Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics
Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD

Morphology and composition of incrustants in different conditions. (a) Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of bare-polystyrene (PS, 1 μm, 1 mg L–1) and incrustant coprecipitates formed in tap water at different temperatures (180 mg L–1 of CaCO3, 40 mL, 25–100 oC); (b) SEM images of bare-PS (1 μm, 1 mg L–1) and incrustant coprecipitates in different water hardness upon boiling (60–300 mg L–1 of CaCO3, 100 oC); (c) SEM images of bare-PS and incrustant coprecipitates in different PS concentrations (1 μm, 0–5 mg L–1) upon boiling of tap water (180 mg L–1 of CaCO3, 100 oC); and (d) SEM images and (e) X-ray diffraction patterns of bare-, carboxyl-, and amino-PS and incrustant coprecipitates upon boiling of tap water (1 and 0.1 μm, 1 mg L–1, 180 mg L–1 of CaCO3, 100 oC).

____________________________________________________________________________

This is a hopeful article explaining the methodology to decontaminate drinking water. This is very important because we do know that all bottled water is contaminated. You can read that study here:

Study Shows A Quarter Million Nanoparticle Polymers Per Liter In Water Bottles - Same Polymers Found As In Moderna Patent For Covid 19 Shots, Morgellons Filaments, Blood & Rubbery Clots

The abstract states:

Tap water nano/microplastics (NMPs) escaping from centralized water treatment systems are of increasing global concern, because they pose potential health risk to humans via water consumption. Drinking boiled water, an ancient tradition in some Asian countries, is supposedly beneficial for human health, as boiling can remove some chemicals and most biological substances. However, it remains unclear whether boiling is effective in removing NMPs in tap water. Herein we present evidence that polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene NMPs can coprecipitate with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) incrustants in tap water upon boiling. Boiling hard water (>120 mg L–1 of CaCO3) can remove at least 80% of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene NMPs size between 0.1 and 150 μm. Elevated temperatures promote CaCO3 nucleation on NMPs, resulting in the encapsulation and aggregation of NMPs within CaCO3 incrustants. This simple boiling-water strategy can “decontaminate” NMPs from household tap water and has the potential for harmlessly alleviating human intake of NMPs through water consumption.


Here is the ACS article:

Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics

Here is the sciencedaily write up:

Want fewer microplastics in your tap water? Try boiling it first

Contamination of water supplies with nano- and microplastics (NMPs), which can be as small as one thousandth of a millimeter in diameter or as large as 5 millimeters, has become increasingly common. The effects of these particles on human health are still under investigation, though current studies suggest that ingesting them could affect the gut microbiome. Some advanced drinking water filtration systems capture NMPs, but simple, inexpensive methods are needed to substantially help reduce human plastic consumption. So, Zhanjun Li, Eddy Zeng and colleagues wanted to see whether boiling could be an effective method to help remove NMPs from both hard and soft tap water.

The researchers collected samples of hard tap water from Guangzhou, China, and spiked them with different amounts of NMPs. Samples were boiled for five minutes and allowed to cool. Then, the team measured the free-floating plastic content. Boiling hard water, which is rich in minerals, will naturally form a chalky substance known as limescale, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Results from these experiments indicated that as the water temperature increased, CaCO3 formed incrustants, or crystalline structures, which encapsulated the plastic particles. Zeng says that over time, these incrustants would build up like typical limescale, at which point they could be scrubbed away to remove the NMPs. He suggests any remaining incrustants floating in the water could be removed by pouring it through a simple filter such as a coffee filter.

In the tests, the encapsulation effect was more pronounced in harder water -- in a sample containing 300 milligrams of CaCO3 per liter of water, up to 90% of free-floating MNPs were removed after boiling. However, even in soft water samples (less than 60 milligrams CaCO3 per liter), boiling still removed around 25% of NMPs. The researchers say that this work could provide a simple, yet effective, method to reduce NMP consumption.

