or higher, based on CENTCOM's own Classification Guide. If this group chat is indeed genuine, ignorance of the concept of Aggregation was probably the best explanation for what happened. Various officials "sanitizing" their remarks thinking that they are unclassified, but when put into the context of the larger conversation, their remarks should have been made by other means. This happens all the time, and is why the age-old spy tradecraft tactic of nationstates monitoring American Congressional hearings is still probably a wealth of information...all it takes is a Congressman getting a bit carried away and suddenly sensitive information is being alluded to, implied, or in some cases, stated openly. This has been the culture of Washington for a long time, but this is something that is really only accepted at the higher levels of organization. Once again, it doesn't make it right, but this is the reality of the way that classified information is handled by politicians; if any junior soldier had posted attack timeline details in a group chat, they would have been punished severely for this OPSEC breach, and their future career destroyed. If it were a low-ranking service member, the question of "is this classified?" would default to an answer of "yes, at bare minimum SECRET". When a politician is involved however, the answer defaults to a slap-on-the-wrist, at most. This is simply the reality of how things work. The official White House response has also shifted to denial, with the Press Secretary calling the event a "hoax". However, this statement is in opposition to the statements by other officials, such as the Vice President and SECDEF themselves. Both have not denied that the group chat was real, and both have spoken about the incident in terms of accepting that the chat is real, but also denying that anything damning was said (which is very obviously not true if a targeting timeline was posted). One possibility that must be considered is that these messages (or even the entire group chat itself) could have been run primarily by low-level staffers instead of the public figures themselves. In other words, it might not have actually been the SECDEF himself communicating the probably classified information, but a staffer instead. Historically speaking, it wouldn't be the first time that a staffer got their boss in trouble. However in this specific case, this is a hard argument to make. It's hard to believe that a low-level staffer would be posting targeting timetables in this manner. The sheepish responses by those implicated in the scandal also indicates that they were the ones behind the messages, especially since many words have been spoken on this scandal...none of which have been a flat-out denial of the identities of those involved. At this point, what the exact truth is will be impossible to verify with a high level of confidence. The whole affair could be fabricated from the ground up by the Atlantic, though this is unlikely based on the statements by those who were in the group chat. The group chat is almost certainly real, and the messages were probably sent by those as alleged. If the more controversial information was indeed taken from a classified briefing product, paraphrased, and posted in the group chat, this paraphrasing does not change the original classification of the intelligence product. The real question that remains is whether or not this was a deliberate deception attempt, or a deliberate leak of some kind. Whatever the truth is, it's unlikely to matter much in the long run, as this whole scandal has already turned into a political issue rather than the objective investigation and learning opportunity it should be. Also, the Secretary of Defense is an Original Classification Authority (OCA) per long standing mandate, so even if Hegseth (and others) did disclose classified information, he has the authority to retroactively declassify that information himself, at will. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//
9:08

//The Wire//2300Z March 26, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: STRATEGIC AMERICAN BOMBERS STAGE AT DIEGO GARCIA. FALLOUT FROM GROUP CHAT SCANDAL CONTINUES.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events- Indian Ocean: Aviation watchers have noted a significant buildup of military aircraft at Diego Garcia. Several B2 bombers have forward deployed to the infamous island, along with almost a dozen KC-135R Stratotankers and other transport aircraft. AC: This morning, a Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM) was issued for Diego Garcia announcing ramp parking spot closures for the runway, indicating preparations to stage large numbers of military aircraft. This NOTAM is active until May 1, 2025. Lithuania: Four American service members were found deceased after a training accident this morning. Initial reporting indicates that an M88 recovery vehicle drove/overturned into a lake during a routine training exercise. The soldiers were assigned to 1st Brigade, 3ID. -HomeFront- Washington D.C. - Fallout from the Atlantic scandal continues in a variety of means. Various liberal politicians have called for various resignations due to this scandal, while conservatives have stated that no resignations will occur. As the initial release of screenshots did not achieve the desired effect, The Atlantic released more screenshots of group chat messages. AC: This morning, the activist group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against SECDEF Hegseth for the leak, and the judge assigned to this case has been announced as D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the same judge who is currently at the center of hot controversy for out-of-jurisdiction rulings. