Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Palestinians carry a dead girl, found under the rubble of a destroyed building in Khan Younis, Gaza, December 7, 2023 © AP / Mohammed Dahman

Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen

13 Mar, 2024 19:34

HomeWorld News

More children have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since October than have died in every global conflict between 2019 and 2022 combined, according to figures released by the UN on Tuesday.

Over 12,300 children have been reported killed in the Palestinian enclave since that time, UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) chief Philippe Lazzarini said, citing data from the UN and Gaza’s health ministry. Children account for almost half of the total death toll, which now exceeds 31,000.

Between the start of 2019 and the end of 2022, 12,193 children were killed in all armed conflicts globally, according to the figures.

“This war is a war on children. It is a war on their childhood and their future,” Lazzarini said, calling for an immediate ceasefire “for the sake of children in Gaza.”

Israel declared war on Hamas on October 7 after the Palestinian militants killed more than 1,100 people and took around 250 hostages in a surprise attack on the Jewish state. Israel responded with a relentless air campaign before sending troops and armor into Gaza later that month. Within a month, more civilians had died there than in almost two years of fighting in Ukraine, according to UN data from both conflicts.

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he would defy pressure from the US and invade the city of Rafah in the south of the enclave, where more than a million Gazans displaced from the north have been sheltering.

The UN has warned that an Israeli assault on Rafah “could lead to a slaughter” of civilians.

Despite the mounting death toll, Netanyahu claimed on Tuesday that the Israeli military has “taken measures to minimize civilian casualties that no other army has taken in history.”

An Israeli airstrike hit a UNRWA aid distribution center in Rafah later on Tuesday night, the agency said on Wednesday. With a quarter of Gaza’s residents at risk of famine and the territory’s health ministry reporting the deaths of at least 20 children from starvation, Lazzarini’s agency has repeatedly called on Israel to allow more food and humanitarian supplies to enter the besieged enclave.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen.

EDITORIAL | OUR PRAYER – HEAL OUR BROKEN HUMANITY

Please join me in the Lord’s Prayer (in plain English):

               7-13 “The world is full of prayer-ignorant prayer warriors. They’re full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don’t fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need.

               With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

               Our Father in Heaven,

               Reveal who you are.
               Set the world right;
               Do what’s best—
                   As above, so below.
               Keep us alive with three square meals.
               Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
               Keep us safe from ourselves and Evil.
               You’re in charge!
               You can do anything you want!
               You’re ablaze with beauty!
                   Yes. Yes. Yes.

               Matthew 6: 7-13 The Message Translation

The same Judaism of 2000 years ago reigns today.

Zionism, taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament and by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, rebukes the ‘Zionism’ reinvented by the Party of the Pharisees in Modern Israel.

The current Party of the Pharisees, comprised of zealous Jews and Christians, has rebranded Spiritual Zionism into ‘Israelism.’ Israelism rules and dominates the Israeli zeitgeist, beguiling and chaining many fanatical Jews and Christians into believing in something they are not. This aberration ruptures civility in Israel-Palestine and within the Christian Church.

Israelism has split many Jewish families apart. Worse, Israelists dare, in the glare of world television, torment and inter the indigenous Palestinians, many of whom are direct descendants of the Ancient Israelites, into concentrated encampments to live a hell on earth. Worldwide, extremist Christians join their Jewish ‘Chosen’ in singing hallelujahs and hosannas, praising God for their deliverance ... but of what?

Without the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there would be an internal Israeli conflict that inevitably could unglue their social fabric, now fragilely held intact by the fear-mongering against a common enemy.

What if a growing number of Israelis respond to the higher calling of becoming a ‘light among nations,' which President Abraham Lincoln refers to as ‘seeking the better angels of our nature,' and act accordingly as responsible citizens in the community of men and women? They will want nothing more than complete reconciliation with their Palestinian brothers and sisters.

The Children of Abraham—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—are chosen to become a light among nations. God’s Promised Land has always been a duality. Zion, the Promised Land, is meant to be physical and spiritual.

It is time for real Zionism ... “to reign with righteousness and justice.”

‘Biblical Zionism’ means doing God’s work, God’s people, ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and being exemplary in every way, the Light Among Nations. In short, bear witness; the walk, not the talk (Matthew 24: 14).

Zion has a broad spectrum of meaning that is more significant than any single entity or identity. Zion means ‘fortification.’ It is also known as the seat of power not just for the ‘kingdom’ of Ancient Israel but especially the [Spiritual] Kingdom of God. Zion is another name for Jerusalem, the ‘City of David’ but has always been superseded as ‘the City of God.” (Isaiah 52: 1-2, the “City of God,” the people of God becoming the “Light among nations.”