From the paper supplemental information

Results. Boiling hard water can remove most PS, PE, and PP MPs, and PS, PE, and PP MPs precipitation efficiencies were 95 ± 4%, 81 ± 3%, and 90 ± 3%, respectively, at 100 oC. Increasing temperature accelerated the formation of incrustants on spherical, fragmented, and fibrous MP surfaces. MPs continued to be encapsulated by newly formed incrustants (Figure S2) and finally precipitated under gravity, confirming that spherical PS, fragmented PE, and fibrous PP MPs are able to coprecipitate with incrustants in tap water upon boiling. In concluding, the results with NPs in the main text were also applicable to MPs.

Here are the polymer plastics found in drinking water throughout the world:



Thank you to Karen Kingston, who brought this article to my attention.

https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/drinking-boiled-tap-water-reduces

https://telegra.ph/Drinking-Boiled-Tap-Water-Reduces-Human-Intake-of-Nanoplastics-and-Microplastics-04-02

The WHO Wants to Rule the World
Ramesh Thakur
The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat.

The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices.

From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues.

The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab.

Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all.

The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper

In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’

The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later:

…the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness.

What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments.

The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority

The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency.

Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries.

The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare.

With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world.

Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks.

The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights.

Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations.

Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority.

US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker.

At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’

Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’.

A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice.

Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability.

The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association.

Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks.

It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’

Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden

In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade.

The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny.

Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix.


The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children.

Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda.

Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever.

Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1).

According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia.

If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000.

Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden.

A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

Author

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

View all posts
Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

University of Southampton - Scientists closer to finding quantum gravity theory after measuring gravity on microscopic level:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-scientists-closer-quantum-gravity-theory.html

#Microgravity #QuantumGravity #Gravity #Levitation #Photonics #Physics

Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
[email protected] January 27, 2024 genocide, icj, international court of justice
Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
World Court rules on Gaza emergency measures in Israel genocide case, in The Hague (photo)
Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, the dissenting judges, the binding nature of the decision, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties.

Summary of ICJ’s ruling

reposted from Al Jazeera

The World Court ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against the Hamas group in the Gaza Strip. (15-2)

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

(a) killing members of the group
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above

(vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month as from the date of this Order.

The court stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.



Who are the ICJ judges that voted against motions?

Julia Sebutinde – voted against all motions

In 1996, Sebutinde was appointed as one of the judges of the High Court of Uganda. In 2012, she became the first African woman to be appointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the world court. She has broken barriers and paved the way for countless other African women in the field of law.

Sebutinde got her undergraduate degree in Uganda, and Master’s and Doctorate of Law at the University of Edinburgh. She has contributed immensely to international law jurisprudence through the cases she has heard, often with dissenting opinions.

Regarding her voting record in this case, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations stated,

Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda ‘s voting pattern at the United Nations.

Aharon Barak – voted against most motions

Barak is an Israeli lawyer who was appointed to the 15-judge panel of the ICJ ahead of South Africa’s case against Israel. Under the ICJ’s rules, a country that does not have a judge to represent its own on the bench can choose an ad hoc judge.

The 87-year-old is a retired judge from the Israeli Supreme Court and a recipient of the Israel Prize for Legal Studies. Barak was born in Lithuania and, studied law in Hebrew University.

He was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 1978, where he went on to serve for 28 years.

The ICJ full panel is led by President Joan E. Donoghue from the US and Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian from Russia. They head a diverse bench with judges from 13 other countries including Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Brazil. Two ad hoc judges appointed to the panel for this case were from Israel and South Africa.

FAQ: Are decisions of the Court binding?

reposted from the ICJ website

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”.

Judgments are final and without appeal. If there is a dispute about the meaning or scope of a judgment, the only possibility is for one of the parties to make a request to the Court for an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.

As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not, by whichever means they see fit.

The ICJ ruling is a repudiation of Israel and its western backers

by Kenneth Roth, reposted from the Guardian

The international court of justice’s (ICJ) ruling in South Africa’s genocide case was a powerful repudiation of Israel’s denialism. By an overwhelming majority, the court found a “plausible” case that provisional measures were needed to avoid “irreparable prejudice” from further Israeli acts in Gaza that could jeopardize Palestinian rights under the genocide convention.

The public posture of various Israeli officials was, in essence: how dare anyone accuse us of genocide. After all, they pointed out, Israel was founded after the Holocaust to protect the Jewish people from genocide, Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, and many of Hamas’s statements seem genocidal in intent.