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: The events at Diego Garcia are a major indication and warning of an impending large-scale military conflict. Since these aircraft were not entirely covert in their movements, various intelligence services around the world know that this logistical staging is underway. What it's for, is anyone's guess. This could be for an escalation of the conflict in Yemen, or it could be staging for a large scale war with Iran. The use of Diego Garcia as a staging zone implies that the traditional staging sites (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc) probably do not want to be diplomatically involved in what is about to take place. The remote location of Diego Garcia (which is also not located in an Islamic nation) provides the added benefit of being out of range of most of Iran's weapons, and thus a vastly more secure site for the staging of strategic bombers. In short, if the United States were to seek a war with Iran, this is exactly the type of forward-deployment that would take place. Of course, despite the very clear and obvious military staging, a single phone call can result in all of these aircraft heading home without firing a shot. From the voyage of the Great White Fleet, to flying B-52's low and slow over various countries over the years, American history is full of examples of American power projection via the movement of very big weapons. However, using the information we have at the moment, the forward-deployment of national-level strategic assets indicates staging for a military campaign. Regarding the group chat scandal, now that we have a closer look at more screenshots provided by The Atlantic, a lot more information of questionable classification level has come to light. Even though the newly-posted screenshots are not the smoking-gun The Atlantic claims, if this information was not a deliberate plant, it would indeed have been a serious violation of Operational Security (OPSEC). Really the only communication that was a serious breach of OPSEC came from the SECDEF, who announced that the targeting missions against the Houthis in Yemen were a "GO", and detailed the number of strikes and estimated Time-on-Target. However, when determining the classification level of information, the source itself would dictate this. For instance, the SECDEF did not create this information himself, this was paraphrased from a slide deck or a briefing he was sent through proper channels. If an investigation were to be conducted, the classification of the information in that document would be the true source for whether or not Hegseth's comments were classified in any way. But therein lies the problem, he very likely paraphrased, and didn't copy directly from a classified intelligence product. It is this paraphrasing that gets into muddy waters really quickly, and highlights long-standing issues in government. When it comes to the higher levels of government organization, OPSEC is a nightmare under the best of conditions; regardless of party affiliation, anytime a politician gets their hands on any classified information one can rest assured that it will be held under the most lax security conditions possible. This does not excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. Similar story with the use of the Signal app in the first place; historically, this has very obviously not been an authorized form of communication. However it's been used for many years unofficially by staffers all over Washington (along with WhatsApp, before the security concerns prompted the general shift to Signal a few years ago). This morning DNI Tulsi Gabbard somewhat perplexingly confirmed that the Signal app is pre-installed on government-issued communications devices. If this is true, this would suggest a very new approach to the handling of official communications. Smartphones with access to classified information systems have existed for many years (such as the DMCC-S phones), but are highly compartmentalized and controlled, and do not usually have third party apps or app stores installed. However, if the DNI's testimony is to be believed, and the use of Signal itself was somehow authorized, the scandal then shifts to how an unauthorized person obtained access (since this clearly confirms that these communications were not compartmentalized in accordance with long-standing regulations). More generally, the use of Signal is mostly a byproduct of fast-paced comms being needed between high-ranking officials that are also convenient to use, even if they aren't as secure or official. This is also complicated by the fact that almost all politicians do not understand the concept of what's called Aggregation in the world of intelligence work. In short, a single detail can be unclassified...but if you get enough unclassified information together in the same report, this can add up to being a classified report. As Hegseth stated in response to the leak "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods." were stated in the group chat. However, all of this data could have been easily discerned from other sources, in conjunction with what was provided. Notably, Mr. Hegseth left out the Time-on-Target information, which is almost certainly classified SECRET or higher, based on CENTCOM's own Classification Guide. If this group chat is indeed genuine, ignorance of the concept of Aggregation was probably the best explanation for what happened. Various officials "sanitizing" their remarks thinking that they are unclassified, but when put into the context of the larger conversation, their remarks should have been made by other means. This happens all the time, and is why the age-old spy tradecraft tactic of nationstates monitoring American Congressional hearings is still probably a wealth of information...all it takes is a Congressman getting a bit carried away and suddenly sensitive information is being alluded to, implied, or in some cases, stated