The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: 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. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. 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-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

Toward another Zionist Massacre in Gaza Strip: Netanyahu approves Rafah Operation Plan | VT Foreign Policy March 16, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Benjamin Netanyahu said the IDF is prepared to conduct the attack and evacuate the civilian population VERSIONE IN ITALIANO CON ANALISI GEOPOLITICA Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest truce and prisoner-exchange proposal by Hamas and has approved an IDF plan to launch an operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, Israeli media reported on Friday. ”The IDF is prepared for the operation and to evacuate the [civilian] population,” the PM’s office said in a statement, as cited by the Times of Israel. Earlier in the day, Hamas announced on social media that it had presented its “vision” of a prisoner swap with Israel to Qatari and Egyptian mediators and was looking towards a ceasefire agreement which would involve the withdrawal ofIsrael Defense Forces from Gaza. As reported by Reuters, which has seen the proposal, the Palestinian militants proposed the release of Israeli women, including female soldiers, children, the elderly and ill hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing between 700 and 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Once the prisoner exchange is complete, Hamas said it would be ready to negotiate a date for a permanent ceasefire. The Jewish state, however, dismissed the proposal and accused Hamas of making “unrealistic demands.” On Thursday, Netanyahu also reiterated Israel’s determination to complete its mission of “eliminating” Hamas. Israel’s decision to proceed with a ground incursion into Rafah comes after repeated warnings from the international community, including the US and Egypt, not to enter the city where some 1.5 million Palestinians are currently sheltering. After Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israeli settlements last October 7, which saw 1,100 people killed and 250 taken hostage, Israel has been conducting a relentless siege on Gaza. According to the latest information from Palestinian health authorities, at least 31,341 people have been killed and 73,134 others injured in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations in the enclave over the past half a year. READ MORE: Hamas issues terms for permanent ceasefire with Israel – Reuters Originally published by Russia Today All links to Gospa News articles have been added aftermath Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published Fabio G. C. Carisio Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal. His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more… Most popolar investigation on VT is: Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting. For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime. With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians. In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence. In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator. VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS www.gospanews.net/ ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/03/toward-another-zionist-massacre-in-gaza-strip-netanyahu-approves-rafah-operation-plan/

The Legendary Lassie The Journey Home The story revolves around a Rough Collie named Lassie, who belongs to a struggling family in Depression-era Yorkshire, England. Due to financial hardships, the family is forced to sell Lassie to a wealthy Duke. However, Lassie's loyalty to her original family is unwavering. In a dramatic and emotional turn of events, Lassie embarks on an incredible journey to return to her beloved owners, overcoming numerous obstacles and challenges along the way. How To Train Your Puppy. https://www.digistore24.com/redir/434590/sarafraz/ Heartwarming Bonds What makes Lassie's story truly iconic is the enduring bond between the loyal Collie and her human family. Lassie's determination, intelligence, and courage resonate with audiences, creating a narrative that transcends the boundaries of time and culture. The journey home becomes a metaphor for love, loyalty, and the unbreakable connection between humans and their furry companions. Cinematic Legacy Silver Screen Success "Lassie Come-Home" was adapted into a highly successful film in 1943, starring Roddy McDowall and Elizabeth Taylor. The film's success catapulted Lassie to stardom, solidifying her place as an enduring symbol of devotion and loyalty. Subsequently, Lassie became the protagonist of a long-running television series, captivating generations of viewers with her intelligence, compassion, and knack for rescuing those in need. Dog Health eBook + Tennis Ball Machine Automatic Throw Pet! https://07d02a-3.myshopify.com/products/dog-health-ebook?variant=47648500711756#aff=sarafraz Enduring Impact Lassie's story has left an indelible mark on American popular culture, shaping the perception of dogs as not just pets but as integral members of the family. The character of Lassie has become synonymous with loyalty, courage, and the unwavering bond between humans and their canine companions. The iconic image of Lassie, with her distinctive rough coat and expressive eyes, continues to evoke a sense of nostalgia and warmth. Conclusion In the vast landscape of dog stories, Lassie's tale stands out as a cinematic masterpiece that has transcended generations. The enduring legacy of Lassie's journey home has ingrained itself in the hearts of viewers, reminding us of the profound impact that the bond between humans and dogs can have. Lassie's story remains a timeless tribute to the loyalty and love that our furry friends bring into our lives.

Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians [email protected] January 26, 2024 greater israel, hamas, Nakba, settler colonialism, zionism Falk: Israel used Oct 7 attack as a pretext for its plan to expel Palestinians Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, discusses Gaza, the most transparent genocide in human history (photo) All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza Hamas had publicly and by back channels pushed for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel Ray McGovern: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran… Reposted from Ray McGovern’s website, January 18, 2024, excerpts from In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most Transparent Genocide in Human History, by Richard Falk Hamas and a Second Nakba While I [Richard Falk] was special rapporteur for the U.N. on Israeli violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, I had the opportunity to meet and talk in detail with several of the Hamas leaders who are living either in Doha or Cairo and also in Gaza. In the period between 2010 and 2014, Hamas was publicly and by back channels pushing for a 50-year cease-fire with Israel. It was conditioned on Israel carrying out the unanimous 1967 Security Council mandate in SC Res 242 to withdraw its forces to the pre-war boundaries of “the green line.” Hamas had also sought a long-range cease-fire with Israel after its 2006 electoral victory for up to 50 years. Neither Israel nor the U.S. would respond to those diplomatic initiatives. Hamas, Machel particularly who was perhaps the most intellectual of the Hamas leaders, told me that he warned Washington of the tragic consequences for both peoples if the conflict was allowed to go on without a cease-fire, which was confirmed by independent sources. Where can Palestinians go as the population suffers from famine and continued bombing? What is Israel’s goal? All indications are that Israel used the October 7 attack as a pretext for the preexisting master plan to get rid of the Palestinians whose presence blocks the establishment of Greater Israel with sovereign control over the West Bank and at least portions of Gaza. I see the so-called commitment to thinning the Palestinian presence in Gaza and to a functional second Nakba. This is a criminal policy. I don’t know that it has to have a formal name. It is not a policy designed to achieve anything but the decapitation of the Palestinian population. Israel seeks to move Gazans to the Egyptian Sinai, and the Egyptians have already indicated that they don’t welcome this. This is not a policy. This is some kind of a threat of elimination. The Israeli campaign after October 7 was not directed toward Hamas’ terrorism nearly as much as it was directed toward the forced evacuation of the Palestinians from Gaza and for the related dispossession of Palestine in the West Bank. If Israel really wanted to deal with its security in an effective way, much more efficient and effective methods would have been relied upon. There was no reason to treat the entire civilian population of Gaza as if it were implicated in the Hamas attack, and there was certainly no justification for the genocidal response. The Israeli motivations seem more related to completing the Zionist Project than to restoring territorial security. For a proper perspective we should remember that before October 7, the Netanyahu coalition government that took power at the start of 2023 was known as the most extreme government ever to govern the country since its establishment in 1948. The new Netanyahu government in Israel immediately gave a green light to settler violence in the Occupied West Bank and appointed overtly racist religious leaders to administer the parts of Palestine still occupied. This was part of the end game of the whole Zionist project of claiming territorial sovereignty over the whole of the so-called promised land, enabling Greater Israel to come into existence. The Need for a Different Context We need to establish a different context than the one that exists now. That means a different outlook on the part of the Western supporters of Israel. And a different internal Israeli sense of their own interests, their own future. And it’s only when substantive pressure is brought to bear on an elite that has gone to these lengths that it can shake commitments to this orientation. The lengths that the Israeli government has gone to are characteristic of settler colonial states. All of them, including the U.S. and Canada, have acted violently to neutralize or exterminate the resident Indigenous people. That is what this genocidal interlude is all about. It is an effort to realize the goals of maximal versions of Zionism, which can only succeed by eliminating the Palestinians as rightful claimants. It should not be forgotten that in the weeks before the Hamas attack, including at the U.N., Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was waving a map of “the new Middle East” that had erased the existence of Palestine. Undoubtedly, one of Hamas’ motivations was to negate the view that Palestine had given up its right to self-determination, and that Palestine could be erased. Recall the old delusional pre-Balfour Zionist slogan: “A people without land for a land without people.” Such utterances of this early Zionist utopian phase literally erased the Palestinians who for generations lived in Palestine as an entitled Indigenous population. With the Balfour Declaration of 1917, this settler colonial vision became a political project with the blessings of the leading European colonial power. … This may turn out to be a moment of clarity with respect not only to Gaza, but to the overall prospects for sustainable peace and justice between these two embattled peoples. (The above are excerpts from: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/west-enabling-genocide-gaza January 17, 2024 [Emphasis added]) Ray Comment: In my view, the war in Gaza is going so badly for Israel that its Great White Hope is to get the US directly involved militarily. The best way to do that is to involve Iran. So far, the Iranians have been clever not to rise to the bait. So … watch for an Israeli FALSE FLAG attack on US troops or simply on US “interests” blamed on Iran. Brace yourself. Remember: Iran is still the main Israeli-cum-neocon target. Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and served as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine and is currently co-convener of SHAPE (Save Humanity and Planet Earth). Ray McGovern is was an Army intelligence officer and then served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. Ray’s duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief, which he briefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan’s five most senior national security advisers from 1981 to 1985. RELATED READING – RICHARD FALK: Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel Experts: Israeli System Constitutes Apartheid, Crime against Humanity The Politics of Hunger Strikes CURRENT SITUATION: 12 Essential Facts for Understanding the Current Israel-Gaza Violence The West’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Unlike Any War in Recent Memory US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war VIDEOS: Facts about the Israel Gaza War essential for Americans to know – Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh What was happening in Gaza BEFORE the Hamas attack that the media didn’t tell you? Professor Richard Falk speech at the First Global Conference on Israeli Apartheid https://israelpalestinenews.org/falk-israel-used-oct-7-attack-as-a-pretext-for-its-plan-to-expel-palestinians/

‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 115: Israel pushes Gazans further south; U.S threatens further regional violence The U.S. government threatens further regional violence on the heels of drone attack that killed three American troops in Jordan. Human rights groups slam countries for pulling funding for UNRWA as Palestinians in Gaza face famine and starvation. Leila WarahJanuary 29, 2024 Palestinians walk through the rubble of Gaza city, carrying bags of flour delivered on an aid truck Palestinians try to get bags of flour after 10 trucks loaded with flour arrived in Gaza City, Gaza strip, on January 28, 2024. (APA Images) Casualties 26,422+ killed* and at least 65,087 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 387+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147. 557 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.