Yet none of that is a defense to the charge of genocide. Regardless of Israel’s history, regardless of its claim of self-defense, the means chosen to fight Hamas can still be genocidal. The court found enough merit in that claim to recognize that Palestinian civilians need the court’s protection.

The court’s ruling was also a repudiation of Israel’s western backers. The Biden administration had called the suit “meritless”. The British government said it was “nonsense”. By a vote of 15 to 2, the ICJ judges found otherwise.

On the need to allow humanitarian aid to a starving population in Gaza and to prevent and punish the incitement of genocide, even the respected Israeli judge, Aharon Barak, joined the majority, making the vote 16 to 1 – a powerful repudiation of those who try to chalk up challenges to Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an unfair double standard or antisemitism.

The current proceedings were not about the ultimate merits of the case. It could take years to determine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. But the provisional measures ordered by the court could make an enormous difference in curbing the death and suffering of Palestinian civilians now.

What now?

The key will be enforcement. The ICJ ruling is “binding”, as the court stressed, but the ICJ has no military or police force at its disposal. For coercive measures, it would need a resolution of the UN security council, which requires contending with the US government’s veto, so often deployed to protect Israel.

But the political pressure to comply with the ruling will be enormous. Having trusted the court to send its lawyers to The Hague to present its case, Israel would look horrible to reject the court just because it lost. In calling the underlying genocide charges “outrageous” – a finding that, as mentioned, the court did not yet address – the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, notably did not say he would refuse to comply with the court’s provisional measures. Let’s hope he will.

Some were disappointed that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, a step that was unlikely because the court addresses only disputes between states, so Hamas was not a party. A ceasefire imposed on only one side to an ongoing armed conflict is not plausible.

The court did order Israel to “take all measures within its power” to halt acts that contribute to genocide, to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza to end the suffering among Palestinian civilians, and to prevent and punish the public statements of incitement made by senior Israeli officials. Israel must report back to the court in a month on the steps it has taken.

Yet there is a lot of wiggle room in those orders. That’s where Israel’s supporters come in. Will they move past their earlier skepticism toward the case and now urge Israel to comply? Western governments backed the ICJ in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia and Syria. It would do enormous damage to the “rules-based order” that Western governments claim to uphold if they were to make an exception for Israel.

Joe Biden holds the most powerful leverage. The US government provides $3.8bn in annual military aid to Israel and is its principal arms supplier. That support should stop if the Israeli government ignores the court’s ruling. The US president should no longer put his fear of domestic political consequences, or his personal identification with Israel, before the lives of so many Palestinian civilians.

Other pressure for compliance could come from the international criminal court. Unlike the ICJ, which resolves disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals for such crimes as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Better behavior now is no defense for crimes already committed, but if Israel were to ignore the ICJ ruling, that would be an added spur for the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to act.

Much is still unresolved, but today is a win for the rule of law. South Africa, a nation of the global south, was able to transcend power politics by invoking the world’s leading judicial institution. The court’s ruling shows that even governments with powerful friends can be held to account. That provides hope for the profoundly suffering Palestinian civilians of Gaza. It is also a small but important step toward a more lawful, rights-respecting world.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs

Nine take-aways from the ICJ ruling

by Huwaida Arraf, reposted from X

While many are disappointed that the ICJ did not explicitly order a ceasefire, the ruling was historic and a huge defeat for Israel. Here’s what we need to take away and what we need to do:

The Court found that RSA made a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and October 7 is no justification for Israel’s conduct. This is huge.
The Court found that immediate protective measures are necessary to protect the Palestinian people from irreparable harm caused by Israel’s genocidal conduct and ordered such measures.
In order for Israel to abide by the measures, including the provision of basic services (turning on water, electricity and allowing the entry of fuel) and humanitarian aid, it would need to cease its military assault. Aid organizations have said that one of the main reasons they are unable to deliver aid, besides Israel’s restrictions on entry of aid, is Israel’s military aggression which makes it too dangerous for them to reach many areas.
The Court has also instituted a monitoring mechanism and Israel must report on everything it’s doing to abide by the Order of the Court within a month (should have been shorter).
ALL countries signatory to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent genocide. This means that, when there is reason to believe that there is a threat of genocide, states MUST act to prevent it. All countries are now on notice that there is a plausible threat of genocide.
This means that, continuing to supply Israel with weapons and vetoing UNSC resolutions will amount to violations of that responsibility and also a potential violation of Art III of the Convention, prohibiting complicity in genocide.
If Israel does not comply with the ICJ Order, the matter should be brought before the UNSC. If the US vetoes, this will be an indictment of the US, but not the end.
States must then use UNGA 377 – Uniting for Peace – to not only bring the matter before the UNGA, but to make sure that the UNGA resolution includes implementation measures (without an agreement on such measures, the resolution will be ineffective). Such measures can include international sanctions on Israel and suspending Israel’s membership in the UN.
Alongside all of this, we must continue our work in the streets and in national courts to hold Israel and enablers accountable. This includes:
continuing to demand that our governments sanction Israel;
demanding Israel’s suspension from international fora such as Eurovision and international sporting arenas;
using the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli war criminals in national courts, which is already being pursued.
The World Court has found that Israel may be committing genocide — the mother of all crimes. This is an indictment, not only on Israel, but on all who have been enabling Israel and using October 7, as justification.

It must also be a wakeup call to all who have been silent. There’s no excuse.

Huwaida Arraf is a Palestinian American activist and lawyer who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led organization using non-violent protests and international pressure to support Palestinians.

ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge

A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place.

by Trita Parsi, reposted from Responsible Statecraft, January 26, 2024

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.

In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result.

On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.

This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.

Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide. As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the U.S. under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.

The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the United Nations Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”

So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.

The double standards of U.S. foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.

It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.

Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.

This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.

As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.

This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the U.S. and UK’s military action against the Houthis?

The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The U.S. is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.

International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.

One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.* Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Israel appears to have done little, if anything, to moderate its war conduct since South Africa submitted its genocide accusation on December 29th. The numbers of Palestinians killed in Gaza and the West Bank has continued to climb steadily; while there has been a slight improvement in number of humanitarian aid trucks, it is not impressive, and not reaching the north where hundreds of thousands are starving. There is still no electricity, no water, almost no medical services, and no safety.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Some reactions to ICJ ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

reposted from Al Jazeera

Palestinians in Gaza

Palestinians in Gaza said they are devastated by the ICJ decision not to order Israel to cease its near-four-month bombardment and ground invasion of the strip.

Ahmed al-Naffar, 54, who was intently following the court’s announcement in central Gaza’s Deir el-Balah, told Al Jazeera: “Although I don’t trust the international community, I had a small glimmer of hope that the court would rule on a ceasefire in Gaza,” later adding that “The court is a failure.”

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank

Lubna Farhat, a member of the Ramallah city council, told Al Jazeera she was somewhat disappointed by the ICJ decision but acknowledged it was a historic moment.

“We are very grateful and thankful for South Africa for filing this case, but what Palestinians aspired for was an immediate ceasefire,” Farhat said, adding that it was disheartening that the court did not call for an end to Israel’s military operations so humanitarian aid could be allowed into Gaza.

She said the ruling would only “escalate” settler attacks in the occupied West Bank and increase the attackers’ sense of impunity.

Palestine

Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates welcomed the ICJ’s ruling, saying in a statement it is an “important reminder” that no state is above the law.

Foreign Minister Riyadh Maliki noted that Israel failed to persuade the court that it is not violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In a statement he said: “The ICJ judges saw through Israel’s politicization, deflection, and outright lies. They assessed the facts and the law and ordered provisional measures that recognized the gravity of the situation on the ground and the veracity of South Africa’s application. … Palestine calls on all states to ensure respect for the order of the International Court of Justice, including by Israel.”

Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the ruling as “outrageous”.

In a video message shortly after the court order, he said Israel is fighting a “just war like no other”. He added that Israel will continue to defend itself and its citizens while adhering to international law.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court issued its interim ruling. “Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on the social media platform X.

South Africa

The South African government called the ICJ ruling a “decisive victory” for international law.