openly. This has been the culture of Washington for a long time, but this is something that is really only accepted at the higher levels of organization. Once again, it doesn't make it right, but this is the reality of the way that classified information is handled by politicians; if any junior soldier had posted attack timeline details in a group chat, they would have been punished severely for this OPSEC breach, and their future career destroyed. If it were a low-ranking service member, the question of "is this classified?" would default to an answer of "yes, at bare minimum SECRET". When a politician is involved however, the answer defaults to a slap-on-the-wrist, at most. This is simply the reality of how things work. The official White House response has also shifted to denial, with the Press Secretary calling the event a "hoax". However, this statement is in opposition to the statements by other officials, such as the Vice President and SECDEF themselves. Both have not denied that the group chat was real, and both have spoken about the incident in terms of accepting that the chat is real, but also denying that anything damning was said (which is very obviously not true if a targeting timeline was posted). One possibility that must be considered is that these messages (or even the entire group chat itself) could have been run primarily by low-level staffers instead of the public figures themselves. In other words, it might not have actually been the SECDEF himself communicating the probably classified information, but a staffer instead. Historically speaking, it wouldn't be the first time that a staffer got their boss in trouble. However in this specific case, this is a hard argument to make. It's hard to believe that a low-level staffer would be posting targeting timetables in this manner. The sheepish responses by those implicated in the scandal also indicates that they were the ones behind the messages, especially since many words have been spoken on this scandal...none of which have been a flat-out denial of the identities of those involved. At this point, what the exact truth is will be impossible to verify with a high level of confidence. The whole affair could be fabricated from the ground up by the Atlantic, though this is unlikely based on the statements by those who were in the group chat. The group chat is almost certainly real, and the messages were probably sent by those as alleged. If the more controversial information was indeed taken from a classified briefing product, paraphrased, and posted in the group chat, this paraphrasing does not change the original classification of the intelligence product. The real question that remains is whether or not this was a deliberate deception attempt, or a deliberate leak of some kind. Whatever the truth is, it's unlikely to matter much in the long run, as this whole scandal has already turned into a political issue rather than the objective investigation and learning opportunity it should be. Also, the Secretary of Defense is an Original Classification Authority (OCA) per long standing mandate, so even if Hegseth (and others) did disclose classified information, he has the authority to retroactively declassify that information himself, at will. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

10,527 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨NEW - House Speaker Mike Johnson delivers first floor speech on border catastrophe, accusing President Biden of intentionally creating a "clear and present danger to our national security." "Since I was elected Speaker less than 100 days ago, more than 700,000 illegals have been welcomed into our country illegally by the Biden administration. American schoolchildren have been forced into virtual schools so migrants can sleep in their school buildings. Korean War veterans have been booted from nursing homes that were sold to house migrants. Our streets are being flooded with fentanyl. Hundreds of thousands of children and adults are being poisoned and losing their lives. Vulnerable children and women are being exploited and trafficked by cartels. Since President Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas assumed office, there have been more than 7 million encounters with illegal aliens just at our southern border alone. 35 of our 50 states, including my home state of Louisiana, don't have a population that large. More than 300 individuals who are on our terror watchlist have been apprehended on the southern border. The frightening question is, how many have entered undetected? We know there are at least 1.8 million gotaways that have escaped. Understand that the situation at our border presents a clear and present danger to our national security, and it demands that it be addressed. FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Homeland Security Committee in November that these gotaways are a great concern for the agency, and all 56 of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces are trying to identify who these people are. We don't know how many terrorists are inside our borders. We do know that fentanyl is pouring into our communities like an open sewer. Right now, the leading cause of death of death in America for Americans aged 18 to 46 is fentanyl poisoning. To make matters worse, we've learned that the Biden administration is now simply just releasing 85% of the illegals who come across that border right into the country. For reference, by the way, in 2013, the Obama administration detained 82% of illegal aliens. How do we go from detaining 82% to releasing 85%? It only happens if this is by design. It only happens if it's an orchestrated intentional effort by the administration to do exactly that, and that is what the evidence shows. Earlier this month, I released a memo documenting 64 specific actions that the Biden