Jeremiah 31: 6, “Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God.” Mount Zion signifies the spiritual Kingdom of God as in Hebrews 12: 22: “You have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” ... the New Jerusalem that will descend out of heaven (Revelations 21: 10-26), the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit inside living temples not made of stone, the ‘heaven on earth.’

The word ‘Zion’ ranks among the most sacred words in Judaism and Christianity and is just as holy as the word ‘Jihad’ – striving in the path of God – with strikingly similar meanings and connotations. Zion and Jihad are but two words that connect Jews, Christians, and Muslims in our Abrahamic Faiths. Judaism and Islam are the two closest religions to each other. What’s more, for centuries, Jews and Muslims have lived in harmony side by side. Many classical works of Judaism are written in Arabic. Historically, both have lived a lot better together than within Christian realms.

Zionist leaders from David Ben Gurion to Binyamin Netanyahu have, under the Banner of Holy Goodness, taken many wrong turns in their territorial obsessions – their rage and blind ambitions – to expand their lebensraum. Instead of triumphing in peaceful harmony like the biblical Abraham, they have capitulated to ‘Israelism,’ a raging but unsustainable, radical nationalism, manifesting in criminal misconduct – steal, kill, and destroy (John 10: 10) –perpetrating heinous crimes against humanity. Israelism is on a collision course against their Judaic conscience. Zionism, meant to be the light in the world, has become a prayer without end.

Dear God, heal our broken world.

Guide all Jews, Christians, and Muslims to walk your ‘way,’ to talk your ‘truth,’ to live your ‘life,’ and greet each other with, "Welcome home."

HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS SUE DENMARK FOR WEAPONS EXPORT TO ISRAEL

"With the trial, we will test whether Denmark respects international law and the values we profess. We cannot ignore clear violations of humanitarian law, war crimes, and the warning of a potential genocide."

An Israeli F-35i of the 5601 testing squadron, bearing MK-84 bombs fitted with GBU-31 JDAM kit, July 2023. (Photo: Wikimedia)

By Jonathan Ofir
Mondoweis.net
12 March 2024

Three Danish NGOs, Amnesty International Denmark, Action Aid Denmark, and Oxfam Denmark, along with the Palestinian human rights NGO Al-Haq, have together filed a lawsuit against Denmark for its export of weapons to Israel.

The organization stated in a press release:

There is a clear risk that weapons and military equipment that Denmark, directly and indirectly, exports to Israel will be used to commit serious crimes against civilians in Gaza. In doing so, Denmark violates international rules on arms trade and risks becoming complicit in violations of international humanitarian law – including war crimes – and a plausible genocide.

A total of 15 Danish companies are currently supplying components for the F-35 fighter jets, which Israel is deploying for its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. The International Court of Justice notably deemed Israel to constitute genocide plausibly. Still, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen downplayed the ICJ order as a mere “raised a finger” to Israel. The Danish government has recently, as of January, also purchased artillery and rocket launchers worth over $250 million from the Israeli weapons giant Elbit.

Vibe Klarup, Secretary General of Amnesty International Denmark, said the organizations has documented Israeli bombings in Gaza that do not distinguish between civilian and military targets and have wiped out entire families. “The attacks are disproportionate and in violation of the rules of war,” Klarup is quoted as saying in a press release on the lawsuit. “Denmark must in no way contribute to making these illegal attacks on civilians possible. Therefore, we want the court to assess whether Denmark fulfills its obligations.”

Maha Abdallah, spokesperson for Al-Haq, added:

“These are severe and intensive attacks that are taking place in Gaza, where over 30,000 have been killed and 70,000 injured. Israel refuses to allow the population access to basic needs such as food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. We see indescribable suffering for civilians and children, amputations without anesthesia, and mass evacuations to horrific locations. Therefore, Al-Haq urges Denmark to stop arming the atrocities that are taking place and to stop the genocide of the Palestinian people.”

The Danish authorities have allowed Danish companies to export components for F-35 fighter jets through U.S.-led defense cooperation without conducting specific assessments of the risk of contributing to war crimes. The U.S. sells the finished fighter jets to Israel.

The current lawsuit targets the Danish National Police and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Tim Whyte, Secretary General of Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke [Action Aid Denmark], one of the organizations behind the lawsuit, said getting the court to adjudicate on Denmark’s responsibility is necessary.

“For five months, we have been talking about a potential genocide in Gaza, but we have not seen politicians take action,” said Whyte. “Denmark should not be sending weapons to Israel when there is a reasonable suspicion that it is committing war crimes in Gaza.”