“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor asked. “If you read the order, by implication, a ceasefire must happen.”

United States

The United States said the ruling of the ICJ was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated.

“We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said.

European Union

“Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” the European Commission said in a statement.

RELATED READING:

The ICJ presentations on Israeli genocide against Palestinians
Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers
John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza
Is the United Nations anti-Israel? – a survey of UN resolutions
Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war

https://israelpalestinenews.org/synopsis-of-icjs-decision-on-israeli-genocide-reactions-and-take-aways/

Press Joint Statement by Leading Thai Doctors Highlights Concerns Over Long COVID and Vaccine-Related Health Issues
"Excess deaths are occurring not only due to long COVID but also due to the COVID-19 vaccines"

Aussie17
A joint statement released today by three venerated Thai medical professionals has issued a somber warning and a clarion call to the country's healthcare workers. Prof Dr. Thiravat Hemachudha from the Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Centre at Chulalongkorn University, Panthep Puapongphan, the dean of Rangsit University’s College of Oriental Medicine, and Dr. Atapol Sughondhabirom, a psychiatrist from the Chulalongkorn University Faculty of Medicine, have come together in a rare move to address critical healthcare concerns in a 7-point joint statement.

1.Rising Excess Deaths Linked to Long COVID and Vaccines

The trio has pointed to a disturbing trend of excess deaths that they attribute not solely to longstanding COVID-19 complications but to the vaccines as well. These casualties, the statement insists, are often misreported or underreported.

2.Defining and Understanding Long COVID

According to the doctors, long COVID should be diagnosed when symptoms persist beyond three months, encompassing a range of issues from cardiac and respiratory distress to neurological, muscular, and a host of inflammatory symptoms. Alarmingly, there is also an increased occurrence of other virus outbreaks and diseases such as shingles, herpes, and even cancer, possibly linked to long COVID.

3.Concealment of Vaccine-Related Health Data

The statement harshly criticizes what it describes as an orchestrated movement to hide essential health data related to the COVID-19 vaccines, leading to substantial underreporting. Such actions have left the majority of the population uninformed, impairing their ability to seek proper care for vaccine-related conditions.

4.Chulalongkorn University’s Troubling Study Findings

A study orchestrated by the Emerging Disease Health Science Center at Chulalongkorn University detected indications of dementia-related inflammation and protein levels in vaccinated individuals. This research, underscoring its gravity, could predicate widespread health issues within the population.

5.Exhausted T-Cell Immunity Post-Vaccination

Further compounding concerns, a study published in the prestigious journal Nature Scientific Report by Ramathibodi Hospital’s Faculty of Medicine on January 15, 2023, reveals the potential for exhausted T-cell immunity following the third dose of the vaccine, portending a weakened immune defense system with excessive vaccination.

6.Research Network to Investigate Causes and Remedies

In their call to action, the trio announced the formation of a new research network by collaborating Thai universities. This initiative aims to amass data on long COVID and vaccine-related conditions to uncover the underlying causes and improve public health outcomes.

7.Embracing Alternative and Modern Medicine

The newly established research network will delve into both the lingering effects of long COVID and vaccine-related issues ("long Vax"). The network, led by Rangsit University's College of Oriental Medicine and the Emerging Disease Health Science Center at Chulalongkorn University, is set to explore a gamut of treatments. This will include modern medical practices and alternative therapies such as supplements, herbs, and traditional Thai and Chinese medicine.

The joint statement concluded with an important message for both the medical community and the public: health matters should not be obscured and patient care should embrace all beneficial approaches available, from conventional to alternative medicine, to tackle the ongoing crisis effectively. The health of the nation is at stake, and these doctors are not only sounding an alarm but also paving the way for innovative solutions.

The Thais have recently taken to the streets to raise awareness of COVID vaccine deaths, as seen in the clip below from September 19, 2023.

The text reads "Activities to mourn the loss of life from the of the Covid vaccinations 4,888 (NSPO Data) 13/9/23 - Thai people defend rights"

SOURCE: The 7 Point Joint Statement is first reported from TrialSiteNews here.