administration has taken to undermine our border security and to promote the mass release of illegals and dangerous persons into our country. The very first day President Biden walked into the Oval Office, he revoked Executive Order 9844. Do you know what that did? It ended the construction of the border wall that Congress had already paid for. Everybody has seen the images of the materials out there rotting in the sun. Why? Because Joe Biden decided unilaterally that he didn't want a wall. In February 2021, the administration stopped applying Title 42 expulsions to children and incentivize by doing that incentivize families to send unaccompanied children through Mexico under the watch of cartels and traffickers. Since then, the administration admits to losing track of more than 80,000 unaccompanied children somewhere in the US. We don't know where they are. Have they been put into trafficking rings? We know that some of these kids are being trafficked for free labor and being forced to do things that are too appalling for us to articulate on this floor. Everybody here knows that's happening, and we're not demanding the President stop it? He can. He has the power to do it. In October 2021, the Biden administration revoked the migrant protection protocols that had been instituted under President Trump. That's the policy that we all know colloquially as Remain in Mexico. The Remain in Mexico policy kept asylum seekers in a safe haven third country while they were seeking asylum in the United States. Do you know why that works magically so well? Because it sent a message around the world that you shouldn't pay your life savings to a cartel to traffic you through Mexico and drop you over the US border because you're not going to be dropped over the US border. The word goes out on social media to countries all around the world. They are not going to let you in. Man, is that the most common sense rule you've ever thought of? President Biden doesn't agree because he stopped it. He issued an executive order to stop that common sense rule. A senior border patrol officer told us on that trip to Eagle Pass that if President Biden, by the stroke of a pen, would issue an executive order today to just simply reinstate Remain in Mexico, they think that would stop the flow by 70%. One stroke of the pen by the President. He does not seem to care. I told President Biden this myself on multiple occasions, most recently, a couple of weeks ago on the phone, I read him the law that says that he has all this authority, but he refuses to act. And even that's even despite court orders, by the way that instructed the administration to reinstate the institute remain in Mexico while the litigation was going on. You know what they did? They ignored it. The Biden administration is actively incentivizing illegals to come to the United States. We have laid out the welcome mat. We told everybody around the world, come on, you know what? The US taxpayer will take care of you. It's costing the American people billions and billions and billions of dollars to provide for people who are intentionally breaking our laws, billions and billions of dollars to house them and educate them and clothe them and take care of them. Why should we bear the burden when they break our laws? In January 2023, the Biden administration expanded the use of the Customs and Border Patrol One App so illegal aliens could just make appointments and then be released immediately right into America's interior. Guess what? 95% of all illegals who simply scheduled appointments through the app were released right into the United States. That's right. All you have to do is just download the app because they all have smartphones, make an appointment, and the President of the United States will release you into a network of NGOs who will put you on a plane to the destination of your choice. Without identification, by the way, while Americans are waiting in line to get through TSA. All on the dime of the American taxpayer. In December 2023, CBP recorded more than 302,000 encounters, almost double the population of my hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana. In just one month 302,000 people just walked right into the country. I could go on and on about the 64 actions we've documented that President Biden has specifically taken to open our border wide up, but it's crystal clear his policy choices and Secretary Mayorkas refusal to comply with the law are driving this border catastrophe. They have chosen disorder and chaos for us rather than securing the homeland. They've ceded the homeland to cartels and traffickers. In the Del Rio sector alone in Eagle Pass, Texas, the cartels are making an estimated $3.5 million dollars a day trafficking human beings into our country. Do the math. They are making billions of dollars a year trafficking undocumented children and victims into this country. The Department of Homeland Security has effectively become a taxi driver to just help traffickers complete the last few miles of their human smuggling operation, and they're making billions of dollars in the process. It's absolute madness, and it is dismantling the safety of our communities. More than half a million known criminals and illegal aliens are in the US in our communities, free to re-offend and victimize American people. When we were at Eagle Pass in the Del Rio sector earlier in January, they told us that 60 to 70% of the people coming across the border right there at that epicenter are single adult males. They're military-aged. These are not huddled masses of families seeking refuge and asylum. These are people coming into our country to do only God knows what. The Biden administration is allowing it, and we've noted that they are coming from adversarial nations and from terrorist regions. We have no idea what they're planning. But in