The lawsuit follows the Dutch case, which relates to the exact mechanism for selling parts for the F-35 jets. Last month, a Dutch higher court ordered the government to halt sales of weapon parts that end up in Israel’s hands, overturning a lower court’s dismissal of the case in December. The government said it will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Lars Koch, Secretary General of Oxfam Denmark, says it is a matter of Denmark standing behind the values it professes to uphold.

“The people of Gaza are starving; hundreds of thousands of people cannot find water, food, medicine, or shelter, and 70 percent of all infrastructure has been destroyed in Gaza. Denmark must not supply weapons to bomb civilians. With the trial, we will test whether Denmark respects international law and the values we profess. We cannot ignore clear violations of humanitarian law, war crimes, and the warning of a potential genocide,” Koch explained.

These are significant developments concerning the challenging of the material military support to Israel, even under genocide, and the holding of governments responsible for their part in aiding and abetting genocide. In the U.S., a case against the Biden administration for failing to prevent genocide was dismissed by an Oakland court on jurisdictional grounds, and that hearing is being appealed. Even in rejecting the initial case against the Biden administration, the U.S. Federal court judge called upon the White House to reflect on its “unflagging support” for Israel’s assault and confirmed that the genocide charges were indeed “plausible,” as the ICJ had stated.

Jonathan Ofir is an Israeli musician, conductor, and blogger/writer in Denmark.

_________________________

Editor’s Note | I’m Skeptical

I am profoundly disturbed by the relationship between the US and Israel and between Biden and Bibi. Both claim they have known each other for fifty years and have been friends for over 50 years.

Who will survive whom, politically speaking?

In his State of the Union address on Thursday, President Biden once again emphasized his "lifelong support for Israel” but also his desire for a Palestinian state and more humanitarian aid.

Why not 50 years ago?

Because Israel is still blocking a Two-State Solution, President Biden wants to build a temporary pier to feed starving Gazans.

Why temporary? Is the Conflict temporary? Is Biden less powerful than Bibi?

I’m skeptical. How can Mr. Biden stomach ‘Zionism – for more than 50 years?’

In ‘An Ethical Tradition Betrayed: The End of Judaism,’ Holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer unambiguously asserted:

               “Zionism is to modern enlightened Judaism what Nazism was to Germany’s traditional values … that Zionism is seeking to dehumanize the Palestinians in the same way the Nazis sought to dehumanize me in the Auschwitz concentration camp.”

…

Remember 1956, October 29, 1956, to be exact?

We, Israelis, captured the Suez Canal. But Eisenhower whistled us back to the 1948 border and said:

               “There can be no peace without law, and there can be no law if we invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.…

               We judge no man by his name or inheritance.

               We judge other nations by what they do and for what they stand.”

Think of it: a Goy (Eisenhower) appealing to an old Bible-quoting Jew [Ben Gurion] to abide by law and justice and not resort to force.

Eisenhower said more:

               “Should a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of the United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”

The guy got what it takes.

It is time that the majority of Israelis who want peace must vote out corrupt ultra-nationalism and corrupt Judaism [the Party of the Pharisees eds.] from the government. And the ‘Good’ people of Israel must reconcile with the ‘Good’ people of Palestine.

The United States of America needs another Eisenhower in the White House.

Van Kempen, Abraham. Christian Zionism ... Enraptured Around a Golden Calf, 2nd Edition (Kindle Locations 246-2480; 1307-1318).

_________________________

BIDEN'S BIBI PROBLEM

Lessons from America’s anti-war past and a way out for today’s president

President Joe Biden shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 78th United Nations General Assembly in New York City on September 20, 2023. / Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images.

By Seymour Hersh

Substack.com
12 March 2024

In late 1967, the growing movement within the Democratic Party against the war in South Vietnam was looking for a leader to take on President Lyndon Johnson, who was increasing the number of troops in the war and intensifying the daily bombing. We now know from the available scholarship that Johnson, in his determination to do what Jack Kennedy had failed to do—force the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong in the South to give in to American firepower and seek a settlement on terms that would make his re-election inevitable—had steadfastly refused to halt American bombing, even for a few days, in response to hints from Hanoi about a possible ceasefire. Hanoi was insisting that there could be no talks as long as the bombing continued.

I had disclosed elements of the bombing, the intensity of which was little known, as a correspondent for the Associated Press in the Pentagon. My critical reporting on the war eventually led the AP editors, facing pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, to offer me a reassignment they knew I would reject. And so in late 1967, I was researching a book—that is to say, I was unemployed—when I was approached by a prominent critic of the war and told that Senator Robert Kennedy of New York was unlikely to challenge Johnson in the 1968 Democratic presidential primaries.

The growing anti-war movement in America, which I supported—South Vietnam was by then little more than a killing field with nearly 500,000 American troops at war—had finally found a senior Democrat in the Senate willing to take on Johnson. It was Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota. Like many moderate politicians from the Upper Midwest, he was a critic of communism but also dead set against the Vietnam War.