Signing off for now
A17

Thank you for reading PharmaFiles by Aussie17. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

https://www.aussie17.com/p/press-joint-statement-by-leading

Will Russia-China Strategic Patience Extinguish the Fire in West Asia?, by Pepe Escobar - The Unz Review
Once upon a time, by the Don river, in the southern steppes of what today is still known as “Ukraine”, the Great King of Persia, the mighty Darius, leading the most powerful army ever assembled on earth, received a puzzling message from a foe he was pursuing: the nomad ruler Idanthyrsus, King of the Scythians.

A Scythian envoy arrived at the Persian camp carrying a bird; a mouse; a frog; and five arrows.

And then he left, in a rush.

Wily Darius interpreted the message as the Scythians ready to submit to the Persians.

Not so fast. It was up to Darius’s senior foreign policy advisor, Gobryas, who also happened to be his brother-in-law, to break the code:

“Unless you Persians turn into birds and fly up in the air or into mice and burrow in the ground or into frogs and leap into lakes, you will never get home again but stay here in this country, only to be shot by Scythian arrows.”

Well, apparently this tale from the depths of the pre-Silk Roads proves the strategic nightmare of waging war against elusive nomadic horse archers on the Eurasian steppes.

But that could also be a tale about waging war against invisible urban guerrillas in sandals and RPGs hidden in the rubble in Gaza; flash mini-squads emerging from tunnels to hit and burn Merkava tanks before disappearing underground.

History also tells us that Darius failed to bring the Scythian nomads to a head-to-head battle. So, in the autumn of 512 B.C., he pulled a pre-American gambit in Afghanistan 2,500 years before the fact: he declared victory and left.

That Landed Aircraft Carrier

Everyone familiar with West Asia – from US generals to grocers in the Arab Street – knows that Israel is a landed aircraft carrier whose mission is to keep West Asia in check on behalf of the Hegemon.

Of course in a dog eats dog geopolitical environment it’s easy to misunderstand all wag the dog shenanigans. What’s certain is that for hegemonic circles of the US Deep State, and certainly for the White House and the Pentagon, what matters in the current incandescent juncture is the uber-extreme/genocidal Likud-led Netanyahu government in Israel, not “Israel” per se.

That projects Netanyahu as the exact mirror image of the beleaguered sweaty sweatshirt actor in Kiev. Quite the geopolitical gift – in terms of deflecting blame away from the Hegemon for a genocide deployed live on every smartphone on the planet.

And all that conducted under a veneer of legality – as in the White House and the State Department “advising” Tel Aviv to act with moderation; yes, you can bomb hospitals, schools, medical workers, journalists, thousands of women, thousands of children, but please be gentle.

Meanwhile, the Hegemon has deployed an Armada to the Eastern Mediterranean, complete with two very expensive iron bathtubs, sorry aircraft carrier groups plus a nuclear submarine close to the Persian Gulf. That’s not exactly to survey guerrillas in underground tunnels and to “protect” Israel.

The ultimate – neocon and Zio-con – targets are of course Hezbollah, Syria, Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq and Iran: the whole Axis of Resistance.

Iran-Russia-China, the new neocon-defined “axis of evil”, which happen to be the Top Three Actors of Eurasia integration, for all practical purposes have interpreted the genocide in Gaza as an Israeli-American operation. And they have clearly identified the key vector: energy.

The inestimable Michael Hudson has noted how “we’re really seeing something very much like the Crusades here. It’s a real fight for who is going to control energy, because, again, the key, if you can control the world’s flow of energy, you can do to the whole world what the United States did to Germany last year by blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines.”

BRICS 10 on the Move

And that brings us to the fascinating case of the OIC/Arab World delegation of Foreign Ministers now on tour of selected capitals promoting their plan for a complete ceasefire in Gaza plus negotiations for an independent Palestinian state. The delegation, called the Gaza Contact Group, includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, Nigeria and Palestine.

Their first stop was Beijing, meeting Wang Yi, and the second stop Moscow, meeting Sergei Lavrov. That tells us all we need to know about BRICS 11 in action – even before the fact.

Well, that’s actually BRICS 10, because after the election of pro-Hegemon Zionist Javier “Chainsaw Massacre” Milei for President, Argentina is now out of the picture, and possibly discarded by January 1st, 2024, when BRICS previously 11 starts under the Russian presidency.