fiscal year 2023, border patrol encountered illegals from 170 different countries, including hundreds from Iran and Syria, thousands from Russia, and tens of thousands have come in from China. Tell me that's not dangerous? Law enforcement and intelligence leaders are warning us that we may very well suffer a preventable terrorist attack here in the homeland if we don't immediately secure that border and remove these dangerous terrorists from inside our borders. I read the black letter law to the President of the United States on the phone about two and a half weeks ago. I said, Mr. President, it says very clearly that you have all the tools and the executive authority necessary to reverse the catastrophe that you have created. He has those tools right now, and he has since day one. We have to decide if we believe in the rule of law or not. We have to decide if we're a sovereign nation or we're not. I believe that border security is part of our solemn obligation to safeguard the well-being of our citizens and uphold the principles that define who we are as a nation. A weak border weakens America, and a strong border is good for America, and a stronger America is good for everybody around the world. And everybody in this chamber should acknowledge that. Just as we lock our doors at night to protect our homes, we secure our borders to protect our homeland. And my friends, that is our sacred obligation." Speaker Mike Johnson
29:19

🚨NEW - House Speaker Mike Johnson delivers first floor speech on border catastrophe, accusing President Biden of intentionally creating a "clear and present danger to our national security." "Since I was elected Speaker less than 100 days ago, more than 700,000 illegals have been welcomed into our country illegally by the Biden administration. American schoolchildren have been forced into virtual schools so migrants can sleep in their school buildings. Korean War veterans have been booted from nursing homes that were sold to house migrants. Our streets are being flooded with fentanyl. Hundreds of thousands of children and adults are being poisoned and losing their lives. Vulnerable children and women are being exploited and trafficked by cartels. Since President Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas assumed office, there have been more than 7 million encounters with illegal aliens just at our southern border alone. 35 of our 50 states, including my home state of Louisiana, don't have a population that large. More than 300 individuals who are on our terror watchlist have been apprehended on the southern border. The frightening question is, how many have entered undetected? We know there are at least 1.8 million gotaways that have escaped. Understand that the situation at our border presents a clear and present danger to our national security, and it demands that it be addressed. FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Homeland Security Committee in November that these gotaways are a great concern for the agency, and all 56 of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces are trying to identify who these people are. We don't know how many terrorists are inside our borders. We do know that fentanyl is pouring into our communities like an open sewer. Right now, the leading cause of death of death in America for Americans aged 18 to 46 is fentanyl poisoning. To make matters worse, we've learned that the Biden administration is now simply just releasing 85% of the illegals who come across that border right into the country. For reference, by the way, in 2013, the Obama administration detained 82% of illegal aliens. How do we go from detaining 82% to releasing 85%? It only happens if this is by design. It only happens if it's an orchestrated intentional effort by the administration to do exactly that, and that is what the evidence shows. Earlier this month, I released a memo documenting 64 specific actions that the Biden administration has taken to undermine our border security and to promote the mass release of illegals and dangerous persons into our country. The very first day President Biden walked into the Oval Office, he revoked Executive Order 9844. Do you know what that did? It ended the construction of the border wall that Congress had already paid for. Everybody has seen the images of the materials out there rotting in the sun. Why? Because Joe Biden decided unilaterally that he didn't want a wall. In February 2021, the administration stopped applying Title 42 expulsions to children and incentivize by doing that incentivize families to send unaccompanied children through Mexico under the watch of cartels and traffickers. Since then, the administration admits to losing track of more than 80,000 unaccompanied children somewhere in the US. We don't know where they are. Have they been put into trafficking rings? We know that some of these kids are being trafficked for free labor and being forced to do things that are too appalling for us to articulate on this floor. Everybody here knows that's happening, and we're not demanding the President stop it? He can. He has the power to do it. In October 2021, the Biden administration revoked the migrant protection protocols that had been instituted under President Trump. That's the policy that we all know colloquially as Remain in Mexico. The Remain in Mexico policy kept asylum seekers in a safe haven third country while they were seeking asylum in the United States. Do you know why that works magically so well? Because it sent a message around the world that you shouldn't pay your life savings to a cartel to traffic you through Mexico and drop you over the US border because you're not going to be dropped over the US border. The word goes out on social media to countries all around the world. They are not going to let you in. Man, is that the most common sense rule