** *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. Some rights groups put the death toll number at more than 33,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. ** This figure is released by the Israeli military. Key Developments Occupied West Bank: Israeli forces shoot dead a Palestinian child southeast of Bethlehem and Palestinian man west of Jenin. High-ranking Israeli politicians attend “Return to Gaza Conference” to plan re-settlement. Human Rights Monitor: Israeli forces kill 373 Palestinians, including 345 civilians, 48 hours after ICJ interim ruling. UNICEF: Over 16,000 children at risk of missing routine vaccinations, exposing them to illnesses like measles, pneumonia and polio. PCRS: Israeli shellings and heavy gunfire in the vicinity of besieged Al-Amal Hospital, Khan Younis. CENTCOM: Three US service members killed, 25 injured in drone attack by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq in northeast Jordan. Gaza Health Ministry: 7,000 wounded and sick people need to leave Gaza to access life-saving medical care. Jordan, Turkey, Amnesty International, and WHO call on countries to reinstate funds for UNRWA. UNRWA: Only 4 of 22 health centers in Gaza operational due to bombardment and access restrictions Yemen’s Ansar Allah send message of defiance to Israel and its allies via music video. Japan and Austria join about a dozen countries in suspending funds to UNRWA. Gaza’s Health Ministry: Al Nasser Hospital, Khan Younis medical and non-medical waste is piling up “everywhere” amid military siege. Since ICJ ruling, hundreds have been killed, hospitals under attack In the 48 hours after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interim ruling on Israel, which placed the state on trial for genocide, the military has continued attacking Gaza with full force. Advertisement Follow the Mondoweiss channel on WhatsApp! Within the last two days, at least 373 Palestinians, including 345 civilians, have been killed and at least 643 wounded, reported Human Rights Monitor (HRM). The entire city of Khan Younis, located in the second-most southern district in the Gaza Strip, is being pounded by Israeli bombardment. The Al Amal Hospital in the city is being subjected to a military siege that has lasted several days, trapping medical staff, patients, and displaced people inside. “Israeli shelling and heavy gunfire continue in the vicinity of PRCS Al-Amal Hospital,” reported the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) on Monday afternoon. PRCS also announced the burial of three people in the courtyard of the al-Amal Hospital due to the “difficulty of transporting them to an official cemetery due to the ongoing blockade imposed on the hospital.” On Sunday, PRCS shared a video from inside the Hospital, documenting two members of the medical charity distracting a child amid the sounds of clashes around them. In the video, the young girl shared with them her dreams of returning to her home and school as she expressed her determination to become a dentist. Meanwhile, Al Nasser Hospital, also located in the city of Khan Younis, is similarly being subjected to a brutal blockade where medical and non-medical waste is piling up “everywhere,” says Gaza’s Health Ministry. The medical waste, which could be toxic, may contribute to the spread of the diseases amid already deteriorating public health conditions in southern Gaza. To make matters worse, bodies are also piling up on hospital grounds due to Israeli military vehicles blocking people in, resulting in the inability of citizens to reach the cemeteries in the city, Al Jazeera reported. Staff and residents of the Hospital are digging a mass grave on hospital grounds to bury the bodies. At least one other mass grave has already been dug on the property. Palestinians pushed farther south in Gaza Growing numbers of Palestinians are being forced to flee their homes and shelters in Khan Younis as the army pushes them further south into Rafah, the last remaining place for Palestinians. “Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate and are going through security checkpoints with facial recognition technology. Women and children are separated from the men. A large number of people have been detained and dehumanized during the process,” reported Hani Mahoud from Rafah for Al Jazeera. “They are making different groups of people raise their ID cards as they pass through these military checkpoints. In many cases, Palestinian men have been abducted and arrested by the Israeli military, and others have been taken for investigations,” Al Jazeera added. The displaced civilians are fleeing Israeli attacks on Khan Younis only to arrive in the already overcrowded district of Rafah, where people are sleeping on the street and in tent camps flooded with sewage amid the harsh weather conditions. “Scenes of forcibly displaced people are a disgrace to humanity,” the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. “Over half a million Palestinians in Khan Younis were instructed by the occupying forces to evacuate their homes, including hospitals and health centres, in a cruel expansion and deepening of forced displacement from southern regions,” the ministry continued. “Israel has ramped up its efforts to starve [Palestinians] as well as forcibly displace them from their homes in the Strip,” Human Rights Monitor said. “In defiance of the ruling of the world’s highest court and in violation of its own international obligations, including to international law and principles, Israel persists in committing egregious violations that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide against the Palestinian people,” the humanitarian group continued. Gazans starve as world powers cut off funding to UNRWA Japan and Austria are the most recent countries to join the approximately dozen others who have announced plans to suspend funding to The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the main agency delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza. The countries are awaiting the outcome of an investigation into allegations that 12 staff members participated in Hamas’s October 7 operation, collectively punishing Gaza’s population in the process. UNRWA, which has provided primary healthcare to Gaza’s nearly two million residents since before October 7, is already collapsing under Israel’s military attacks and struggling to provide social and primary care to the besieged enclave. According to the humanitarian organization, only four out of 22 of its health centers in Gaza are operational due to Israeli bombardment and access restrictions. “UNRWA is the lifeline for over 2 million Palestinians facing starvation in Gaza,” Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s foreign minister and deputy prime minister, said in a post on X, stressing that the potential participation of 12 staff does not justify measures to starve an entire nation. “It shouldn’t be collectively punished upon allegations against 12 persons out of its 13,000 staff. UNRWA acted responsibly and began an investigation. We urge countries that suspended funds to reverse the decision,” Safadi continued. Agnes Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, has called the cuts a “heartless decision” by some of the world’s richest countries “to punish the most vulnerable population on earth because of the alleged crimes of 12 people.” “Right after the ICJ ruling finding risk of genocide. Sickening,” Callamard added. Similarly, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has said that “cutting off funding” to UNRWA at this “critical moment” will only “hurt the people of Gaza who desperately need support.” “We appeal to donors not to suspend their funding to UNRWA at this critical moment,” Ghebreyesus said. Israeli politicians discuss plans to ‘re-settle’ Gaza As Gaza’s population continues to be systematically wiped out by Israel, high-ranking Israeli cabinet ministers and parliament members are planning for the besieged enclaves’ re-settlement with Jewish Israelis. On Sunday, the politicians attended the “Return to Gaza Conference” in Jerusalem. At the conference, plans were made for the re-establishment of 15 Israeli settlements and the addition of six new ones on top of recently destroyed Palestinian communities. The fact that Israeli officials would “convene a high-level meeting to plan an act of aggression – the acquisition of occupied territory and its colonization – is an early indication of intent to breach the provisional measures order by the ICJ,” says Israeli humanitarian lawyer Itay Epshtain. Hamas has also released a statement saying the conference goes against the interim rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the war on Gaza by openly calling for the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians at the conference. “We call on the international community and the UN to take a firm stance … and condemn it clearly as a fascist conference based on the idea of ethnic cleansing,” Hamas said. U.S. threatens to escalate regional violence The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) announced three service members were killed and and 34 were wounded on Sunday during a drone attack on US forces stationed in northeast Jordan near the Syrian border, which is likely to cause further escalation in regional violence. “While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq,” President Joe Biden said shortly afterward but did not cite any evidence. Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin says he is “outraged and deeply saddened” by the killing of the three troops. “The president and I will not tolerate attacks on American forces, and we will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our troops, and our interests,” he said in a statement. Iran later denied their involvement in the fatal drone attack. The country’s Foreign Ministry released a statement saying the “baseless accusations” connecting them to the attack are aimed at fanning the flames of war. “This is a conspiracy by those who see their interests in again dragging the US into a new conflict in the region,” Iranian spokesman Nasser Kanani said, as cited by Al Jazeera. “Resistance groups across the region do not take orders from the Islamic Republic of Iran in their decisions and actions. And even though Iran does not welcome expanding fighting in the region, it also does not interfere in the decisions of resistance groups on how they support the Palestinian nation, or defend themselves and their countries’ peoples against any violations or occupation,” Kanani continued. Later on Monday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed responsibility for the drone attack, explaining it was “in response to the massacres of the Zionist entity against our people in Gaza.” Al Jazeera analyst Marwan Bishara says that the US “recognizes” that it is in a sort of “proxy conflict with Iran,” noting that this is the first time American troops have been killed since the war on Gaza started. “This is important because this is another landmark day where we are seeing escalation, a widening of the war. Clearly America is slowly – but surely – getting stuck in the Middle East.” “This is the president who famously said we have to end the “forever wars,” and now he’s making threats about punishing the perpetrators and those who are responsible. America is already involved in a number – I’m not sure if we’ve reached a dozen strikes against Yemen. It has employed its most sophisticated aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean,” Bishara continued. Many right-wing hawkish US politicians have responded to the attacks by calling for military retaliation, including republican Tom Cotton. “The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander in chief,” Cotton said in a statement. David Des Roches, former Pentagon director of Arabian peninsula affairs, told Al Jazeera that the US reaction to the drone attack that killed three service members “will be a significant one.” “I don’t think it will be directed solely against proxies; I think there will be something higher up the hierarchy of Iranian interests destroyed,” he said. “It’s a calculus that’s very hard to get right and it’s fraught with danger. The greatest danger is that both sides might create a sort of unwanted momentum towards a confrontation that neither side truly wants,” Roches concluded. However, Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, said it’s likely US interests will continue to be threatened without an end to the war in Gaza. “It’s important to note that there were zero attacks during the six days between November 24-30 when there was a ceasefire in Gaza,” Parsi told Al Jazeera, adding that the Biden administration appears willing to put US service members at risk to allow Israel to push on with the war. “In fact, the carnage in Gaza is increasingly clear now. It is posing a threat to US interests because we’re seeing how it’s threatening the US in the Red Sea,” Parsi said. “We’re seeing the casualties now on the Syrian border. There may be a war between Israel and Lebanon as well and, down the line, a new nuclear crisis with Iran. Biden is not pursuing US interests by allowing this to continue. If he really wants to end it and protect US troops, there needs to be de-escalation and de-escalation begins with a ceasefire in Gaza,” Parsi concluded. Similarly, the US National Iranian American Council (NIAC) says the US and Iran “are now closer to the brink of being pulled into a full-blown regional war by the vortex of violence” unleashed by the conflict in Gaza. “President Biden must show leadership and recognize that there is no military solution to this crisis that has only been expanded and prolonged by military escalation and a dearth of diplomacy,” NIAC concluded on X. BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-115-israel-pushes-gazans-further-south-u-s-threatens-further-regional-violence/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-115-israel.html

Propaganda Lies that Protect Israel’s Genocidal Maniacs | VT Foreign Policy January 24, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Let’s straighten out some of the nonsense that’s spread by Israel’s network of stooges to make the apartheid regime’s crimes against humanity seem justified. Chief amongst them is the insistence that Israel has a right of self-defence against Hamas in Gaza. This is designed to bolster the Israeli narrative and give the regime diplomatic ‘cover’ to commit any crime it wishes in Gaza. But UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese warns that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”. Common sense should tell us that, nevertheless the lie is repeated ad nauseam by Israel’s sympathisers among our MPs and ministers at Westminster. Ask any of them exactly where in international law Israel is given such a fantastic right and you won’t get a proper answer. You might wonder why people at the heart of our democratic system are telling lies in order to promote the interests of a thoroughly nasty foreign power. There’s an elaborate ‘grooming’ programme whereby serving MPs and parliamentary candidates, on the recommendation of their political party’s Friends of Israel group, are taken on propaganda trips to Israel as guests of the Israeli government and come back suitably brainwashed. Never mind that this is a breach of their Code of Conduct and the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles) which state that “holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work”. Doesn’t such grooming amount to corruption? What we never hear from them is the Palestinians’ cast-iron right of self-defence against Israel. It doesn’t suit their purpose to tell us that UN Resolution 37/43 gives Palestinians an unquestionable right to resist Israeli aggression in their struggle for “liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means including armed struggle”. 37/43 also condemns “the constant and deliberate violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, as well as the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East, which constitute an obstacle to the achievement of self-determination and independence by the Palestinian people and a threat to peace and stability in the region”. So when Netanyahu rejects the idea of a Palestinian state and says all territory west of the Jordan River must be under Israeli security control, he collides head-on with international law. Furthermore, UN Resolution 3246 calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subjected to colonial and foreign domination and to assist them in their struggle. 