Would I serve as the senator’s press secretary and speech writer? I knew many in the Senate who were against the war but, like most in America, knew little about McCarthy, who was a quiet member of the influential Foreign Relations Committee. At the time, when there was nothing less rewarding than being a freelancer with no regular paydays, I agreed to meet McCarthy. A meeting had already been set up for the next day. (I have written previously about this experience here.)

The senator was a most attractive fellow—he’d been a good athlete in college, fit, and very intelligent. But the meeting was a total flop. He came across as someone who had been dragged into running against Johnson and sure as hell could care less about a press operation or me. I gave him a packet of my clips, which he accepted but never glanced at, and the only thing he knew about me was that Mary McGrory, then a brilliant Washington columnist and a friend and neighbor of mine, had urged him to hire me. After a few moments of chit-chat, he said, “You’ll do,” and got up to usher me out of his office. Later that day, I told Mary that she was throwing me to the wolves, and there was no way I would go to work for the timid senator.

She urged me to fly to New York the next day and listen to McCarthy’s first speech as a declared challenger to Lyndon Johnson. I did so, and the bored senator I met the day before was profound and courageous. During the campaign, McCarthy declared the war in Vietnam to be “immoral” in its disastrous impact on the innocent civilians who were being murdered by American bombs. I had never heard a senior politician in Washington talk about that war in terms of morality. He then went on to say that the war also violated the Constitution.

I was smitten and went to work for McCarthy, who liked that I knew about the war and how to work hard. Soon and months afterward, I was often his only aide on trips around the country. I learned much about how the Senate and the American intelligence community worked. A terrific staff was assembled for his campaign in New Hampshire, and he did not back down in his criticism of the war and the president. He drew almost as many votes in the Democratic primary on March 12 as Johnson. Less than three weeks later, the president announced he would not stand for re-election.

There is a lesson in the clarity of McCarthy’s purpose for President Joe Biden, who, like much of the world, responded with rage and a desire for payback at the horror that Hamas inflicted on October 7. Hamas’s carefully planned kidnapping of IDF hostages was accompanied by widespread sexual attacks and the murder of undefended Israeli families living and farming in their small collectives within a few miles of the border. The initial attack left the border open, and hundreds of Gaza residents joined members of Hamas in the siege and hostage-taking.

At this point, with Israel now in its sixth month of bombing and ground assaults in Gaza, with a mounting civilian death toll as America and the world watch in anger, Biden will have difficulty winning re-election unless he retracts his initial justified support for a stricken Israel. He must stand up to Netanyahu and tell him that the United States cannot continue to supply funding, bombs, and other munitions to Israel until, at minimum, there is a ceasefire that could open the door to substantive talks with what is left of the Hamas leadership. Netanyahu’s avowed goal of destroying all of Hamas, including its leadership, in four to six weeks of continued warfare is incompatible with the constant terror and despair of the population still alive in Gaza.

Few wars, justified or not, have ended because of the suffering of an enemy’s population. Russia’s twenty million deaths in World War II tell us that. When one side’s military is dominant, as Israel’s is in Gaza, and the people there suffer greatly, the losing party either surrenders or is annihilated.

I consulted with an experienced American expert who believes that Netanyahu is obligated at this point to offer Hamas reasonable terms for surrender. He said the significant elements should be:

               1. Surrender of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and his staff to the Israeli forces.
               2. Referral of the Hamas leadership to the International Criminal Court for trial.
               3. Total disarmament of Hamas.
               4. Release of all hostages in Hamas’s control and a full accounting of those who died in captivity.
               5. Unrestricted humanitarian relief.
               6. Restoration of self-government in Gaza with supervised elections.
               7. Allow passage through borders of aid for reconstruction.

Is Netanyahu likely to offer such terms? The record suggests not.

On October 7, the prime minister was in the middle of a widely publicized criminal trial on fraud, breach of trust, and bribery charges that, according to Israeli media, he was destined to lose and face potentially more than a decade in jail. His administration was repeatedly warned by its intelligence services, and America’s, that Hamas had been training for months for a cross-border attack on a group of lightly defended kibbutzim a few miles away in southern Israel, to seize IDF soldiers as hostages from a lightly defended nearby intelligence unit. That mission turned into the carnage that horrified Israel and the world. The IDF’s failure to respond to the intelligence was Netanyahu’s fault because the buck always stops at the top. He initially acknowledged his failure and publicly promised a thorough investigation. Such an inquiry has not yet taken place, and at this point, it seems irrelevant. He decided to go to general quarters in response and not to focus on the arrest and prosecution of Sinwar and others in control of Hamas. The prime minister, with no known resistance from Washington, chose instead to order an all-out air and ground assault on Gaza; the precedent was the decision of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to respond to the 9/11 attacks by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda by going to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Would a different Israeli leader have chosen to focus on the security failures of the IDF while also ordering a manhunt for Sinwar and other Hamas leaders? Was Netanyahu’s pending trial and the specter of spending the rest of his life in prison a factor in what was to come? These questions were little asked at the start of the war and are largely irrelevant now.