you've ever thought of? President Biden doesn't agree because he stopped it. He issued an executive order to stop that common sense rule. A senior border patrol officer told us on that trip to Eagle Pass that if President Biden, by the stroke of a pen, would issue an executive order today to just simply reinstate Remain in Mexico, they think that would stop the flow by 70%. One stroke of the pen by the President. He does not seem to care. I told President Biden this myself on multiple occasions, most recently, a couple of weeks ago on the phone, I read him the law that says that he has all this authority, but he refuses to act. And even that's even despite court orders, by the way that instructed the administration to reinstate the institute remain in Mexico while the litigation was going on. You know what they did? They ignored it. The Biden administration is actively incentivizing illegals to come to the United States. We have laid out the welcome mat. We told everybody around the world, come on, you know what? The US taxpayer will take care of you. It's costing the American people billions and billions and billions of dollars to provide for people who are intentionally breaking our laws, billions and billions of dollars to house them and educate them and clothe them and take care of them. Why should we bear the burden when they break our laws? In January 2023, the Biden administration expanded the use of the Customs and Border Patrol One App so illegal aliens could just make appointments and then be released immediately right into America's interior. Guess what? 95% of all illegals who simply scheduled appointments through the app were released right into the United States. That's right. All you have to do is just download the app because they all have smartphones, make an appointment, and the President of the United States will release you into a network of NGOs who will put you on a plane to the destination of your choice. Without identification, by the way, while Americans are waiting in line to get through TSA. All on the dime of the American taxpayer. In December 2023, CBP recorded more than 302,000 encounters, almost double the population of my hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana. In just one month 302,000 people just walked right into the country. I could go on and on about the 64 actions we've documented that President Biden has specifically taken to open our border wide up, but it's crystal clear his policy choices and Secretary Mayorkas refusal to comply with the law are driving this border catastrophe. They have chosen disorder and chaos for us rather than securing the homeland. They've ceded the homeland to cartels and traffickers. In the Del Rio sector alone in Eagle Pass, Texas, the cartels are making an estimated $3.5 million dollars a day trafficking human beings into our country. Do the math. They are making billions of dollars a year trafficking undocumented children and victims into this country. The Department of Homeland Security has effectively become a taxi driver to just help traffickers complete the last few miles of their human smuggling operation, and they're making billions of dollars in the process. It's absolute madness, and it is dismantling the safety of our communities. More than half a million known criminals and illegal aliens are in the US in our communities, free to re-offend and victimize American people. When we were at Eagle Pass in the Del Rio sector earlier in January, they told us that 60 to 70% of the people coming across the border right there at that epicenter are single adult males. They're military-aged. These are not huddled masses of families seeking refuge and asylum. These are people coming into our country to do only God knows what. The Biden administration is allowing it, and we've noted that they are coming from adversarial nations and from terrorist regions. We have no idea what they're planning. But in fiscal year 2023, border patrol encountered illegals from 170 different countries, including hundreds from Iran and Syria, thousands from Russia, and tens of thousands have come in from China. Tell me that's not dangerous? Law enforcement and intelligence leaders are warning us that we may very well suffer a preventable terrorist attack here in the homeland if we don't immediately secure that border and remove these dangerous terrorists from inside our borders. I read the black letter law to the President of the United States on the phone about two and a half weeks ago. I said, Mr. President, it says very clearly that you have all the tools and the executive authority necessary to reverse the catastrophe that you have created. He has those tools right now, and he has since day one. We have to decide if we believe in the rule of law or not. We have to decide if we're a sovereign nation or we're not. I believe that border security is part of our solemn obligation to safeguard the well-being of our citizens and uphold the principles that define who we are as a nation. A weak border weakens America, and a strong border is good for America, and a stronger America is good for everybody around the world. And everybody in this chamber should acknowledge that. Just as we lock our doors at night to protect our homes, we secure our borders to protect our homeland. And my friends, that is our sacred obligation." Speaker Mike Johnson

KanekoaTheGreat

14,480,077 次观看 • 2 年前