3246 not only reaffirms the Palestinians’ right to use “all available means, including armed struggle”, but also demands full respect for the basic human rights of all individuals detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle. And it requires strict respect for Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under which no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. So where is the UK Government’s concern for the thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including women and children, held hostage in Israel’s jails before 7 October and the 6,000+ more abducted and imprisoned since then? And when did the UK Government ever “recognize the right to self-determination and independence” for Palestinians, who have been left to suffer foreign domination and alien subjugation for over 75 years, or “assist them in their struggle” as required? Palestinians should not have to negotiate their freedom and self-determination – it’s their basic right and doesn’t depend on anyone else, such as Israel or the US, agreeing to it. The UK disrespects that, otherwise we would long ago have recognised Palestinian statehood and been among the vast majority of nations that have already done so. Legal opinion (Wilde) has it that when 138 of the world’s states at the UN General Assembly voted in 2012 to re-designate Palestine’s status from ‘non-member Entity’ to ‘non-member State’, this had the effect of establishing statehood. Britain’s refusal to recognise Palestine is a disgrace. We promised the Palestinian Arabs independence back in 1915 in return for their help in defeating the Turks but reneged in 1917 (in favour of the shameful Balfour Declaration). We should have granted Palestine provisional independence in 1923 in accordance with our responsibilities under the League of Nations Mandate Agreement, but didn’t. In 1947 the UN Partition Plan allocated the Palestinians a measly portion of their own homeland and, without consulting them, handed the lion’s share to incomer Jews with no ancestral connection to it… thanks in large part to the Balfour stitch-up. The following year Britain walked away from its mandate responsibilities leaving Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s vicious plan for annexing the Holy Land by military force – “from the river to the sea” – which they’ve pursued relentlessly ever since in defiance of international and humanitarian law, bringing terror, misery, wholesale destruction and ruination to the Palestinians. And now genocide. The UK Government recognised Israeli statehood quickly enough in 1949 when Zionist gangs had already carried out several massacres and shown their terrorist hand, trashing 500 Palestinian towns and villages and driving 700,000 civilians out of their homeland. But we have cruelly rejected pleas for Palestinian recognition right up to the present day. Ours is a long history of betrayal. How can we claim to be brokers for peace when we’ve consistently worked against peace? The same goes for the US. It has to be said that Hamas, however we may feel about them, are the chosen and legitimate government in Gaza after winning fair and square the last election in 2006. Their 2017 Charter is reasonably in tune with international law while the Israeli government pursues policies that definitely are not. So, knowing Palestine’s right to assert its freedom and self-determination, and its right to use armed resistance against Israel’s endless military occupation, why did Britain proscribe Hamas’s political wing as a terrorist organisation? And what gives the UK and the US the right to encourage and assist Israel in bringing about coercive regime-change in Gaza and preventing Palestinians choosing their own government? Hamas Gaza Chief Yahya Al-Sinwar (R), Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (L) during a memorial service for Fuqaha, in Gaza City March 27, 2017. R Branding Hamas a terrorist organisation was indeed a propaganda masterstroke. It has allowed the Zionists and other pro-Israel elements within our Government to avoid having to explain Israel’s far greater terror record, and instead focus hatred on Hamas. So stories about atrocities committed by Hamas when they ‘broke out’ and went on the rampage on 7 October were eagerly absorbed and repeated by Western politicians and media even though the Israelis still haven’t been able to substantiate their claims about rape and beheaded babies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed the Israeli army’s “ethics” chief about two major incidents that day – the order by an Israeli commander to a tank to open fire on an Israeli home knowing there were 14 Israeli civilians inside, and Israeli helicopters firing missiles at dozens of cars carrying Israeli hostages, killing them. The official narrative blamed Hamas for these “barbaric” acts which were then used to justify Israel’s frenzied onslaught against Gaza’s civilians. However Jonathan Cook, a prize-winning journalist writing from Nazareth, reports that Haaretz and the army’s ethics chief both ascribe these self-inflicted casualties to Israel’s Hannibal Directive, a classified policy requiring soldiers to prevent Israelis being taken hostage at all costs. Cook concludes that Western media outlets are deliberately hiding the truth about this story “because it directly conflicts with the West’s ideological and strategic agenda” while the Israeli media are full of it. What now? Just to show how ridiculous our Establishment has now become in its eagerness to carry on shielding Israel, a man has appeared in court charged with wearing a green headband with writing on it said to arouse “reasonable suspicion” that he supports Hamas. The writing is the ‘Shahada’, a declaration of faith stating that there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Only a lunatic would try to make a criminal case out of it. Sadly, there’s no shortage of lunatics these days among our ruling elite. And according to Reuters US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken says in all seriousness that what’s needed to resolve the situation is a Palestinian state with a government structure “that gives people what they want and works with Israel to be effective”. So the Palestinians must co-operate with a neighbour that has for decades committed horrendous atrocities against the Palestinian people culminating in all-out genocide? And whose stated ambition is to rob the Palestinians of their entire homeland? Of course, Palestinians would be wise to work with a comprehensively reformed Israel, if such a thing is possible, when it has finally convinced the world it is committed to international and humanitarian law and worthy of being called ‘friend’. But not until then. In the meantime we have the depraved sadist, Netanyahu, insisting that when he’s done with committing genocide Israel’s security needs will leave ‘no space’ for a Palestinian state …. as if only Israel is entitled to security. Israel’s supporters have tried to persuade us that all this unpleasantness began when Hamas broke out of Gaza and caused havoc among the Israeli population nearby. But, as everyone and his dog knows, Israelis have been terrorising, slaughtering, ethnically cleansing, land-grabbing, and showing utter contempt for international law and United Nations resolutions ever since (and even before) they declared statehood nearly 76 years ago. For them, committing war crimes is routine. It began with the massacres by Zionist terror gangs at the King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, Lydda and elsewhere; and all are well documented. Yet Israel has been blessed with impunity throughout that time and now ‘escalates’ its savagery to the level of wholesale genocide. Is the international community still not sufficiently sickened to end its protection and instead proscribe the rogue regime as a terrorist state? What can we the public do? That’s where BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) comes in. This non-violent movement has been building over the years. It is now poised to become civil society’s devastating economic weapon for bringing Israel and its supporters to heel if the international community doesn’t do its job. And what happens to politicians who lie? In short, nothing. That is the conclusion of one of the most depressing articles I’ve read in a long time. We hear it said repeatedly that misleading Parliament is a serious matter. But, as Dr Alice Lilley from the Institute of Government says, “The convention has always been that ministers who mislead Parliament are expected to resign, and this is set out in the Ministerial Code. But enforcing this convention is more complicated. “It is ultimately up to the prime minister to decide what happens to ministers judged to have broken the Code. And Parliament has very few powers to punish a minister for misleading it.” So codes of conduct which mention honesty, like the Nolan Principles and the Ministerial Code, are only voluntary, the assumption being that politicians will choose to behave honourably. But in recent years we’ve been cursed with ministers – and even prime ministers – to whom honour, truthfulness and integrity are alien concepts. The sad fact is, there are few sanctions in place for dealing with those who defy the conventions. So self-regulation falls down and Parliament goes to the dogs. Again, it’s up to civil society to take over and name and shame these undesirables. Stuart Littlewood 22 January 2024 Stuart Littlewood After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also “indulged himself” as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councilor and member of the Police Authority. Now retired he campaigns on various issues and contributes to several online news & opinion sites. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, he has produced two photo-documentary books – Paperturn-view.com. Also, check out Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation and explains to me why the Zionists who control Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court. Stuart’s Very Latest Articles: 2023 – Present – Archived Articles: 2010-2015 – 2016-2022 ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/propaganda-lies-that-protect-israels-genocidal-maniacs/

Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. 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 Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. 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/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/

Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. 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 Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. 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/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/

Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD? Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute Sasha Latypova Here is a key piece of legal history examined by Debbie Lerman. She is also now on Substack, please subscribe to her Debbie Lerman’s Substack. I will be quoting from Part 2 of the series of articles on Brownstone website here, Part 1 is linked to it. As you may recall, Operation Warp Speed was advertised as a “partnership” between HHS and DOD: “One Government Entity” was an odd choice of words. We have separate branches of government and separate federal agencies for many reasons. Importantly, this was envisioned by the framers as a system where federal agencies’ authorities are limited, and where different branches of government serve as checks or limits to each other. All those reasons apparently could be disregarded seemingly in an instant, under a manufactured “emergency”. At the time of the OWS announcement I thought it was odd that there was a need to bring DOD into this activity at all. What do they know about making drugs? Close to nothing. What do they know about pharmacy distribution chain in the US (which is fast, traceable, regulated by the states, very experienced, and is already established everywhere) - also not much. I later learned about the real role of the DOD in the “covid” mass murder exercise. I wrote many articles about it here, here and here, and made several presentations on this topic here and here. While it is now very clear that the DOD has been leading and funding the mass killing of civilians and own service members (to be replaced by imported mercenaries via southern border trafficking), to date, the reasons for the DOD-HHS partnerships remained vague. We knew the criminals needed the fig leaf of a faked “public health emergency” to issue the PREP Act declarations and EUAs (here, here and here), but the topic of the “partnership” remained largely unelucidated. Debbie Lerman, a journalist writing for Brownstone Institute, did some outstanding digging and analysis to uncover a really important piece of evidence of a carefully pre-planned, coordinated attack by the US federal agencies working in concert. It appears that one of the main reasons this “partnering” needed to happen was the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA). It turns out, quite reasonably, different federal agencies have different scope of the OTAs. The scope of HHS’s OTA did not permit manufacturing pharmaceuticals at scale, especially not before satisfying regulatory requirements for safety. To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) Acting as separate federal agencies within the limits of their authorities, neither HHS nor DOD would have been able to order 100 million doses of unapproved, untested, previously thoroughly failed “vaccine”. So they “partnered” in order to break the constraints of their authorities: While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Another very useful insight from Debbie on EUA Countermeasures law is that the utilization of EUA in this “partnering” scheme is evidence in itself that the relevant US Government officials never believed covid was a viral pandemic. They knew it was a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agent or combination of such agents. That is because the EUA law does not include naturally occurring viral outbreaks (if you believe those exist in modern sanitary conditions, I don’t). The fact that the senior government executives lied by pumping mass propaganda about the “wet market zoonotic jump”, utilizing massive network of DHS and intelligence contractors to censor any social media mention to the contrary, prosecuting and smearing any credentialed person who pointed to the holes in their narrative, performing endless clown-show Congressional hearings about whether it was a zoonotic jump or a Wuhan leak, and currently continue to pretend covid was a viral pandemic only points to one thing - this attack being perpetuated by those who lie and cover it up, i.e. the US Government officials themselves: The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was: “C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.” When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: “the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…” There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Katherine Watt on how to prosecute this using the laws as material facts: One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial. Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’ And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people. The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders. Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute. The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people? Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts. The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation. But in this case, the material facts are the laws. Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20. https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/why-did-hhs-partner-with-dod?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