Netanyahu’s determination to fight and kill or capture all in Hamas and to hell with what Washington thinks has been known for many months. However, the Washington press corps are constantly rediscovering it. He is intent on expanding Israeli military and political domination throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In this, he has the blessing of the Israeli public and many of Israel’s supporters in America.

Mention of the remaining Israeli hostages has essentially disappeared from Bibi’s most recent statements, in part, so I have been told because current intelligence estimates of surviving hostages have been dwindling. Specific estimates are known to the involved intelligence communities, but neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has publicly disclosed them.

In a recent interview with Politico/Bild in Germany, Netanyahu was at his most comfortable and direct. He dismissed Biden’s suddenly increased concern about the killings in Gaza. He reaffirmed that Israel’s next move would be an all-out attack on Rafah, where more than one million starving and ill Palestinians are huddled in tents, in ruins, and in the open, far from airborne drops of MREs. “We’ll go there. We will not leave them [Hamas],” he said. “We’ve destroyed three-quarters of Hamas’s fighting terrorism battalions, and we’re close to finishing the last part.” He did not explain how that estimate of Hamas’s numbers was obtained, and he dismissed the idea of a ceasefire during the holy month of Ramadan, which began last weekend. He said that while he would “like to see another hostage release,” he did not see any “breakthrough in the negotiations.” The release of hostages was once the dominant reason for the talks.

How this will end is unknown. And it is terrifying.

HERE’S WHAT PRAMILA PATTEN’S UN REPORT ON OCT 7 SEXUAL VIOLENCE SAID

Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence In Conflict. (Photo: Unis Vienna Flickr Accountlilia Jiménez-Ertl)

The UN report on sexual violence on October 7 has found no evidence of systematic rape by Hamas or any other Palestinian group, despite widespread media reporting to the contrary.

However, there are deeper problems with the report’s credibility.

By The Feminist Solidarity Network for Palestine

Mondoweiss.org
11 March 2024

Over the past four months, a concerted propaganda campaign, mounted by the Israeli government and amplified across various Western media outlets, has accused Hamas of using rape as a weapon of war on October 7. Allegations that Hamas planned and carried out a systematic campaign of sexual violence (with acts ranging from the profoundly grotesque to the outright fetishistic and bizarre) have been used to paint the Palestinian resistance as inhuman and to justify Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Recently, analysis demonstrating the fallacious nature of these claims — the fabrications, factual errors, and journalistic malpractice, the non-credible witness and first responder testimonies, the Israeli military affiliations of critical sources, as well as the absence of any forensic evidence or video or photographic proof — has broken through into the mainstream.

On March 4, United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict Pramila Patten issued a report based on a visit conducted from January 29 to February 14 to Israel and the occupied West Bank to “gather, analyze and verify allegations of conflict-related sexual violence reportedly committed during the brutal, Hamas-led terror attacks of 7 October 2023.” The report, which details the findings of Patten’s visit, has emerged at a crucial moment. At a time when Israel’s narrative that Hamas committed systematic sexual violence on October 7 is crumbling, and the media outlets that spun this narrative are under fire, the report is being widely heralded as a vindication of both.

Our analysis shows that this is not true. The report does not reach many of the conclusions for which it is being lauded in Western media, and several of its findings undermine the Israeli narrative. While we point these out, we note that the report contains severe limitations and pitfalls in credibility. We must understand why the report cannot be trusted, as it has given new life to the cycle of mass rape propaganda that is being used to justify Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

1. The non-investigation and problems withPatten’s methodology

Patten’s office has neither the means nor the mandate to investigate what happened on October 7, and its findings do not fulfill the legal standard of “evidence.” Instead, the office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict exists to “gather information” and engage in “advocacy.”

Ironically, the absence of any ability or power to investigate likely induced Israel to extend an invitation to Patten. This was despite Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the official UN investigation currently underway. While Patten has made no secret of the fact that her “main concern” in producing the report was to “do everything for the remaining hostages,” it is her complaisance and willful ignorance when it comes to not investigating the nexus of what happened on October 7 — its before and after, contextually and historically — that makes her valuable mission to Israel. No wonder that Patten’s mission enjoyed the “full cooperation” of the government of Israel (Para 32) when they knew in advance that the mission could not — indeed, would not — probe too far.