The OIC/Arab League special conference on Palestine in Saudi Arabia had yielded a meek final declaration that disappointed virtually the whole Global South/Global Majority. But then something started to move.

Foreign Ministers started to coordinate closely. At first Egypt with China, after previous coordination with Iran and Turkey. That may sound counter-intuitive – but it’s all due to the gravity of the situation. That explains why the Iranian Foreign Minister is not part of the current traveling delegation – which is led, in practice, by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The meeting with Lavrov coincided with an extraordinary online BRICS meeting on Palestine, called by the current South African presidency. Crucial point: the flags of new members Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia could be identified behind the speakers.

Iran’s President Raisi went no holds barred, calling for BRICS member states to use every political and economic tool available to pressure Israel. Xi Jinping called once again for a two-state solution and positioned China as the mediator of choice.

For the first time Xi in his own words laid it all out: “There can be no security in the Middle East without a just solution to the question of Palestine. I have emphasized on many occasions that the only viable way to break the cycle of Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in a two-state solution, in the restoration of the legitimate national rights of Palestine, and in the establishment of an independent state of Palestine.”

And it should all start via an international conference.

All of the above implies a concerted BRICS 10 unified position, in the next few days, applying maximum pressure on Tel Aviv/Washington for a ceasefire, fully supported by virtually the whole Global Majority. Of course there are no guarantees the Hegemon will allow it to succeed.

Secret negotiations involving Turkey, for instance, have floundered. The idea was to have Ankara cutting off the supply of oil to Israel coming from the BTC pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan: the oil is then loaded on tankers to Ashkelon in Israel. That’s at least 40% of the oil fueling Israel’s military machine.

Ankara, still a NATO member, balked – spooked by the inevitably hardcore American response.

Riyadh, in the long run, could be even more daring: no more oil exports until there’s a definitive solution to Palestine according to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Yet MbS won’t do it – because Saudi wealth is all invested in New York and London. It’s still a long, winding, bumpy road to the petroyuan.

Meanwhile, realpolitik practitioners such as John Mearsheimer correctly point out that a negotiated solution for Israel-Palestine is impossible. A quick glance at the current map shows how the two-state solution – advocated by everyone from China and Russia to the Arab world – is dead; a Palestinian state, as Mearsheimer noted, “is going to be like an Indian reservation” in the US, “cut apart and isolated, not really a state.”

No Hedging When it Comes to Genocide

So what is Russia to do? Here is a very good informed hint.

“Putin in the Labyrinth” means Moscow actively involved, in a BRICS 10 manner, to bring about a peaceful West Asia while maintaining internal stability in Russia under the ever-evolving Hegemon Hybrid War: it’s all interconnected.

The Russia-China strategic partnership’s approach to West Asia set on fire by the usual suspects is all about strategic timing and patience – which the Kremlin and the Zhongnanhai exhibit in droves.

No one really knows what goes on in the background – the deep shadow play behind the fog of intertwined wars. Especially when it comes to West Asia, always enveloped in serial mirages arising from the desert sands.

At least we may try to discern mirages around the Persian Gulf monarchies, the GCC – and especially what MbS and his mentor MbZ are really playing at. This is the absolutely crucial fact: both the Arab League and the OIC are controlled by the GCC.

And yet, as both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi become members of BRICS 10, they certainly see that the Hegemon’s new gambit is to set back the advances of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in West Asia by setting the region on fire.

Yes, this is the War against China morphing from Hybrid to Hot, side by side with the Final Solution for the “Palestinian problem”.

And as a bonus, from the Hegemon’s perspective, that should bring this bunch of desert bedouins firmly on board the new D.O.A. gambit, the IMEC (India-Middle East Corridor), which is in fact the Europe-Israel-Emirates-Saudi Arabia-India trade corridor, in theory a competitor to BRI.

A major running theme across all nooks and crannies of the Arab street is how killing off the Palestinian resistance is an even more passionate issue for the sold out GCC elites than confronting Zionism.