To Save Gaza, Invoke the Genocide Convention The ICC is a "puppet institution". What's needed is a country to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Here's how, with argument, phone numbers, addresses and emails. Sam Husseini [Addendum: RootsAction and World Beyond War have put out the action alert “It’s Time to Invoke the Genocide Convention”. This full piece has been posted on X/Twitter with thread containing handles for various national leaders who can be petitioned.] Some of the greatest successes in recent human history have combined protest movements with strong diplomatic moves. In February 1998, the Clinton administration seemed poised to inflict a massive attack on Iraq, but vocal opposition from the US public, especially at a CNN town hall meeting in Ohio, combined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan going to Iraq, repelled the US government attack. The following year, in the Battle of Seattle, combined protests in the streets and delegations from the global south finding their backbone resulted in the World Trade Organization’s plans collapsing. This was a major setback for global corporate interests. There is now effectively a global movement, largely based around mass protests, to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Several countries, including South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, Djibouti as well as Colombia and Algeria and Turkey have moved for the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli officials. The problem is that ICC has been dragging its heels for years on prosecuting Israelis. It has been called a “white man’s court” after only going after Africans, and, after letting Israel off the hook during an earlier assault on Gaza, “a hoax”. Some of these nations have called Israel’s war crimes “genocide”. They should act on their words and invoke the relevant treaty. Other nations that have been especially critical of Israel are Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Belize, Jordan, Chad, Honduras, Bahrain, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, in contrast has ruled against Israel. But so far these rulings have been advisory opinions. It ruled against Israel in a case regarding its wall in 2004. In another case before it, is expected to rule against Israel’s long term policies. But what can be done now, Prof. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented the Bosnians before the World Court, argues is to use emergency processes to give more teeth to the World Court. This can be done by invoking the Genocide Convention. This is outlined by Boyle, noted by UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber, backed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, and written about by myself. And most recently by Craig Murray, now a human rights activist who was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee. Murray just wrote the piece “Activating the Genocide Convention” which states: “There are 149 states party to the Genocide Convention. Every one of them has the right to call out the genocide in progress in Gaza and report it to the United Nations. In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide — and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party — then the International Court of Justice [also called the World Court] is required to adjudicate on ‘the responsibility of a State for genocide.'” Murray quotes from the Genocide Convention and cites evidence that Israel is conducting genocide and that the US and British governments are at minimum complicit in that. He then states: “The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it. “If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened. This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can. But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC’s task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians. “It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas fighting bases in hospitals. … “I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. … It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Mahmoud Abbas. It is more and more difficult daily to support Abbas. He seems extraordinarily passive, and the suspicion that he is more concerned with refighting the Palestinian civil war than with resisting the genocide is impossible to shake. By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a Blinken promise of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud’s motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.” Thus speeches from Abbas and allied Palestinians figures should be viewed extremely skeptically. It is also very odd, to say the very least, that Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, and other officials put out a statement “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” — but make no mention whatever of the Genocide Convention. As Murray writes: “Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide [by invoking the Convention]. Why? “It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica.” Murray notes that this helped lead to prosecutions. He adds: “Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity. “But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States. Just as at [the recent] summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree [on] an oil and gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests. “It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.” What can you do? Urge countries which have been critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Get groups and influential people to make this a primary ask. Protests in NYC should include visits and vigils to the missions of those countries. Activists who have been arrested for protesting against Israel’s slaughter can ask UN officials from countries critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention. Palestinians in Ramallah may be able to directly contact the representatives of various countries to Palestine. This can be done anywhere. Protests in London can respectfully appeal to the embassies of various countries critical of Israel. We need to keep pressing directly against the US and Israeli governments, but their hearts are like stone. If we reach other states to invoke the Genocide Convention, it may be a key stop in curtailing the slaughter. Moreover, it could be a turning point in global relations. Should a positive emergency ruling by the International Court of Justice be forthcoming, it would dramatically isolate the US and Israel at the UN. The US would of course try to block anything at the UN Security Council. But with a World Court ruling, Boyle argues, the stage would be set for the General Assembly to assert itself using the Uniting for Peace procedure. Combined with sustained protests, like the WTO and other critical confrontations, the costs of continuing the slaughter could become unsustainable. Moreover, a World Court ruling could facilitate other legal efforts, like universal jurisdiction. For all that to happen, a country needs to step forward and invoke the Genocide Convention. Make no mistake; any nation that does this may well be targeted in insidious ways by the US and by Israel. Any such nation should be afforded every bit of support people of goodwill can muster. Here's a website that seems to list all the embassies and other diplomatic missions around the world. People from anywhere can be emailing, calling and going to these embassies and missions, urging these countries to use every legal mechanism to pressure Israel to stop, including invoking the Genocide Convention: embassy-worldwide.com. A friend extracted emails of missions to the UN: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Emails of embassies to and from Palestine via this page. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] https://open.substack.com/pub/husseini/p/to-save-gaza-invoke-the-genocide?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

To Save Gaza, Invoke the Genocide Convention The ICC is a "puppet institution". What's needed is a country to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Here's how, with argument, phone numbers, addresses and emails. Sam Husseini [Addendum: RootsAction and World Beyond War have put out the action alert “It’s Time to Invoke the Genocide Convention”. This full piece has been posted on X/Twitter with threadcontaining handles for various national leaders who can be petitioned.] Some of the greatest successes in recent human history have combined protest movements with strong diplomatic moves. In February 1998, the Clinton administration seemed poised to inflict a massive attack on Iraq, but vocal opposition from the US public, especially at a CNN town hall meeting in Ohio, combined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annangoing to Iraq, repelled the US government attack. The following year, in the Battle of Seattle, combined protests in the streets and delegations from the global south finding their backbone resulted in the World Trade Organization’s plans collapsing. This was a major setback for global corporate interests. There is now effectively a global movement, largely based around mass protests, to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Several countries, including South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, Djibouti as well as Colombia and Algeria and Turkey have moved for the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli officials. The problem is that ICC has been dragging its heels for years on prosecuting Israelis. It has been called a “white man’s court” after only going after Africans, and, after letting Israel off the hook during an earlier assault on Gaza, “a hoax”. Some of these nations have called Israel’s war crimes “genocide”. They should act on their words and invoke the relevant treaty. Other nations that have been especially critical of Israel are Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Belize, Jordan, Chad, Honduras, Bahrain, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, in contrast has ruled against Israel. But so far these rulings have been advisory opinions. It ruled against Israel in a case regarding its wall in 2004. In another case before it, is expected to rule against Israel’s long term policies. But what can be done now, Prof. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented the Bosnians before the World Court, argues is to use emergency processes to give more teeth to the World Court. This can be done by invoking the Genocide Convention. This is outlined by Boyle, noted by UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber, backed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, and written about by myself. And most recently by Craig Murray, now a human rights activist who was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee. Murray just wrote the piece “Activating the Genocide Convention” which states: “There are 149 states party to the Genocide Convention. Every one of them has the right to call out the genocide in progress in Gaza and report it to the United Nations. In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide — and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party — then the International Court of Justice [also called the World Court] is required to adjudicate on ‘the responsibility of a State for genocide.'” Murray quotes from the Genocide Convention and cites evidence that Israel is conducting genocide and that the US and British governments are at minimum complicit in that. He then states: “The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it. “If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened. This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can. But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC’s task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians. “It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas fighting bases in hospitals. … “I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. … It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Mahmoud Abbas. It is more and more difficult daily to support Abbas. He seems extraordinarily passive, and the suspicion that he is more concerned with refighting the Palestinian civil war than with resisting the genocide is impossible to shake. By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a Blinken promise of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud’s motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.” Thus speeches from Abbas and allied Palestinians figures should be viewed extremely skeptically. It is also very odd, to say the very least, that Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, and other officials put out a statement “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” — but make no mention whatever of the Genocide Convention. As Murray writes: “Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide [by invoking the Convention]. Why? “It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica.” Murray notes that this helped lead to prosecutions. He adds: “Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity. “But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States. Just as at [the recent] summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree [on] an oil and gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests. “It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.” What can you do? Urge countries which have been critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Get groups and influential people to make this a primary ask. Protests in NYC should include visits and vigils to the missions of those countries. Activists who have been arrested for protesting against Israel’s slaughter can ask UN officials from countries critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention. Palestinians in Ramallah may be able to directly contact the representatives of various countries to Palestine. This can be done anywhere. Protests in London can respectfully appeal to the embassies of various countries critical of Israel. We need to keep pressing directly against the US and Israeli governments, but their hearts are like stone. If we reach other states to invoke the Genocide Convention, it may be a key stop in curtailing the slaughter. Moreover, it could be a turning point in global relations. Should a positive emergency ruling by the International Court of Justice be forthcoming, it would dramatically isolate the US and Israel at the UN. The US would of course try to block anything at the UN Security Council. But with a World Court ruling, Boyle argues, the stage would be set for the General Assembly to assert itself using the Uniting for Peace procedure. Combined with sustained protests, like the WTO and other critical confrontations, the costs of continuing the slaughter could become unsustainable. Moreover, a World Court ruling could facilitate other legal efforts, like universal jurisdiction. For all that to happen, a country needs to step forward and invoke the Genocide Convention. Make no mistake; any nation that does this may well be targeted in insidious ways by the US and by Israel. Any such nation should be afforded every bit of support people of goodwill can muster. Here's a website that seems to list all the embassies and other diplomatic missions around the world. People from anywhere can be emailing, calling and going to these embassies and missions, urging these countries to use every legal mechanism to pressure Israel to stop, including invoking the Genocide Convention: embassy-worldwide.com. A friend extracted emails of missions to the UN: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Emails of embassies to and from Palestine via this page. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Urge Governments to Invoke the Genocide Convention to Stop the War on Gaza https://worldbeyondwar.org/gaza-genocide/