Upon the release of her recent mission report, Patten argued that any conclusive finding regarding sexual violence on October 7 would require an official UN investigation.[1] [2] But it is precisely this UN investigation, chaired by Navi Pillay and already underway, that the Israeli government has repeatedly blocked. On January 15, for example, Israel instructed physicians who had treated October 7 survivors not to cooperate with UN investigators. Patten’s report itself cites “the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate.” (Para 55) Yet, at the same time, Israel misleadingly parades Patten’s report as UN endorsement of its claim that Hamas committed systematic sexual violence on October 7.

To show how easy it is to co-opt the work of Patten’s office, we need only ask what constitutes “credible information” in the report’s context. During her briefing to journalists, Patten repeatedly justified the report as following “UN methodology.” However, closer scrutiny reveals that when the “applicable standard of proof” used by UN investigative bodies — “reasonable grounds to believe” — is transferred to a setting where no investigation is possible, information can easily be distorted and weaponized (Para 26). Interviews with unnamed secondary witnesses constitute some of the primary sources of “credible information” in the report, but their inclusion is based on the mission team’s “own assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses it met.” (Para 26)

In other words, we are asked to trust Patten’s judgment and take her report at face value. Such trust would be more forthcoming had the report included any citations or references that explained the sources it relied on for its “credible information.” While we understand that “sensitive information” needs to be anonymized when dealing with witnesses (para 31), this crosses the line to obfuscation when the information in question comes from Israeli national institutions or civil society organizations; publications are not cited, nor is any government official or first responder identified (even if they have already spoken on the public record).

For example, Patten spoke to ZAKA men like Yossi Landau (as she admitted in the press briefing). Landau (pictured below with Patten at Kibbutz Be’eri) has been a central figure in spreading false stories around October 7, all now discredited. While Patten’s report debunks one false story about “a pregnant woman [at Be’eri] whose womb had reportedly been ripped open before she was killed, with her fetus stabbed while still inside her” (para 65), a story that we can trace back to Landau, the report also repeats other claims made by Landau publicly but which it does not question. For instance, the report endorses the reasons given by Landau to the New York Times as to why “a limited number of photos were taken” by volunteer search and rescue groups — namely due to their “conservative religious background” and out of “respect for the deceased” (para 46) — all without ever naming Landau.

Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on sexual violence in conflict (center), was on a tour of Kibutz Be’eri with the infamous volunteer group Zaka on February 7, 2024. On Patten’s righthand side (second left) is Yossi Landau, a Zaka volunteer who has been exposed for fabricating testimony regarding October 7 atrocities, including the myth of “dozens of beheaded children.” (photo: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs x account)

Conveying this information in generic terms, without sourcing or attribution, gives it an air of “objectivity” and “impartiality.” This lack of transparency makes it almost impossible to weigh and evaluate the information we receive in the report.

It is also problematic given that the small number of existing witnesses of sexual violence on October 7 have already been largely discredited. Several have been found to have lied explicitly in their testimony, the majority have direct or indirect ties with the Israeli military, all key witnesses have changed their testimony significantly enough to undermine their credibility, and several belong to the conservative zionist organization ZAKA, which, according to spokesperson Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, views itself as “an arm of the ministry of foreign affairs.”

We already know that Patten’s team, despite issuing a public call, did not meet with a single survivor of sexual violence from October 7 (para 48). Unless Patten, with few contacts on the ground and facing what she referred to as “minimal availability of victims/survivors and witnesses of sexual violence,” was somehow able to conjure an entirely new set of witnesses in two weeks, we have to assume that Patten’s “credible witnesses” draw from this already-discredited pool. It is, therefore, doubtful that they are credible at all.

UN Special Representative Patten meeting with Capt. Avigail Bar-Asher at Camp Shura. (Photo: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs x account)

The absence of cited source material is even more problematic, given where much of the information in the report came from. The report itself states that the mission team was limited by the fact that the information it relied on was “in large part sourced from Israeli national institutions.” (Para 55) These included: “the President of Israel and the First Lady, relevant line ministries…the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), and the Israeli National Police in charge of the investigation on the 7 October attacks (Lahav 433); [and] several working visits to the Shura military base, the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred, as well as one visit to the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine” (para 33).

In all, “the mission team conducted 33 meetings with representatives of Israeli national institutions.” (para 33) Rendering such information generic and communicating it in a passive voice that effaces sources gives the illusion of “objectivity,” even while the report remains highly dependent on Israeli sources. As such, the report is not just methodologically flawed but dangerous.

