Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 48

Devil in Details of Trump’s “Final Proposal” for Gaza Ceasefire

Jeremy ScahillJul 04, 2025

A Hamas official accused Trump of aiding an Israeli “deception operation,” but the movement says it wants to bridge the gaps and make a deaL

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump touted the new U.S.-promoted Gaza “ceasefire” framework as the “final proposal,” but while it contains some substantive changes to the previous terms crafted by the U.S. and Israel, the plan would still allow Israel to resume its genocidal war against the Gaza Strip after an initial 60-day truce. “Trump is a crucial part of Israel’s deception operation,” a Hamas official told Drop Site News.

The official characterized the proposal, which was also obtained by Drop Site, as containing mostly “rhetorical changes,” though he acknowledged that some of the amended language describing Trump’s desire to end the war was clearly aimed at convincing Hamas to support the agreement.

“The United States and President Trump are committed to work to guarantee the continuation of the negotiations with goodwill until they reach a final agreement,” the draft says, according to the Arabic language version given to Hamas. It adds that Trump will personally announce the deal.

The Hamas official said the “new” draft was largely a repackaging of terms that the U.S. and Israel tried to strong arm Hamas into accepting in late May. That deal would have allowed some Israeli forces to remain entrenched in Gaza, offered no clear guarantees for a permanent end to the war, and allowed Israel to effectively maintain control of food and aid distribution in Gaza.

Among the apparent concessions to Hamas in the document, one involves the timing of the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza. Israel had wanted ten living captives released within a week of a ceasefire taking effect, while the new proposal would see eight released on the first day and the remaining two on day 50. Hamas has expressed concern that Israel would resume the war after retrieving its captives.

According to another section of the potential agreement, once Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, then deliveries of food, medicine, and other aid will commence immediately and will be distributed through “agreed channels,” including the United Nations and the Red Crescent. It states that this would be done “in accordance with an agreement to be reached regarding aid for the civilian population.” A Hamas official said the phrasing would continue to allow Israel to treat humanitarian aid as “negotiable.” It makes no mention of the U.S.-Israeli “aid” scheme run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

On TruthSocial Wednesday, Trump wrote, “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War,” adding, “I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better—IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”

In an official statement on Wednesday, Hamas struck a diplomatic tone. “The mediator brothers are exerting intensive efforts to bridge the gap between the parties, reach a framework agreement, and begin a serious round of negotiations,” Hamas said. “We are acting with utmost responsibility and conducting national consultations to discuss the proposals we have received from the mediators, in order to reach an agreement that guarantees an end to the aggression, achieves withdrawal, and urgently provides relief to our people in the Gaza Strip.”

A delegation from Hamas is meeting with regional mediators in Cairo to discuss the plan. There are reports that Israel may soon send a delegation to Egypt or Qatar for talks as well.

[…]

Over the past two days, there have been extensive reports in Hebrew and Arabic media purporting to reveal some of the terms of the new proposal. Some of these accounts have contradicted each other on the precise terms of the Trump-endorsed plan. Hamas only received the document Wednesday evening. “They are studying it, so no decision, no consultation, nothing has been done,” said a source close to the Palestinian negotiators.

[…]

Hamas officials have come under increased pressure from Palestinians in Gaza, including members of their own families and tribes, to make a deal. All of Hamas’s representatives outside of Gaza have lost family members during the genocide. Several Hamas representatives have told Drop Site in recent weeks that they feel a heavy burden to find a path to an agreement that does not amount to a surrender of the Palestinian liberation cause, which is why they have sought to draw red lines around the issues of full Israeli withdrawal and a permanent ceasefire.

The Hamas official who spoke to Drop Site expressed concern that the new draft framework does not include explicit commitments by the U.S. that would definitively end the war, a term Hamas has repeatedly said was a red line in negotiations. Instead, he said, it largely repeats the assertions from the previous draft that Trump would guarantee Israel does not resume its attacks on Gaza only for 60 days and pledges good faith efforts by the U.S. and regional mediators to ensure that a ceasefire holds as talks continue toward ending the war. “No guarantee to end the war,” the Hamas official said.

For weeks, sources involved with the negotiations have told Drop Site that Qatari and Egyptian mediators have relayed to Hamas verbal assurances that Trump wants the war brought to an end and will make sure Israel does not resume its military assault on Gaza. But the U.S. has rejected Hamas’s requests that these commitments be put into writing, ideally as part of the final text of an agreement. The language in the draft falls short of the terms Hamas said were necessary for a deal.

“On Day 1, negotiations will begin under the auspices of the mediators-guarantors on the necessary arrangements for a permanent ceasefire,” the proposal states. Among the issues to be negotiated are: the release of the remaining captives, “the redeployment and withdrawal of Israeli forces and long-term security arrangements in the Gaza Strip,” and “arrangements related to ‘the day after’ in the Gaza Strip.”