Rejecting the Bantustan ‘two-state solution’, Mandla Mandela calls for a single democratic state in Palestine Tim Anderson The popular but fallacious touchstone of a political resolution in Palestine has been a ‘two-state solution’. Washington constantly reverts to this and, more disturbingly, so too do many of Palestine’s international friends. Yet, faced with an apartheid regime, the idea is outdated and irrelevant, South African leader Mandla Mandela pointed out at the 5th Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, over 3-5 December in Johannesburg. Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson, head of the Mandela Foundation, clan chief, and an ANC member of Parliament, called for a global anti-apartheid campaign aimed at dismantling the Israeli regime, rejecting the Bantustan-like 'two-state solution', and calling for a single democratic state in Palestine. South Africans know about Bantustans: these were the so-called native ‘homelands’ – small enclaves set up to help enforce apartheid and prevent democracy in South Africa. The most recent ‘two-state’ proposal, put up by the Trump administration in 2020, shares many features with these Bantustans. But few outside South Africa remember this history in detail. The ‘two-state solution’ seems to have support in UNSC resolutions since 1967 (#242 and its successors), but the right “to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries” was conditional on Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The Israeli regime never met that condition. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s saw the PLO recognizing an "Israeli state", on the basis that the colonization of the West Bank would end and a Palestinian state would emerge. Those conditions were never met. Veteran analyst Rashid Khalidi, a leading US scholar on Palestine, says there was never a serious attempt by the Israelis or Washington to create an Arab state that would be “sovereign, contiguous and viable." Further, the entrenchment of second-class citizenship for Arab Israelis (in ‘1948 Palestine’), the emergence of an open apartheid regime on the West Bank, and the periodic massacres in Gaza have imposed a new reality. Yet, the pretext of ‘two states’ and the myth of a “return to 1967 borders” (a fantasy destroyed by constant Israeli colonization of the occupied territories) is maintained to obscure the reality of a predatory apartheid Israeli regime that can never co-exist with an independent Palestine. Washington and the Israelis understand that the fig leaf of ‘two states’ hides apartheid and prevents the construction of a broad anti-apartheid movement. That path is obscured by the ‘two states’ myth, as two former Israeli prime ministers have pointed out. In 2017, former PM Ehud Barak warned that the regime was “on a slippery slope” toward apartheid. Similarly, former PM Ehud Olmert (2007) said, “If the day comes when the [idea of a] two-state solution collapses and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," then we will face an “apartheid-like struggle … [and] the State of Israel is finished." The Trump ‘peace plan’ of 2020 is the most recent, detailed version of the deceptive 'two-state' idea. It supported the illegal West Bank, Syrian Golan, and eastern part of al-Quds annexations, trying to ‘normalize’ those breaches of earlier international agreements and offering some desert land in ‘compensation’. In recent years these ‘settlements’ have grown so that there are more than 700,000 Israeli colonists on the West Bank. Despite muted international protests, "Tel Aviv’s" backing for this process makes it unlikely that the ‘settlers’ might (as was done in Gaza) simply be persuaded to pack up and go home. Under the Trump ‘peace plan’, total Israeli control over borders, security, and even education would be maintained. That is a close parallel to the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa, as Mandla Mandela observed. The Palestinian struggle can and should draw important lessons from South Africa’s anti-apartheid campaigns and draw on the political capital it built, including in international resolutions. First of all, in 1973, the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity, punishable under the 1988 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Systematic racial discrimination is a crime that should not be aided and abetted, and the Israeli entity has been declared an apartheid regime by six independent reports. As jurists Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley (2017) point out, “States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end.” That duty militates against recognition of or support for the apartheid regime as a ‘state’. Second, while the South African apartheid regime tried to present the Bantustan enclaves as some form of ‘self-determination’, this was rejected both by black South Africans and the United Nations. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said tribal enclaves had nothing to do with the South African reality, “we are thoroughly detribalized, it is the government of South Africa that has sought to exacerbate tribal feelings." The Bantustan policy and practice aimed at reinforcing apartheid by forcing the majority black African population into 13% of the country’s land, with few resources and basic services. Yet collaborating chiefs like Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu were relied on to present a veneer of tribal ‘independence’. This Bantustan policy, including the third class ‘Bantu education’ system which began in the 1950s and catalyzed huge protests, was said to be “the logical territorial extension of apartheid as both a general policy and a way of life for whites as a single preferred tribe over blacks as an inferior collection of tribes." In the 1970s, three UN resolutions were passed, which condemned the Bantustan policy. In 1971, General Assembly Resolution 2775 E (XXVI) on the Establishment of Bantustans condemned the practice as “in pursuance of apartheid," “violating the right to self-determination,” and “prejudicial to territorial integrity." In 1975, General Assembly Resolution 3411 D (XXX) on Apartheid again condemned the Bantustan policy, and in 1976, the General Assembly unanimously (with the USA abstaining) passed Resolution 31/6 which condemned the designation of an “independent” Transkei Bantustan as “sham independence”, calling on all governments to not recognize it and to prohibit dealings with the artificial entity. The UN, thus, authoritatively condemned the creation of small subordinate enclaves in place of national self-determination for black South Africans. Just as Apartheid South Africa tried to force the majority Black population into 13% of the country’s land, so the Israelis have forced Palestinians into increasingly restricted enclaves, all of which are controlled by the Israeli regime. While the Palestinian Arab population today, according to Israeli officials, is about the same as the Jewish, the Israeli population's control of land and resources is massively unequal. The so-called Palestinian Territories comprise about 22% of historic Palestine and, of that, more than half is zoned to be under exclusive Israeli control Anera. Zionist apologists try to justify the steady land theft by saying, first of all, that the Israelis acquired that land by military conquest (in the post-colonial era, UNSC 242 declared such claims null and void) and second, that Palestinians somehow acquired control over land for “the first time” under the Oslo Accords. In fact, Palestinians lost even more land to Israeli "annexation" after the Oslo Accords. The Israeli lobby has relentlessly abused Chief Mandla Mandela. Responding to his accusations that "Israel" had “committed genocide and crimes against humanity," Tali Feinberg claimed that Mandla’s “anti-Israel vitriol contrasts with his grandfather’s legacy.” Indeed, Nelson Mandela met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Ezer Weizman and said, in 1999, “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognise Israel within secure borders." Feinberg blames Mandla’s anti-"Israel" stance on his conversion to Islam. However, Nelson Mandla was responding to the circumstances of the early 1990s, when his friend Yasser Arafat was engaged in the Oslo Accords, and no reports on the Apartheid character of the Israeli colonial regime had yet emerged. After the failure of the Oslo agreements to produce any benefit, and after six independent reports branding "Israel" as apartheid regime, Chief Mandla is justified in adjusting his response. Support for the armed, as well as civil resistance in Palestine, has been a feature of Chief Mandla Mandela’s advocacy. It was his grandfather, after all, who created uMkhonto we Siswe (MK, the spear of the nation), the armed wing of the ANC, when all other avenues had failed. So, at a time when Western regimes try to brand all Palestinian Resistance as ‘terrorism’, Chief Mandela has urged the factions “to come together and have joint operations” to defend their land. He also backed the call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions on the Israeli regime. After the December 2023 conference in Johannesburg, Mandla Mandela stood alongside leaders of various Palestinian Resistance factions at Government House in Pretoria. Recalling his grandfather’s famous quote, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians," Mandla Mandela recognized that Palestinians had the “absolute right” to the land of their forefathers using all available means, including armed resistance. Chief Mandela made it very clear that the call for a true and meaningful liberation for Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea was one that means a one-state solution for indigenous Palestinians including the inalienable right of return for over seven million refugees and their descendants, displaced since 1948. Mandla Mandela called on South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to abandon the “two-state delusion” in favor of a single democratic state for all indigenous peoples of Palestine, abandoning separate development, racism, and apartheid in occupied Palestine. South African veterans and leaders have a unique experience and moral authority to denounce Bantustan-like proposals that divert the Palestinian struggle from its emancipatory goals. https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/rejecting-the-bantustan--two-state-solution---mandla-mandela

Israel’s strategy is “cold and calculated, and lacks any sense of decency” – Day 60 [email protected] December 5, 2023 ethnic cleansing, Gaza, hamas, humanitarian aid, Israel, tunnel Israel’s strategy is “cold and calculated, and lacks any sense of decency” – Day 60 UNICEF spokesperson says alleged Gaza safe zones are ‘zones of death’ In a Sky News interview, UNICEF spokesperson James Elder says Israel’s proclaimed ‘safe zones’ in Gaza are ‘zones of death’ with increased risk for disease. Elder says Israeli authorities are fully aware of the dire consequences in the alleged safe zones, and that the decision to push 80% of the population into a zone that is 4% the size of Gaza is ‘cold’ and ‘calculated’ and lacks ‘any sense of decency’. Khan Younis and Rafah: Monday night was terrifying for residents of Khan Younis and Rafah, and 1.5 million evacuees. Since early yesterday evening, there has been non-stop heavy artillery shelling, relentless air strikes and mass bombardment. The vast majority of residential homes and public facilities – schools, hospitals, medical centers and shops – in the eastern side of Khan Younis, have been completely destroyed. At the same time, people were ordered to evacuate in the middle of the night and early hours of this morning under heavy bombardment. As ambulances tried to get to the eastern side of Khan Younis to Abasan al-Kabira and Bani Suheila, where people were stranded and caught under the heavy bombardment, they were shot at and could not evacuate any of the injured or bring out any of those who were killed overnight. The Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis has called for blood donations due to the high number of severely injured patients arriving every hour. Twenty-six out of 35 hospitals in Gaza are currently out of service, and 52 out of 72 primary healthcare clinics have been shut down. Palestinian officials in Gaza say Israeli jets dropped phosphorus bombs north and east of Khan Younis. (Use of white phosphorus in civilian areas is considered a war crime due to its extremely dangerous effects on the human body. White phosphorus ignites instantly when in contact with oxygen. It can burn through the human body, including through bone, causing severe, excruciating damage. It can also cause extreme harm when inhaled, with risks of suffocation, cardiovascular failure, coma, death, and other lifelong effects. The substance burns at temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit.) Nasser hospital staff are stretched to their limits as casualties mount in southern Gaza, says UNICEF. Fifty-two of 72 primary healthcare clinics have shut down in Gaza. [Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters] (photo) Central Gaza: Israeli jets targeted the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza this morning. Bombing began around 6:05am (04:05 GMT) while most residents were asleep, leading to a total “state of panic”. At least 15 houses were “completely destroyed” more than 15 people were killed, including children. Many wounded are still trapped under the rubble. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has shared footage of the moment an Israeli artillery tank targeted the vicinity of two ambulances in Gaza. PRCS said the two ambulances were attending to casualties in Deir el-Balah, southern Gaza. Northern Gaza: Gaza’s health ministry is warning of a “massacre” at Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, where Israeli tanks and snipers are reportedly surrounding the facility and “shooting at anyone who moves”; Israeli forces have already killed 108 civilians and injured dozens in the hospital’s vicinity. Munir al-Bursh, director-general of the Health Ministry in Gaza, said, The Israeli occupation forces have laid siege to the facility from all sides. Patients and those who took shelter here are gripped with fear and overwhelmed by horror. The Israeli forces are attacking with the aim of forcibly removing all those inside the hospital. These are patients, victims and displaced civilians. We, the medical staff, are holding our ground. We are standing by our patients. We will continue to serve our people by all means left here at Kamal Adwan Hospital. UN says no place is safe: The United Nations warns that creating “so-called safe zones” for civilians to flee to within the Gaza Strip is impossible amid Israel’s bombing campaign. The Israeli army, which initially focused much of its offensive on the north of the enclave, has now dropped leaflets on parts of the south, telling Palestinian civilians there to flee to other areas. “The so-called safe zones … are not scientific, they are not rational, they are not possible, and I think the authorities are aware of this,” said UNICEF spokesperson James Elder. Journalists face grave threats: The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that 63 journalists and media workers have been killed since October 7. The overall death toll includes 56 Palestinians, four Israelis and three Lebanese nationals. Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, said, CPJ emphasizes that journalists are civilians doing important work during times of crisis and must not be targeted by warring parties. Journalists across the region are making great sacrifices to cover this heart-breaking conflict. Those in Gaza, in particular, have paid, and continue to pay, an unprecedented toll and face exponential threats. Humanitarian update UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said the resumption of the Israeli military operation and its expansion further in southern Gaza is repeating horrors from past weeks. He added, The latest developments are further strangling the humanitarian operation, with limited supplies going in and complex logistical and coordination arrangements that slow down and at times obstruct the flow. The Israeli Authorities continue to restrict the flow of humanitarian supplies, including fuel, forcing the UN to only use the ill-equipped crossing point with Egypt. We call on the State of Israel to reopen Kerem Shalom and other crossings and facilitate the unconditional, uninterrupted and meaningful delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance. The failure to do so violates international humanitarian law. On 4 December, 100 aid trucks carrying humanitarian supplies and 69,000 litres of fuel entered from Egypt into Gaza, about the same as the previous day. This is well below the daily average of 170 trucks and 110,000 litres of fuel that had entered during the humanitarian pause implemented between 24 and 30 November. On 4 December, for the second consecutive day, Rafah was the only governorate in Gaza where limited aid distributions, primarily of flour and water, took place. On 4 December at about 20:30, the main telecommunication provider in Gaza announced that all telecom services had shut down due to cuts in the main fibre routes. This followed a partial shutdown in Gaza city and northern Gaza a few hours earlier due to ongoing hostilities. Humanitarian agencies and first responders have warned that blackouts jeopardize the already constrained provision of life-saving assistance. Al-Azhar University of Gaza before and after Israel bombed the institution Al-Azhar University of Gaza before and after Israel bombed the institution. The university was built in 1991 (photo) Other Gaza updates Agriculture destroyed: Human Rights Watch (HRW) has found that orchards, greenhouses and farmland have been razed due to Israel’s ground invasion in the north of Gaza. In Beit Hanoun in northeast Gaza, what was once green agricultural land has now become “brown and desolate”, increasing concerns about food insecurity and the loss of livelihoods. The razing