Patten admitted in the press briefing on March 4 that “unlike an investigation … we looked at sexual violence pretty much in a vacuum” (Minute 20:36, our emphasis). This decontextualization allows the pretense that stories of mass rape on October 7 have not had an enduring role in justifying the genocide in Gaza. In this vein, the act of delegitimizing two widely circulated alleged instances of sexual violence (both thoroughly debunked long before the report’s publication) in the report worked to validate the judgments of credibility made in the rest of the report and confound critics. [3] The report can thus appear to accord “with the principles of independence, impartiality, objectivity, transparency, integrity” (Para 30), even as it presents a one-sided picture of October 7.

Israel’s Ambassador to The United Nations, Gilad Erdan (left), and UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten (center) (Photo: Israeli Ministry Of Foreign Affairs X Account)

Patten claims that she understands the risks of her report being instrumentalized. Given this, we may wonder why she accepted the invitation to Israel when she knew that the Israelis were refusing access to the UN Commission of Inquiry, the agency with investigatory powers. As we show in our analysis of the uptake of Patten’s report in Western media, the report has already been cited as an official UN endorsement of Israel’s claims and used to revitalize the mass rape propaganda, just when that propaganda had been publicly debunked. This essentially makes Patten a willing accomplice in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

2. Unraveling the mass rape narrative

Despite its complicity in the Israeli narrative, Patten’s report undermines several of that narrative’s fundamental tenets. Western mass media is currently engaged in a concerted campaign to ignore this, as it spins the report as a vindication of claims that Hamas committed systematic rape on October 7. The report explicitly does not reach this conclusion. Here, we list several findings in the report and explain how and why they undermine Israel’s narrative.

Continue reading

WILL SWEDEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE? LOOK AT THE MAP!

Last week, Sweden became the 32nd Member State of NATO. What does that mean?

Sweden must now contribute two percent of its GDP to the NATO collective defense fund, which will add to the lucrative coffers of the Military Industrial Complex. In exchange, NATO will equip Sweden with the NATO nuclear arsenal to target the Russian Federation.

Will Sweden make a significant difference? No!

One nation with one nuclear weapon is lethal. Russia has more than 5,000 nuclear warheads and the means, methods, and mechanisms to launch and deliver with supersonic speed.

So, who is kidding whom?

Russia only wants to expand its sphere of influence to buy and sell products. Why did Russia attack and invade Ukraine? NATO crossed Russia’s red line. Russia would never have invaded and attacked Ukraine had NATO not emboldened Ukraine to become a NATO Member State.

Now, Ukraine cannot become a NATO Member. The vote must be unanimous. Inevitably, some EU Member States, i.e., Hungary, will vote against Ukraine’s application for NATO membership. Ukraine is too big of a risk.

LET’S TALK ABOUT OIL AND GAS

While the EU discusses (with varying success) the possible parameters of an embargo on Russian oil, Moscow uses the breathing space to regroup and prepare for further steps.

Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen
Original publishing date: 10 June 2022

Although it is widely believed that its European energy exports are the last thing Russia will give up, the drawn-out conflict in Ukraine and the expansion of Western sanctions increase the likelihood of Moscow making the first move to do just that.

After all, manipulating energy supplies is Russia’s most potent weapon for putting pressure on Europe. Moscow has already stopped gas deliveries to Bulgaria, Poland, and Finland after they refused to pay for supplies in rubles. It has also imposed sanctions on Gazprom’s European subsidiaries.

_________________________

Editor’s Note | Let’s talk about oil and gas. As stated by Ms. Alexandra Prokopenko in this article published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (20 May 2022):

               “An energy war between Russia and Europe would accelerate global inflation, exacerbate the world food crisis, and increase prices for energy-intensive goods to new levels. The Russian authorities know there is no way back to the good old days of relations with Europe, but they can make sure it isn’t just Russia that suffers. Every step Moscow has taken in the conflict with the West so far has followed the logic of escalation, and for now, there is no reason to believe that that logic will change. Not only is there nothing to lose now, but the number of supporters of radical measures within the Russian government is growing with every new round of sanctions” (see below).

_________________________

Russia is the biggest exporter of oil and oil products to the EU, supplying 2.2 million barrels per day (BPD) of oil and 1.2 million BPD of oil products, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell estimated that oil exports provide Moscow with $1 billion daily.

The United States [Ed. Never imported Russian oil] and UK [Ed. In March, rarely imported Russian oil] announced that they would stop buying Russian oil (admittedly, Russia did not account for a large proportion of their energy imports) and called on European countries to follow their example. Various expert groups have offered their blueprints for an embargo: a phased approach or the imposition of special tariffs or escrow accounts.

In early May, the European Commission announced a sixth sanctions package, including a ban on importing Russian oil. Brussels, however, can still not garner unanimous approval for the package. The EU will likely water down the embargo significantly, exempting pipeline deliveries.