BREAKING: “IT’S NOTHING TO DO WITH ME” — Church minister walks away as youth abandoned to LGBTQ+ ideology On Good Friday we visited a Christian Easter Convention in East Belfast where we spoke with Roger Higginson, minister of Lisburn Free Presbyterian Church. Roger Higginson is a close friend of Callum Webster, Northern Ireland Officer for The Christian Institute. Mr Higginson is also a supporter of the Christian Institute and has hosted the organisation in his church. We asked Mr Higginson if he had anything to say about the recent event in Lisburn where Callum Webster of The Christian Institute joined forces with Laoise De Brún, an LGBT activist. Mr Higginson had nothing to say. The event in question took place last Monday in Lisburn, Co. Down on the subject of sex education. The official event agenda makes it clear that Callum Webster (Northern Ireland Officer for the Christian Institute) opened the event, welcomed guests, introduced the speakers and MC’d entire proceedings on the night. The Christian Institute claims to exist “for the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion.” The Christian Institute has received over £13.5 million since 2020, almost all of this from donations and legacies. Over 50% of this money was spent on salaries. One of the main speakers at the event, introduced by Callum Webster, was Laoise De Brún. Laoise De Brún describes herself as a passionate advocate for lesbian, gay & bisexual rights. She stated recently: “I’m not anti-trans in any way.” Laoise De Brún’s husband, Garret Hayes, is one of 12 trustees of the England branch of The Ireland Funds organisation. This organisation puts front and centre its support for LGBTQIA+. It has given thousands over the years to LGBT organisations such as BelongTo and ShoutOut — hard core promoters of the vilest ideologies. While the Christian Institute played a leading role in the event in Lisburn, the official organisers were an organisation called the Family Education Trust. The Director of that organisation is a man called Peter Williams. Peter Williams released a statement after the event responding to what had happened. He thanked all the speakers, making special mention of Laoise De Brún. Mr Williams clearly has no issue with Laoise De Brún’s LGBT activism. In his statement Peter Williams said “FET is a secular UK charity without religious affiliation whose main purpose is fact-based and empirical research into matters that affect the health and wellbeing of the family.” Peter Williams is a Catholic apologist and author, and a speaker for Catholic Voices, an organisation that sends representatives to the media to promote the Catholic viewpoint. Regarding the event in Lisburn, his statement also said: “The people who took and posted a video including factually incorrect and derogatory statements were not present at the conference, and were thus not qualified to comment on it. We strongly condemn any attempts to intimidate our valued speakers, either physically or online.” We find this statement puzzling, as we simply brought the facts about what had happened at the Lisburn event. Laoise De Brún is open in her support for sodomy and anti-christian lifestyles. She has never denied this. In addition, the official event agenda makes it clear that Callum Webster of The Christian Institute played a leading role in the event. We do not see anything factually incorrect here. The other main speaker at the Lisburn event (introduced by Callum Webster) was John Smeaton. Mr Smeaton was the CEO of SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) for 25 years. He now leads Voice of the Family, an international Catholic organisation founded to defend Catholic teaching. Mr Smeaton is also a campaigner for the traditional Latin rite of the Catholic liturgy to be reintroduced, and is the patron of a society which promotes this cause. The association of Peter Williams and John Smeaton with Callum Webster and The Christian Institute is close and longstanding. Mr Smeaton was called in to speak to Christian Institute staff as far back as 2016. The most concerning thing about Peter Williams and John Smeaton is that these men treat with abhorrence any Christian who holds to the truth of Sola Scriptura, who uplift the sacred Scripture as the superior and final authority in matters of faith and practice. To these men this belief in Scripture is heresy, and those who hold it are “anathema” (cursed). This is very serious because it is the Scripture which is so clear on what is happening in Ireland and across the world — the wiping out of Christian belief through the introduction of sexual depravity to children in every school. We know that Peter Williams and John Smeaton would say they believe in Scripture, but also in the magisterium, in the popes, in the bishops, in the cardinals, and that we would need to get their interpretation. To them the Scripture is not the final authority. But we have gone to Bishop Martin Hayes in the south, we have spoken to the archbishop and Primate of all Ireland Eamon Martin, asking them to speak out about the destruction of our children, but they have remained silent. This is why the Scripture is so important. Ministers such as Roger Higginson are in pulpits across this province and are silent on the destruction of children in schools all around them. They are holding conventions and meetings, and talking about far away places like Kenya and Nepal, but have nothing to say about the abominations taking place on their own doorstep. They turn a blind eye as multitudes of young people are destroyed. They have remained utterly silent on the case of Enoch Burke. These men are in danger of the judgment of God. This Easter they are the Judas who have betrayed our Saviour Jesus Christ. Our message to parents is clear. True Christians will “Cease to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge” (Proverbs 19:27). “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). It is time to leave these churches with ministers who refuse to give a clear message on what God calls abomination and are happy to see the next generation sacrificed to LGBTQ ideology. It is time to come out from under these ministers and pastors who join hands with those who are ardent opposers of the authority of the Holy Scripture.