continued during the seven-day truce and satellite imagery showed the destruction of farmland by Israel’s use of bulldozers to carve new roads for its armored vehicles. Israel set to possibly flood Gaza’s tunnel system: the Wall Street Journal reports: Israel has assembled a system of large pumps it could use to flood Hamas’s vast network of tunnels under the Gaza Strip with seawater, a tactic that could destroy the tunnels and drive the fighters from their underground refuge but also threaten Gaza’s water supply, U.S. officials said. The Israel Defense Forces finished assembling large seawater pumps roughly one mile north of the Al-Shati refugee camp around the middle of last month. Each of at least five pumps can draw water from the Mediterranean Sea and move thousands of cubic meters of water per hour into the tunnels, flooding them within weeks. Sentiment inside the U.S. was mixed. Some U.S. officials privately expressed concern about the plan, while other officials said the U.S. supports the disabling of the tunnels and said there wasn’t necessarily any U.S. opposition to the plan. The Israelis have identified about 800 tunnels so far, though they acknowledge the network is bigger than that. Because it isn’t clear how permeable the tunnels are or how much seawater would seep into the soil and to what effect, it is hard to fully assess the impact of pumping seawater into the tunnels, said Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s hard to tell what pumping seawater will do to the existing water and sewage infrastructure. It is hard to tell what it will do to groundwater reserves. And it’s hard to tell the impact on the stability of nearby buildings,” Alterman said. RECOMMENDED READING: ICRC president describes human suffering in Gaza as ‘intolerable’ Attacks on southern Gaza promise to be “worse” than north: Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, has been saying that what will come to the southern part of the Gaza Strip will not only be equal to what we saw in the north but, actually, even worse. He says the army is going to continue its ground operation inside of the northern part of the Gaza Strip. He also said that Israeli troops are going to remain stationed there until every single Hamas target – infrastructure and fighters – is eliminated. Palestinians mourn the death of loved ones who were killed by Israeli bombardment in the southern Gaza Strip Palestinians mourn the death of loved ones who were killed by Israeli bombardment in the southern Gaza Strip (photo) RECOMMENDED READING: Is Israel’s Gaza bombing also a war on the climate? West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel news Israeli settlers break into Jerusalem’s Aqsa mosque: Dozens of fanatic Israeli settlers Tuesday morning broke into the compounds of al-Aqsa Mosque under heavy protection from the Israeli police. The extremist settlers divided into groups, raided the holy Islamic Mosque from al-Maghariba gate and took provocative tours in its compounds. The settlers performed Talmudic rituals in the eastern part of the Mosque. Jerusalem Palestinian killed: A Palestinian was Tuesday morning killed, while his brother was detained, by Israeli forces during a raid in Qalandia camp, north of occupied Jerusalem. Witnesses said that the occupation forces violently stormed Manasra’s and blew up the door of the house just as he was about to open it, with a bomb that disintegrated his body. The occupation forces later detained his brother before they withdrew. Israel says Jerusalemite children released in recent prisoner swap can’t go back to school: Families of the child prisoners released in the recent exchange deal said that the schools’ administrations affiliated with the so-called Israeli Ministry of Education and the occupation municipality in Jerusalem refused the return of their children to school. 2 Palestinians killed Monday night: Two Palestinian youths was Monday evening killed after they were shot by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Sa’ir, northeast of Hebron. The Ministry of Health said that Anas Ismail al-Froukh, 23, and Mohammad Saa’di al-Frouk, 22, died due to their severe injuries by Israeli forces. Major new settlement plan approved for occupied East Jerusalem: Ir Amim, an organization that focuses on the Israel-Palestine conflict in Jerusalem, says that amid the ongoing war in Gaza, Israel is seeking to expand the settler presence in occupied East Jerusalem. “Today, officials shockingly announced the approval of the Lower Aqueduct plan – the first major new settlement plan to be fully approved in East Jerusalem since [the settlement of] Givat Hamatos in 2012,” the group said. This plan has disastrous ramifications, the group said, predicting “It will extend the Israeli settlement wedge along East Jerusalem’s southern boundary, further sealing [it] off from the southern West Bank, while fracturing the Palestinian space and depleting more vacant land for Palestinian development.” Israel says three more soldiers were killed during fighting on Tuesday and four others were seriously injured in various battles in northern Gaza. More than 80 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since the start of the ground invasion of the Palestinian enclave, the UN said on Tuesday, citing official Israeli sources. It was not known if the latest deaths announced by Israel were part of that total. RECOMMENDED VIEWING: Watch: Debunking Israel’s “mass rape” propaganda The firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups towards Israeli population centers has continued over the past 24 hours, with no reported fatalities. (Information on rocket attacks is here.) It appears that the last time a rocket killed an Israeli was October 7-8, as reported by Ha’aretz and the Times of Israel. 15 Israelis were killed – 10 of them Palestinian Israelis who reportedly had no access to bomb shelters. Rockets have killed a total of 35 Israelis over the 22 years they’ve been fired,. Elsewhere Resigned US State Department official reveals details of child rape case in Israeli prison, calls for accountability: In a CNN interview, former US State Department official Josh Paul discloses a troubling incident involving the alleged rape of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy in an Israeli prison. The State Department’s inquiry into the case resulted in Israeli officials shutting down the charity involved in bringing the case to light. Paul condemned ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank and called for accountability. He questioned the US foreign policy’s impact on global perceptions and whether the US is using its ‘leverage’ to end the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Josh Paul resigned from the US State Department in October over the Biden administration’s decision to continue sending weapons and ammunition to Israel following the Israeli war on Gaza. More pro-Israel legislation: A week after US lawmakers expressed frustration in having to vote for yet another pro-Israel resolution, the House is expected to vote again this week to declare anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, in a new bill which critics say will further undermine free speech protected by the US constitution. House Resolution 894 — introduced by Jewish Republicans, Representative David Kustoff (Tenn.) and Max Miller (Ohio) – “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” The bill embraces the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) so called working definition of anti-Semitism, which, while not explicitly mentioning anti-Zionism, includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor,” as anti-Semitic. Some Democratic senators say that Israel’s military must adopt substantive measures to lessen civilian deaths in Gaza as part of receiving the supplemental $14.3 billion in US aid for Israel’s war, but only a few call for a ceasefire (Bernie Sanders is not among them). House Resolution 786 calling for a ceasefire has 17 cosponsors. (Bernie Sanders is not among them.) Poll shows split support in US for Israel’s war on Gaza: A survey by US polling agency Gallup shows among members of US President Joe Biden’s Democratic Party, only 36 percent support the war as opposed to 71 percent among opposition Republican Party members. Biden received a 32 percent approval rating for his handling of the Gaza conflict. Also, four in 10 Americans surveyed say the US is sending too little aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. Statistics as of Dec. 4: Palestinian death toll: OCHA reports at least 15,688* (~15,428 in Gaza** (4,257 women and 6,387 children), and at least 260 in the West Bank). This does not include an estimated 7,000 more still buried under rubble. Euro-Med Monitor reports 20,360 Palestinian deaths. *IAK does not yet include 471 Gazans killed in the Al Ahli hospital blast since the source of the projectile is being disputed; although much evidence points to Israel as the culprit, experts are still looking into the incident. Israel is blocking an international investigation. Israel killed more Palestinians in a little over a month after Oct. 7 than in all the previous 22 years combined. Palestinian injuries: 44,595** (including at least 42,000 in Gaza** and 3,365 in the West Bank). **NOTE: it is impossible to offer an accurate number of injuries in Gaza due to the ongoing bombardment and communication disruption. It remains unknown how many Americans are among the casualties. in Gaza**. About 1.8 million people have been displaced (nearly 80% of the population). Reported Israeli death toll ~1,200 (7 killed in West Bank, 80 in Gaza), including 32 Americans, and 5,431 injured, approximately 30 children). NOTE: It is unknown at this time how many of the deaths and injuries in Israel may have been caused by Israeli soldiers; additionally, since Israel has a policy of universal conscription, it is unknown how many of those attending the outdoor rave a few miles from Gaza on stolen Palestinian land were Israeli soldiers. Find previous daily casualty figures and daily news updates here. For more news, go here and here.**** Live broadcast news from the region is here. RELATED READING: US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year Gaza Civilians, Under Israeli Barrage, Are Being Killed at Historic Pace Israel has lost control of the narrative – October 7 truths coming out Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war What media reports fail to tell you about October 7 More Palestinians killed in past 34 days than in the past 22 years combined https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-strategy-cold-calculated-lacks-decency-day-60/

Israeli child “burned completely” by Israeli tank fire at kibbutz Ali Abunimah and David Sheen The Electronic Intifada 25 November 2023 Photo portrait of a girl with curly hair Israeli girl Liel Hatsroni, 12, was killed after Israeli forces used a tank to shell a house in Kibbutz Be’eri on 7 October, according to an Israeli who survived the violence. (via Twitter) An Israeli child completely incinerated at Kibbutz Be’eri was killed by two tank shells shot by Israeli forces at the end of an hours-long gun battle, a survivor of the same carnage told the Israeli state broadcaster Kan earlier this month. Yasmin Porat, taken captive with at least a dozen other Israeli civilians on 7 October, told Kan radio that a fellow captive, 12-year-old Liel Hatsroni, survived to the end of the battle and only died when Israeli forces fired two tank shells at the house where they were held hostage by Hamas fighters. Hatsroni’s obliteration by Israeli tank fire emerged this month after her family decided to mourn her with a public funeral, even though the government had not officially pronounced her dead. Although Hatsroni’s 69-year-old grandfather Aviyah and twin brother Yanai were buried two weeks after their deaths on 7 October, her 73-year-old aunt and guardian Ayala was only buried on 15 November, the day after Israel officially declared her dead. On that day the Hatsroni family also held funeral rites for Liel, though the state still listed her as missing because “to this day they have not found any of her remains,” Yasmin Porat told Kan on 15 November. You can listen to Porat speak in that interview in this video, with English subtitles: Three days later, the Hatsroni family was informed that archaeologists working with the Kahanist-run Israel Antiquities Authority had finally identified Liel’s remains at the house, Ynet, an Israeli news site, reported. Although at least 50 people died in that particular bloodbath – and at least 10 of them were Israeli civilians – Porat herself left the battle intact, when one Hamas commander, out of a force that numbered about 40 fighters, surrendered. Israeli forces called to the scene instructed the Hamas commander to come out with Porat, effectively turning her into a human shield. “Two big booms” In her 15 November interview on Kan’s Kalman Liberman program, Porat recounts how, of the dozen or so Israelis she was held captive with on 7 October, only one other person – Be’eri resident Hadas Dagan – survived the ordeal. The two tank shells fired into the house at the very end of the battle killed both women’s partners, the young Liel Hatsroni and everyone else in the house who was still left alive up to then, she said. At around 7:30 pm, after some four hours of crossfire consisting of “hundreds of thousands of bullets,” Porat peered from behind Israeli lines and observed an Israeli tank firing two shells into the small kibbutz house. “I thought to myself, why are they shooting tank shells into the house,” Porat told Kan. “And I asked one of the people who was with me, why are they shooting? So they explained to me that it was to break the walls, in order to help purify the house.” At the time, the captive Hadas Dagan was caught for hours in the crossfire between the two sides, lying face down on the grassy lawn. When the Israeli tank shells hit, Dagan felt their impact throughout her whole body, she told Porat after finally emerging from the combat zone in tatters. “Yasmin, when the two big booms hit, I felt like I flew in the air,” Porat recalls a disheveled Dagan telling her minutes after the battle ended. Dagan was still covered in her husband’s blood, her hair standing on end, full of dust and styrofoam. “It took me two or three minutes to open my eyes, I didn’t feel my body. I was completely paralyzed,” Dagan told her, Porat says. Upon regaining consciousness, Dagan realized that the captives who had been lying on either side of her – her husband Adi Dagan and Porat’s partner, Tal Katz – had just died from tank shell shrapnel. “When I opened my eyes, I saw that my Adi is dying,” Porat recalls Dagan saying. “Your Tal also stopped moving at that point.” Though neither Porat nor Dagan witnessed the moment that fellow hostage Liel Hatsroni was incinerated by Israeli tank shells, they both immediately understood that she had died in the explosions, because after screaming for hours on end, since the beginning of the battle, she suddenly went silent. “I remember, when I was there for the first hour, she did not stop screaming,” Porat told Kan, and noted that her recollections of Hatsroni dovetailed with what Hadas Dagan told her. “The girl [Liel Hatsroni] did not stop screaming all those hours. She didn’t stop screaming,” Porat recalls Dagan telling her. “Yasmin, when those two shells hit, she stopped screaming. There was silence then.” “So what do you glean from that? That after that very massive incident, the shooting, which concluded with two shells, that is pretty much when everyone died,” Porat told Kan. Six weeks after the ordeal of 7 October, Porat concludes that Liel Hatsroni’s remains had yet to be recovered because Israeli tank shelling totally incinerated her and most of the house, finishing off many Hamas fighters and any other surviving captives. “Part of the house is torched. The house of Hadas and Adi [Dagan] no longer exists. I don’t know how that happened,” Porat said. “If you ask me, I estimate, based on what happened in other houses, she [Liel Hatsroni] apparently burned completely.” That Israel confirmed the death of Liel’s aunt Ayala only 38 days after 7 October suggests that she, too, was likely burned beyond recognition by Israeli tank shells. A day after Porat’s revelation on live radio that Liel Hatsroni had been torched to death by tank fire, an Israeli official confirmed that she was not nearly the only person incinerated by Israel on 7 October and in the days that immediately followed. Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev inadvertently admitted in a 16 November MSNBC interview that some 200 bodies Israel had claimed for weeks were those of Israelis burned to death by Palestinians were now known to be the bodies of Palestinian fighters burned to death by Israel. “We originally said, in the atrocious Hamas attack upon our people on October 7th, we had the number at 1,400 casualties and now we’ve revised that down to 1,200 because we understood that we’d overestimated, we made a mistake. There were actually bodies that were so badly burnt we thought they were ours, in the end apparently they were Hamas terrorists,” Regev told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan. Meanwhile, Hatsroni’s death is being used by Israeli politicians to incite and justify Israel’s vengeful slaughter of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza. Cracks in official narrative After burning the bodies of some 200 Palestinian fighters, 12-year-old Israeli Liel Hatsroni, and an unknown number of other Israeli civilians, then lying to the world about who burned them and using their deaths and suffering as a pretext to destroy Gaza and annihilate more than 14,000 Palestinians there so far, Israel is finally starting to come clean about its actual contribution to the death toll on that horrific day. Last week, Israeli daily Haaretz reported that a police investigation into the events of 7 October “indicates that an IDF [Israeli military] combat helicopter that arrived to the scene and fired at terrorists there apparently also hit some festival participants” at the Supernova rave held near the Gaza boundary that day. Another police source criticized Haaretz and appeared to row back the statement the following day, but did not deny that Israel had killed some Israelis. The first cracks in the official Israeli narrative about 7 October came from testimony by Yasmin Porat, a 44-year-old mother of three who fled the Supernova rave with her partner Tal Katz and found temporary shelter at Kibbutz Be’eri with local residents Adi and Hadas Dagan – until mid-afternoon. At that point, Hamas fighters captured all four and took them next door, pooling them with another group of eight or more kibbutz residents. In her initial interview with Kan on 15 October, first reported in English by The Electronic Intifada the following day, Porat revealed that at least some of the dozen-plus Israelis held hostage with her at Be’eri died as a result of Israeli gunfire. Asked by Kan radio host Aryeh Golan if some of the Israeli casualties of that battle had died by friendly fire, Porat answered “undoubtedly.” Porat also told Kan and other Israeli media outlets that she and the other Israelis were not mistreated while held by Hamas fighters on 7 October. “They did not abuse us. They treated us very humanely,” Porat told Kan. “They give us something to drink here and there. When they see we are nervous they calm us down. It was very frightening but no one treated us violently.” The goal of her Hamas captors was to trade captives for Palestinian prisoners incarcerated by Israel, Porat insists. The 40 or so Hamas fighters who held the Israelis captive for six hours intended to take Porat and the other Israelis back to Gaza – and indeed, they could easily have done so, she said. The fighters mistakenly assumed, however, that Israeli forces caught by surprise at dawn would have already regrouped by midday and encircled their position by the afternoon. “They could have left with us back and forth 10 times,” said Porat. There is an increasing body of evidence that either through recklessness or by design, Israeli forces were responsible for killing a not insignificant number of Israelis on and after 7 October. Yasmin Porat has, by now, been interviewed by just about every Israeli mainstream media outlet, but it still seems as if Israel isn’t listening to her. Porat and Hadas Dagan, the only survivors from their group of captives, affirm that two Israeli tank shells set the house they were held in on fire and killed at least three of the people in their group: both of their partners and 12-year-old Liel Hatsroni. In announcing Hatsroni’s death last week , Ynet nevertheless concluded that Hamas fighters “murdered everyone. Afterwards, they torched the house.” Ali Abunimah is executive director of The Electronic Intifada. David Sheen is the author of Kahanism and American Politics: The Democratic Party’s Decades-Long Courtship of Racist Fanatics. Transcript of Yasmin Porat interview Source: Kan Radio Kalman Liberman Program Date: 15 November 2023, 9:18 AM Yasmin Porat: We come out and suddenly there was a very tense ceasefire. All of the weapons were pointed at us. All the Hamas were pointing at me and him. He begins disrobing while walking, he removes underwear, socks and undershirt, leaving him naked as the day he was born. That’s how we start walking in front of everyone, with him naked and me in front of him as a human shield. At that time, when we pass the living room and the porch with the dining area, where we were previously, then I go out to the yard. And there I recognize my [partner] Tal, Hadas, Adi Dagan and another Tal, the son of one couple, and another elderly couple, lying on the ground, the lawn, you can’t imagine what it looked like. Just spread out there. And full of shrapnel. Endless shooting and they are lying on the lawn, like corpses, but they were all still alive, you can see it. I managed while leaving to ask my Tal, “Tal are you okay?” and he lifted his head, and he was very frightened, because they didn’t even realize that I came out, because their heads were to the ground. Everyone put their heads to the ground to protect themselves. Kalman Liebskind (Host): You go outside with him, and where do you go? Yasmin Porat: And we walk the length of the yard, we reach the two rocks of the terraces, we climb them like so, and then we’re standing right on the road. We’re just across the street from the YAMAM [Israeli forces] and it’s a small road, a narrow road. Lots of police aiming their guns at us. They are shouting at him on the megaphone what I imagine was, “Let her go! Let her go!” We approach them a little more, he gives me a push, I quickly run to the police, they quickly arrest him. That’s the story of how I was saved. That’s where I was saved and held by the police. I stay with them for another three hours of battle. I simply crossed to the side of the police, but I stayed on the scene at Be’eri and at that incident until 8:30 PM. Asaf Liberman (Host): And the terrorist that released you, what did they do to him? Yasmin Porat: They arrested him. They arrested him and interrogated him. And by the way, today I know from the people who were there with me that he gave up lots of information, they got lots and lots of information from him that, in retrospect, saved many people, which we can say is heartening. Kalman Liebskind (Host): When you are saved, he crosses over to the side of the police, everyone you left behind, our people, are alive? Yasmin Porat: They stay in exactly the same situation, They are all alive. You know I didn’t count. If you had about 40 terrorists, you’re still left with 40 terrorists, because only one surrendered out of the 40. So it doesn’t change the balance of power. You stay in the same situation. Kalman Liebskind (Host): But there were about 15 of our people. Yasmin Porat: Great. So now they’re 14 with 39 terrorists, only two people left. And it was masses of people. And then I cross over to the police. And right away I tell them that I am able to talk, and that they can interrogate me and ask me whatever they want. And I did actually sit there with the commander of the unit, and I describe to him what the house looks like and where the terrorists are and where the hostages are. I actually draw for him: “Look, here, on the lawn there are four hostages that are lying this way on the lawn. Here are two that are lying under the terrace. And in the living room there is a woman lying like this, and a woman lying like this.” And I tell them about the twins [Yanai and Liel Hatsroni] and [their guardian and aunt Ayala Hatsroni], I didn’t see them. You know what, really, when I leave, they are the only ones I don’t see. I heard Liel the whole time, so I know for certain that they were there. I believe they were to my left – never mind. I tried to explain to them that from somewhere near the kitchen is where I heard the screams coming from. I don’t see her, but I hear her, and I hear where the screams are coming from. I tried to explain to them where all the hostages were. Obviously there were more terrorists in the house than hostages. The terrorists were in the reinforced safe room, they were in the bathroom, they were spread out under the whole terrace, under a living room window that gave protection. There was a window that protected from bullets, so lots of terrorists sat under it. Let’s say they grabbed the better spots to hide. I remain there during those three hours, they interrogate me at least three to four times to understand what the house looks like and what to do, and how many hostages there are. And you see that they just don’t understand the scale of it. The first time I tell them that there are about 40 terrorists, they tell me, “It can’t be. It seems like you’re exaggerating.” They don’t say it [disparagingly]. “Look here at us, we are forty,” I tell them. “There’s more of them than you.’ They didn’t believe me! Our army was also still naive. Kalman Liebskind (Host): So even at that stage, the police did not grasp the magnitude of the event. Yasmin Porat: It did not grasp the magnitude of the event. When I say 40, they think maybe I’m exaggerating a little, that I’m hysterical. Asaf Liberman (Host): Wow. Yasmin Porat: That’s it. And now I’m connecting you to a little bit of the testimony of Hadas Dagan. It was not a testimony, I mean that I spoke to her personally, to understand what happened to my partner. Because in the end he was killed next to her, and I wanted to understand. And then through that story I also heard the answer about Liel, more or less. In any case, I leave. Understand, everyone [else] stays there. A battle takes place. Now they know more details than me. And the battle doesn’t end. There were attempts at a negotiation. Even that terrorist that surrendered spoke on the megaphone with his friends, in order to try to maybe convince them. Kalman Liebskind (Host): For the [Israeli] police, this time. Yasmin Porat: Yes, for the [Israeli] police, he speaks on the megaphone in Arabic, while naked. He screams at them. It was really … you know. And they aren’t convinced. Kalman Liebskind (Host): Can I say something here in parentheses, Yasmin? We must assume that had this large group that was with you, this group of terrorists, known how good its position was on the kibbutz – were it elsewhere on the kibbutz, this story would have ended differently, right? Yasmin Porat: You mean if they had known… Kalman Liebskind (Host): That they could have just taken you and kidnapped you! Yasmin Porat: Ah yes, yes, yes. Kalman Liebskind (Host): They don’t have to negotiate with anyone, they don’t have to call 100 for the police. Nothing! Yasmin Porat: Look, the first … Today we see the whole kidnapping story. You see that most of the kidnappings occurred in the morning, at 10, 11, 12 o’clock. By 3 [pm], like every [Israeli] citizen could, they think that the army is already everywhere. They could have left with us back and forth 10 times. But they didn’t believe that was the situation, so they asked for the police. In any case, I’ll cut it short for you. For another three hours, I am at a very intense battle. But now I am on the side of the so-called good guys. But everyone else is under very, very heavy crossfire, with terrorists who I understood were not cooperating, and were saying, “if you don’t let us leave alive, then everyone dies.” And at a certain point, a tank arrives opposite the house. I think it was 7 or 7:30 pm. Understand, it was still daylight saving time, and it was starting to get dark. And I thought to myself, why are they shooting tank shells into the house. And I asked one of the people who was with me, why are they shooting? So they explained to me that it was to break the walls, in order to help purify the house. I will now turn for a bit to my conversation with Hadas. I know Hadas Dagan, who as I explained was one of four people lying down outside next to each other. And another two lay down under the terrace. Kalman Liebskind (Host): I remind you that Hadas was the lady of the house [where they were originally caught by Hamas fighters]. Yasmin Porat: Yes. The lady of the house Hadas Dagan. She believes there were two booms. I know there were the two shells shot by the tank. She didn’t even know that, because again, they can’t see anything. They are flat on the ground. She told me in these words: “Yasmin, when the two big booms hit, I felt like I flew in the air.” She felt that she died and came back to life. Briefly she feels she flew in the air and landed, though I don’t think that occurred. She told me, “It took me 2-3 minutes to open my eyes, I didn’t feel my body. I was completely paralyzed. When I opened my eyes, I saw that my Adi [Dagan] is dying.” His main artery was cut and he’s bleeding all over. She tells me she put her thumb on his main artery, but he was already dead. And then she told me, “Your Tal also stopped moving at that point,” because they lay on either side of her. Today I believe that they were human shields for her, naturally. They were two big guys and she is a small woman. They lay on her sides, and they just… Asaf Liberman (Host): Yasmin, there are two things that require clarification for a moment. Yasmin Porat: Yeah. Asaf Liberman (Host): At what stage, and how did all the hostages still held in the house die? And how does Hadas get out of there alive? Yasmin Porat: Right. Kalman Liebskind (Host): The only one. It must be said, from that whole event, only you and Hadas came out alive. Yasmin Porat: True. Understand the whole incident – I left there at 8:30 pm. I leave [the house], at 5:30 pm I am with the police. And I stay until 8:30 pm while there is a crazy battle. Hours of battle between the two sides. They’re all there! Understand. There were 4 people lying next to each other on the lawn in the garden. So they are always there, vulnerable to hundreds of thousands of bullets and shrapnel in the air there. There is no way to avoid damage from that. To tell you in the end who died by whose bullet? There is no way to know. It was from the crossfire. To my understanding. Because Hadas got out alive. And she says there were no executions, or anything like that. At least not the people with her. Because she tells me that after she got up from the two explosions, she lifted her head, or something like that, she felt that her husband was bleeding on her. She was covered in his blood. I also met her afterwards. And she also told me that my Tal who was lying down – he stopped moving by that point. And then, as I recall, she tells me this, she tells me: “The girl [12-year-old Liel Hatsroni] did not stop screaming all those hours. She didn’t stop screaming.” So I said, “I remember, when I was there for the first hour, she did not stop screaming.” And then she told me, “Yasmin, when those two shells hit, she stopped screaming. There was silence then.” So what do you glean from that? That after that very massive incident, the shooting, which concluded with two shells, that is pretty much when everyone died. At least that is what I know from my conversation with Hadas, who describes it. And she, for some reason, maybe because she is a small woman, and all the shrapnel flew at her husband and my partner, somehow she – listen, she did not look normal when she got out. She looked – I met her in the morning, and