That explains, at least in part, the non-reaction reaction of the GCC to the ongoing genocide (they are now trying to make amends). And that is parallel to their non-reaction reaction to the Hegemon’s methodical, slow motion genocide, rape and pillaging over time of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, Libyans, Yemenis, Sudanese and Somalis.

It’s absolutely impossible – and inhuman – to hedge when it comes to genocide. The verdict is still pending on whether the GCC has chosen a side, thus turning completely apart, spiritually and geopolitically, from the wider Arab street.

This genocide may be the defining moment of the young 21st century – realigning the entire Global South/Global Majority and clarifying who’s on the right side of History. Whatever it does next, the Hegemon seems destined to totally lose the entire West Asia, the Heartland, wider Eurasia and the Global South/Global Majority.

Blowback works in mysterious ways: as the “aircraft carrier” in West Asia went utterly insane, it only turbo-charged the Russia-China strategic partnership to mold History further on down the road to the Eurasia Century.


https://www.unz.com/pescobar/will-russia-china-strategic-patience-extinguish-the-fire-in-west-asia/

Scott Alan Johnston - The Milky Way has Trapped the Large Magellanic Cloud With its Gravity:

https://www.universetoday.com/161045/the-milky-way-has-trapped-the-large-magellanic-cloud-with-its-gravity-what-comes-next/

#LargeMagellanicCloud #LMC #MilkyWay #GalaxyEvolution #Galaxy #Gravity #Gaia #Astrophysics #Astronomy

RT - Black hole ‘bigger than the majority of galaxies in the universe’ discovered:

https://www.rt.com/news/573823-science-ultramassive-black-hole-discovered/

#UltramassiveBlackHole #UMBH #BlackHole #GravitationalLensing #Gravity #Astrophysics #Physics

Acoustic levitation, using sound waves to balance the force of gravity.
Something intangible like sound can be harnessed to exert a physical force that is strong enough to lift or suspend objects.

It really depends on how much voting power the person has, as well as their overall 'gravity' on the platform. Those who post more often, or are more active, tend to have stronger votes, as they tend to have more voting power.
#SoMee #CryptoSocial #FreeSpeech

The US has had the privilege of dominating the global monetary system since 1944’s Bretton Woods agreement. It's often presented to the public like it's the natural order of things, such as the law of gravity.

#SoMeeUserTips~How Much is a Vote Worth?

The value of your vote is determined by the amount of #SME you have staked, the stake of the SoMeean you are upvoting and how active both of you are on #SoMee. This of course is simplified, but it'll give you a good enough idea. Your activity on SoMee is called #Gravity.

Right now with the current stake amount in votes being used, a typical vote is worth on average 1 SME per 5700 SME staked or #SMEP. I came to this amount by watching the #votes of 4 different accounts that I have access to their information, like the #VoteStrength, SME Power(SMEP) they have and #VotePower they had when voting. Then I checked the SME value of the posts before and after the votes. Using some basic math, the range was between 5300-6100 SMEP per 1 SME of value per vote.

This is only valid as of this moment with the number of users and amount of staked SME in use on average. The amount will change as we grow, which I'll explain in another SoMee User Tip.

Author~ notconvinced

I hope you find this information helpful. If so, make sure to LIKE this page and visit https://awesme.blog for more in-depth tutorials, tips and more!

#someeofficial #someeoriginals #AweSoMee #Awesme #AwesmeTutorials #UserTips #SoMeeFeatures #SoMeeGrowth #WhatsGoinOn #features #help #faq #UnofficialFaq #NewUsers #originalcontent

I know this inside out almost but, never in history has a steel frame building fallen from a fire. Never has a building fallen faster than gravity with so much resistance. This architect adds more data and also mentions 3500 architects, technical builders, explosive experts has come out and says it is controlled demolition. https://youtu.be/v3X4UMJNlGA

I can gladly inform you that "9/11 Mysteries" is found again , since it is shadow banned on youtube.
this changed my life to never trust a goverment, the told narrative from media and question everything. The molten metal, towers falling faster than gravity itself and all the explosions before that and finally WTC 7 that fell whithout any hit at all.
this is from a technical point of view and everyone on earth should watch it, that is why I am sharing it. This is 10/10 . (I've seen it 4 times)
https://youtu.be/7vV9ND1BqDk