18:31

BREAKING: “IT’S NOTHING TO DO WITH ME” — Church minister walks away as youth abandoned to LGBTQ+ ideology On Good Friday we visited a Christian Easter Convention in East Belfast where we spoke with Roger Higginson, minister of Lisburn Free Presbyterian Church. Roger Higginson is a close friend of Callum Webster, Northern Ireland Officer for The Christian Institute. Mr Higginson is also a supporter of the Christian Institute and has hosted the organisation in his church. We asked Mr Higginson if he had anything to say about the recent event in Lisburn where Callum Webster of The Christian Institute joined forces with Laoise De Brún, an LGBT activist. Mr Higginson had nothing to say. The event in question took place last Monday in Lisburn, Co. Down on the subject of sex education. The official event agenda makes it clear that Callum Webster (Northern Ireland Officer for the Christian Institute) opened the event, welcomed guests, introduced the speakers and MC’d entire proceedings on the night. The Christian Institute claims to exist “for the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion.” The Christian Institute has received over £13.5 million since 2020, almost all of this from donations and legacies. Over 50% of this money was spent on salaries. One of the main speakers at the event, introduced by Callum Webster, was Laoise De Brún. Laoise De Brún describes herself as a passionate advocate for lesbian, gay & bisexual rights. She stated recently: “I’m not anti-trans in any way.” Laoise De Brún’s husband, Garret Hayes, is one of 12 trustees of the England branch of The Ireland Funds organisation. This organisation puts front and centre its support for LGBTQIA+. It has given thousands over the years to LGBT organisations such as BelongTo and ShoutOut — hard core promoters of the vilest ideologies. While the Christian Institute played a leading role in the event in Lisburn, the official organisers were an organisation called the Family Education Trust. The Director of that organisation is a man called Peter Williams. Peter Williams released a statement after the event responding to what had happened. He thanked all the speakers, making special mention of Laoise De Brún. Mr Williams clearly has no issue with Laoise De Brún’s LGBT activism. In his statement Peter Williams said “FET is a secular UK charity without religious affiliation whose main purpose is fact-based and empirical research into matters that affect the health and wellbeing of the family.” Peter Williams is a Catholic apologist and author, and a speaker for Catholic Voices, an organisation that sends representatives to the media to promote the Catholic viewpoint. Regarding the event in Lisburn, his statement also said: “The people who took and posted a video including factually incorrect and derogatory statements were not present at the conference, and were thus not qualified to comment on it. We strongly condemn any attempts to intimidate our valued speakers, either physically or online.” We find this statement puzzling, as we simply brought the facts about what had happened at the Lisburn event. Laoise De Brún is open in her support for sodomy and anti-christian lifestyles. She has never denied this. In addition, the official event agenda makes it clear that Callum Webster of The Christian Institute played a leading role in the event. We do not see anything factually incorrect here. The other main speaker at the Lisburn event (introduced by Callum Webster) was John Smeaton. Mr Smeaton was the CEO of SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) for 25 years. He now leads Voice of the Family, an international Catholic organisation founded to defend Catholic teaching. Mr Smeaton is also a campaigner for the traditional Latin rite of the Catholic liturgy to be reintroduced, and is the patron of a society which promotes this cause. The association of Peter Williams and John Smeaton with Callum Webster and The Christian Institute is close and longstanding. Mr Smeaton was called in to speak to Christian Institute staff as far back as 2016. The most concerning thing about Peter Williams and John Smeaton is that these men treat with abhorrence any Christian who holds to the truth of Sola Scriptura, who uplift the sacred Scripture as the superior and final authority in matters of faith and practice. To these men this belief in Scripture is heresy, and those who hold it are “anathema” (cursed). This is very serious because it is the Scripture which is so clear on what is happening in Ireland and across the world — the wiping out of Christian belief through the introduction of sexual depravity to children in every school. We know that Peter Williams and John Smeaton would say they believe in Scripture, but also in the magisterium, in the popes, in the bishops, in the cardinals, and that we would need to get their interpretation. To them the Scripture is not the final authority. But we have gone to Bishop Martin Hayes in the south, we have spoken to the archbishop and Primate of all Ireland Eamon Martin, asking them to speak out about the destruction of our children, but they have remained silent. This is why the Scripture is so important. Ministers such as Roger Higginson are in pulpits across this province and are silent on the destruction of children in schools all around them. They are holding conventions and meetings, and talking about far away places like Kenya and Nepal, but have nothing to say about the abominations taking place on their own doorstep. They turn a blind eye as multitudes of young people are destroyed. They have remained utterly silent on the case of Enoch Burke. These men are in danger of the judgment of God. This Easter they are the Judas who have betrayed our Saviour Jesus Christ. Our message to parents is clear. True Christians will “Cease to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge” (Proverbs 19:27). “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). It is time to leave these churches with ministers who refuse to give a clear message on what God calls abomination and are happy to see the next generation sacrificed to LGBTQ ideology. It is time to come out from under these ministers and pastors who join hands with those who are ardent opposers of the authority of the Holy Scripture.

Enoch Burke

109,659 次观看 • 1 年前