if you would have seen how she looked in the evening, it’s not the same person. But somehow she survived it. No shrapnel hit her. She was also hit by shrapnel, but no shrapnel hit her where – Asaf Liberman (Host): So all the terrorists were simply killed there? Yasmin Porat: They were all killed. All the hostages and all the terrorists. A house full of bodies. Understand… Asaf Liberman (Host): And Hadas somehow… Yasmin Porat: Somehow, out of all that killing, it’s like God wanted her to be with us and saved her. She walks away from all that inferno. When I saw her, she was– understand, when I met her in the morning, she was dressed nicely, her hair was combed, you know, a normal person. When she walked out of there, all her hair was on end, full of dust, with styrofoam in it. Asaf Liberman (Host): Do you understand why there was no determination that Liel died until yesterday? Yasmin Porat: I understood that to this day they have not found any of her remains. I think that some of the explosives there, they threw grenades and – I don’t know much about ammunition. Some of it was bigger than rifle bullets. I know they catch fire – and I also see now in photographs, part of the house is torched. The house of Hadas and Adi no longer exists. I don’t know how that happened. I can’t describe what these houses look like. Okay, you see it. If you ask me, I estimate, based on what happened in other houses, she apparently burned completely. She [Liel] did not flee from there. They did not kidnap her. I’m telling you, they did not get out of there. It was no longer the stage that anyone got out of there. No. We’re talking about 8:30 pm, total darkness, the house is burned, full of – at that point there was a lot of army there. YAMAM and MATKAL and they surrounded the house. That means that Liel could not have gotten out of there. And Hadas, who was there for all four hours of the battle, recalls that she didn’t stop screaming, the girl [Liel Hatsroni]. And suddenly she stops. Asaf Liberman (Host): Okay. Kalman Liebskind (Host): Yasmin Porat. Yasmin, thanks a lot for the– Yasmin Porat: Thanks to you. Kalman Liebskind (Host): -for sharing with us this really crazy story. Yasmin Porat: [Sighs]. Yes. Thank you, and may we only know better days. Kalman Liebskind (Host): Only better days. Asaf Liberman (Host): Thank you Yasmin. Thank you very much. Yasmin Porat Liel Hatsroni Operation Al-Aqsa Flood Kibbutz Be'eri https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-child-burned-completely-israeli-tank-fire-kibbutz/41706

‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 51: Israel fires at Palestinians attempting to return to northern Gaza amid shaky truce Israeli forces killed a Palestinian in Al-Maghazi refugee camp and shot at people attempting to inspect their homes amid the shaky temporary truce. Israel also killed five Palestinians during a 14-hour raid in the West Bank city of Jenin. Mustafa Abu SneinehNovember 26, 2023 Palestinians amid the complete destruction from Israeli attacks in Nusairat during the 4-day truce in Gaza, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images) Palestinians amid the complete destruction from Israeli attacks in Nusairat during the 4-day truce in Gaza, November 25, 2023. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images) Casualties 15,000 killed*, including 6,150 children, and 33,000 wounded in Gaza Strip. 235 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,200 *This figure is based on an estimate as reported by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa on October 26. Due to breakdowns in communication networks within the Gaza Strip (particularly in northern Gaza), the Gaza Ministry of Health has not been able to regularly update its tolls. Key Developments The prisoners and captives exchange on Saturday was delayed several hours due to a dispute over aid trucks not reaching the northern Gaza Strip and the release of two Israeli captives, who could not be located. 39 Palestinians were released from Israeli prisons, 33 are or were children at the time of their arrest. Hamas released 13 Israelis and four Thai citizens. Hamas offered to release two women instead of the captives’ relatives, who could not be tracked, but Israeli officials did not approve it, and 13 captives instead of 15 were released, Kan News reported. Four of the Thai citizens were foreign workers in the agricultural farms, and they were not a core part of the exchange deal. Prior to the prisoners’ release, four Palestinians were injured with live bullets near Ofer prison in a confrontation with Israeli forces, who also shot tear gas at journalists covering the story. Israeli forces warned Palestinians against returning to the north of the Gaza Strip and to remain 1 kilometer away from the checkpoint on Salah El-Deen Street; those who attempted to return to Gaza City were shot at, according to Al-Jazeera. The Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia which was under siege by Israeli tanks for the past week, was emptied on Sunday from its remaining patients and medical staff. Five Palestinians were killed in Jenin refugee camp, and Israel launched ten drone strikes in the city during a 14-hour raid operation. Palestinian prisoners and Israeli captives exchanged at the eleventh hour as truce appeared in danger The temporary truce in the Gaza Strip appeared in danger on Saturday evening as the release of captives and prisoners kept being delayed till the eleventh hour. Eventually, Hamas released 13 Israelis and four Thai citizens less than an hour before midnight, and later, Israel freed 39 Palestinian women and children from prisons. Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson told CNN on Saturday afternoon that they were working to overcome the obstacles through mediation. The dispute involved aid trucks not reaching the northern Gaza Strip and the release of two Israeli captives. Hamas said in a statement that it was delaying the release of captives until Israel allowed aid convoys to enter Gaza City and its environs, which were carpet-bombed for 49 days, flattening entire neighborhoods and killing thousands of people. The resistance group also said that the short pause of fighting would be in danger if Israel did not adhere to the agreement of freeing Palestinian prisoners, starting with those who were detained for the longest number of years. On Sunday morning, Kan News reported that Hamas’s inability to locate two Israeli captives was another cause of the delay. As part of the truce deal, Hamas agreed to release entire Israeli families who had been taken captive together rather than separating family members. However, Kan reported that Hamas could not locate the mother and brother of two of the captives who were released on Saturday night. Israeli officials insisted that those captives’ relatives be found, adding hours of waiting. Hamas said early in October that due to the indiscriminate Israeli bombardments of Gaza Strip, the group could not locate all the captives, and that at least 50 of them died, and some are under the rubble. Kan reported that Hamas offered to release two women instead of the relatives, who could not be tracked, but Israeli officials did not approve it, and 13 captives instead of 15 were released. Four of the Thai citizens were foreign workers in the agricultural farms, and they were not a core part of the exchange deal. Among the released captives on Saturday was a nine-year-old Irish-Israeli girl, whose father told the CNN in early November that he received the news that she was “killed by Hamas.” On Sunday, she was the subject of a diplomatic row between Israel and Ireland, the only EU country whose politicians are outspokenly supportive of Palestinians. Ireland’s Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, tweeted: “This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family. An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered.” Varadkar’s tweet prompted a response from Eli Cohen, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said “Mr. Prime Minister, It seems you have lost your moral compass and need a reality check! Emily Hand was not ‘lost’, she was kidnapped by a terror organization… shame on you!”. The captives and prisoners exchange has not toned down Israeli officials rhetoric, who continue to threaten war on the Gaza Strip. According to Kan News, Israel’s army chief of staff, Herzi Halevi wrote to soldiers that upon the end of the temporary truce on Monday, “we will return to fight with full determination, for the continued release of the abductees until the dissolution of Hamas.” The third day of the truce is expected to see immense efforts from Qatar and Egypt mediators to ensure its success. Palestinians traveling south from the Zeitoun district on the southern outskirts of Gaza City on November 26, 2023, on the third day of a truce between Israel and Hamas. (Photo: Ahmed Ibrahim / APA Images) Palestinians traveling south from the Zeitoun district on the southern outskirts of Gaza City on November 26, 2023, on the third day of a truce between Israel and Hamas. (Photo: Ahmed Ibrahim / APA Images) Israeli forces shoot at Palestinians returning to inspect houses in northern Gaza Strip Despite the temporary truce, a Palestinian was killed and another injured on Sunday, east of Al-Maghazi refugee camp, according to Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS). Israeli forces warned Palestinians against returning to the northern Gaza Strip and to remain 1 kilometer away from the checkpoint on Salah El-Deen Street. Those who aimed to cross the checkpoint to Gaza City were shot at, according to Al-Jazeera. Several Palestinians were injured by Israeli bullets, three of them near the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia. For the past week, the hospital was under siege from Israeli tanks, and on Sunday it was emptied of the remaining patients and medical staff, Ashar Al-Qidra, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Health, told Al-Jazeera. Four other Palestinians were injured near Al-Quds Hosptial, Wafa reported. They were also checking their houses in Tel Al-Hawa. Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip displaced almost 1.7 million Palestinians. Some have attempted to return to inspect what happened to their neighborhoods and properties during the temporary truce and record the devastation with phone cameras to share with their families. The figure of those killed in Gaza Strip since October 7 was not updated on Sunday, but Wafa reports estimated that it reached 15,000 people, 6,150 children, and more than 4,000 women. At least 36,000 have been wounded. Released Palestinian prisoners are seen on a bus in the town of Beitunia close to the West Bank city of Ramallah, on Nov. 24, 2023. (Photo: © Ayman Nobani/Xinhua via ZUMA Press APAimages) Released Palestinian prisoners are seen on a bus in the town of Beitunia close to the West Bank city of Ramallah, on Nov. 24, 2023. (Photo: © Ayman Nobani/Xinhua via ZUMA Press APAimages) Israeli forces prevent any scenes of celebration of the released prisoners in Jerusalem Palestinian prisoners’ families waited till the early hours of Sunday in occupied Jerusalem and the towns of Al-Bireh and Beitunia in the occupied West Bank, to meet their freed relatives. Among them were 33 are or were children at the time of their arrest. Wafa news agency published a list of their names and imprisonment sentences. Wafa reported that five women and one child from Jerusalem were handed to their families at Al-Moskobiya detention and interrogation center. The rest were taken from Ofer military prison, near the City of Ramallah, to Al-Bireh and Al-Beitunia towns, where hundreds of Palestinians met them with joy, celebration, and calls for the resistance movements in Gaza to release all Palestinian prisoners in the Israeli jails, where at least 7,000 people are currently detained. However, prior to the prisoners’ release, four Palestinians were injured with live bullets near Ofer prison in a confrontation with Israeli forces, who also shot tear gas at journalists covering the story. In occupied Jerusalem, Israeli forces blocked relatives and well-wishers of freed prisoners from gathering at their houses and warned them of any scenes of joy. Al-Jazeera Arabic reported that on Thursday, Israeli forces confiscated candies and sweets from Palestinian prisoners’ houses to prevent celebration. Israa Al-Jaabis, who was detained since 2015 and suffers from severe burns to her hands and face, was one of the Jerusalemite prisoners whose family could not hang any decorations to welcome her. She told Al-Jazeera Arabic that her release was delayed for several hours and spoke of the horrible conditions and treatment the female prisoners were subjected to in Israeli jails. Shorouk Dwayyat from Jerusalem, who served nine years of a 16-year sentence before being released in the exchange, told Al-Jazeera that in the past several weeks, they saw an escalation of “repression, starvation, thirst, and the imposition of great overcrowding” by Israeli jailers. She added that she fears for the well-being of those female prisoners left behind, some of them under the age of 18, and the youngest was 12 years old. Omar Shweiki, who was 15 years old when he was arrested in November 2021 by Israeli forces, said that for the past 50 days, Israeli jailers prevented prisoners from exercising and that there are 13 and 15-year-old children currently detained. Since October 7, the Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners’ Affairs Commission warned that the Israel Prison Service is imposing punitive measures against Palestinian prisoners, including insufficient and low-quality food, denial of access to the exercise yard, daily power cuts, medical neglect, and restrictions on family visitation. Last week, Al-Jazeera reported that Israel is subjecting Palestinian prisoners and detainees to “psychological torture,” and forcing them to to kiss the Israeli flag, listen to the Israeli national anthem, and say “the State of Israel is Strong” during their detention. Israeli jailers will beat those who refuse to obey their orders. Six Palestinians have died inside Israeli jails since October 7. A view of damaged buildings and streets following an attack by Israeli forces using airstrikes with armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on Jenin refugee camp in Jenin, West Bank on November 26, 2023. (Photo: Mohammed Nasser/APA Images) A view of damaged buildings and streets following an attack by Israeli forces using airstrikes with armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on Jenin refugee camp in Jenin, West Bank on November 26, 2023. (Photo: Mohammed Nasser/APA Images) Five Palestinians killed in Jenin, and Israeli forces arrested dozens in the West Bank Nine of the Palestinian prisoners released late on Saturday were from the town of Jenin, in the northern West Bank, which witnessed a violent Israeli raid that killed five and injured 14 people. Wafa reported that Israeli forces also arrested 11 others, among them two of the wounded, during a 14-hour raid operation on Jenin refugee camp that ended in the early hours of Sunday. Asaad Ali Al-Damj, 33, was killed by an Israeli drone attack on a house in the Al-Damj neighborhood in the Jenin camp. Ammar Muhammad Abu Al-Wafa, 21, Ahmed Abu Al-Haija, 20, Muhammad Mahmoud Freihat, 27, and Mahmoud Khaled Abu Al-Haija, 17, were killed in different locations in Jenin during the confrontation with Israeli forces. Wafa said that 10 Israeli drone attacks were launched on Palestinian homes and a charity in Jenin camp. The city announced a strike on Sunday to mourn its martyrs. In Nablus, Oday Misbah Snobar, 30, was killed during an Israeli raid of Yatma village. The Palestine Red Crescent said that Snobar was shot with a live bullet in the face was taken to the hospital, and later died. Since October 7, Israeli forces and settlers have killed 235 Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem, injured almost 3,000, and arrested 3,160 people. Before you go – we need your support At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-51-israel-fires-at-palestinians-attempting-to-return-to-northern-gaza-amid-shaky-truce/