It’s evident that even if the “special military operation” in Ukraine were to end tomorrow, it would be impossible for Russia to return to its former relations with Europe, including trade. So, Moscow may resolve to move first to end European oil supplies, resigning itself to significant but not insurmountable losses. This could happen shortly or in the Fall, before the start of the heating season.

Paradoxically, the expansive Western sanctions that were supposed to deprive the Kremlin of the means to fund its war are—for now at least—helping to fill the state coffers. Sanctions have increased the Russian budget’s ability to weather dips in foreign currency earnings since there are few opportunities to spend foreign currency now: the mass exodus of Western companies has led to a drastic reduction in imported goods. A series of easing currency restrictions for the public and exporters has not helped much. There is still nowhere to spend foreign currency due to supply chain problems and the refusal of Western companies to work with Russian businesses.

At the same time, high energy prices yielded an additional 800 billion rubles ($13.6 billion) for the state budget during the first two months of the military operation alone, according to the Finance Ministry. Overall, oil and gas revenues doubled in January–April to 4.77 trillion rubles, compared with 2.5 trillion rubles in the same period a year earlier. Most of the income came from mineral extraction taxes and export duties on oil and gas.

The Russian government has suspended budget rules for 2022, meaning all revenue from oil and gas is spent instead of being put into reserves. This makes it possible to compensate for reduced revenues in other sectors and find cash to support the public and businesses. Combining BPD's existing ruble reserves and high energy prices will allow the government to keep social spending at its current level for at least one or two years. No one can predict what will happen beyond that horizon.

At the same time, some EU countries are particularly vulnerable to losing access to Russian oil supplies. Last year, Slovakia imported 96 percent of its total oil (105,000 BPD) from Russia, Hungary imported 58 percent (70,000 BPD), and the Czech Republic imported half (68,000 BPD) from Russia. Other EU countries are less dependent on Russian oil, but oil prices are one of the main drivers of European inflation.

If Moscow stops supplying oil to Europe shortly, substitutes will likely be possible. However, much will depend on OPEC countries’ readiness to increase production quickly, as well as on freight costs and available deadweight tonnage on tankers. Finding substitutes could, therefore, take several months to several years.

At the same time, Russia could still sell oil for foreign currency to buyers outside of Europe. Russia increased its supplies to India and China in March: up to 310,000 BPD to India (compared with hardly any supplies in February) and 70,000 BPD to 790,000 BPD to China, according to the IEA. In March, supplies to Europe decreased by 420,000 BPD to 1.4 million BPD, meaning Russia essentially transferred its lost European volumes to Asia. This process will likely continue since the current high oil prices enable Moscow to offer its Asian buyers significant discounts.

Russia doesn’t hold all the cards, however. Due to boycotts and sanctions, Russian oil production fell by almost 1 million BPD in April. The same month, oil transportation to Europe increased to 1.6 million BPD (up from 1.4 million in March). The biggest recipients of tanker oil in Europe are Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy. According to Kpler, Italy imported four times as much oil in May as in February (450,000 BPD). Consequently, Europe has some oil reserves, while for Russia, stopping exports would mean reducing production even further, closing oil wells, and incurring increased transport costs: redirecting such large volumes of oil inevitably pushes up freight prices.

If an embargo on Russian oil is introduced, the economic losses to Russia and Europe will depend on how soon it is implemented, for how long, and how OPEC countries respond. Ultimately, Russia has more to gain politically than Europe does.

European politicians will face several urgent tasks simultaneously: finding alternative suppliers, explaining the price growth to voters, and softening the embargo's blow for the EU countries most dependent on Russian oil. This will all happen as fighting in Ukraine continues, so there will be a solid impetus to negotiate with the Kremlin.

Russia, for its part, will likely cite arms supplies to Ukraine to explain the embargo, thereby sending the signal that the flow of oil will resume as soon as Ukraine stops receiving Western arms. In other words, Moscow may get what it wants: a strong negotiating position on sanctions that excludes Ukraine from the dialogue.

An energy war between Russia and Europe would accelerate global inflation, exacerbate the world food crisis, and increase prices for energy-intensive goods to new levels. The Russian authorities know there is no way back to the good old days of relations with Europe, but they can make sure it isn’t just Russia that suffers. Every step Moscow has taken in the conflict with the West so far has followed the logic of escalation, and for now, there is no reason to believe that that logic will change. Not only is there nothing to lose now, but the number of supporters of radical measures within the Russian government is growing with every new round of sanctions.

________________________

Editor’s Note | What I predicted in June 2022 has come to fruition.

_________________________

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GETTING TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're in search of the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet its misuse can do untold harm, leading to misunderstanding, prejudice, and conflic