[…]

The proposal states that negotiations for a permanent ceasefire should be concluded during the 60-day truce, but, if necessary, “the temporary ceasefire may be extended.” It adds that the U.S., Egypt and Qatar “will ensure that serious negotiations continue for an additional period,” if necessary. Palestinian negotiators believe this language allows too much leeway for Israel to resume the military assault on Gaza should it decide it no longer wants a ceasefire and instead to continue its war of annihilation and conquest.

Still, the Hamas official said, the movement’s negotiators are reviewing the language and seeking further clarification from the regional mediators before offering an official response. In past negotiations, mediators have proposed slight modifications to phrases in an effort to bridge gaps between Israel and Hamas. Such changes were crucial to sealing the January ceasefire deal. Hamas officials are currently debating what, if any, modifications they will request in order to sign an agreement.

[…]

Citing a “member of the political echelon”—a phrase used almost exclusively to signal leaks by Netanyahu—Israel’s Channel 14 reported Wednesday that the current ceasefire deal would include a secret side letter from Trump that would permit Israel to “renew the fire if our demands with regards to the disarmament of Hamas and the exile of its leaders are not met.”

Netanyahu is scheduled to fly to the U.S. for meetings with Trump and other U.S. officials early next week. His top emissary on the ceasefire talks, Ron Dermer, was in Washington D.C. this week for discussions with U.S. officials on the terms for a new proposal. Following those meetings, Trump made his announcement. While Israeli officials have told journalists that they agreed with the outline, they emphasized that final terms are yet to be negotiated.

[…]

While Netanyahu amplifies his threats to continue the war against Gaza, the chief of staff of the Israeli military, Eyal Zamir, told the Israeli security cabinet Sunday that, from a military perspective, the major goals of the war against Gaza have been achieved, adding that an expansion of the fighting would necessitate new objectives. Such statements from the Israeli military could help to feed a “victory” narrative by Netanyahu should a ceasefire agreement be signed.

[…]

Israel violated the original ceasefire deal that went into effect on January 19 on an almost daily basis, killing over 150 Palestinians in Gaza during that time. It also refused to permit the agreed-upon number of tents, equipment, or aid into the enclave. On March 2, Israel unilaterally abandoned the agreement after the first 42-day phase by imposing a full-spectrum blockade. On March 18, it resumed its genocidal war.

Since then, Hamas has maintained that it is willing to negotiate over a wide range of terms, but has made clear it will not release any more Israeli captives unless there is a deal with a clear pathway to a permanent end to the war and a withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza.

[…]

Israeli forces would not be required to fully withdraw from Gaza under the terms of the draft and the language in the proposal on this is vague. The new draft envisions some Israeli redeployments—first from within the north of Gaza and later in the south “based on maps to be agreed upon.”

Last week, Egyptian mediators raised the issue of Israel’s occupation of the Philadelphi corridor that runs along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Before Israel’s invasion of Rafah and its takeover of the Philadelphi corridor in May 2024, the Rafah border crossing was the only gateway Palestinians in Gaza had to the world beyond Israeli control. Netanyahu has insisted for months that he aims to maintain full control of the area. Hamas officials told Egyptian mediators that, in the context of a long-term ceasefire deal guaranteed by the U.S, they were open to alternative solutions on the timeline for Israeli withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor. But Hamas has not altered its stance that an eventual full withdrawal of Israeli forces must be included in any deal.

[…]

The last time ceasefire drafts were circulated was in May. Both Israeli and Hamas proposals included the release of ten living Israeli captives and the bodies of 18 deceased. An unspecified number of Palestinian captives held by Israel would be freed in exchange and the bodies of deceased Palestinians returned. There are currently estimated to be 50 Israelis remaining in captivity in Gaza, twenty of whom are believed to be alive. Israel holds an estimated 10,100 Palestinians in prisons and detention camps, along with hundreds of Palestinian bodies. These figures do not include more than 1,000 Palestinians from Gaza snatched by Israel since October 7, 2023 for the explicit purpose of using them in prisoner exchanges with Hamas.

In its proposals in May, Israel wanted ten captives held in Gaza released in the early days of an agreement. Hamas insisted they be spread out over the course of two months to prevent Israel from resuming the genocide after retrieving its captives. The current draft proposes that eight living Israelis be released in the first week of a deal and the remaining two at the end and the bodies of 18 deceased captives returned over several stages. An unspecified number of Palestinian captives would be freed and bodies returned with each release of Israelis, though the document does not offer any formula for how the number of Palestinians set to be released will be determined.

According to the Hamas official, mediators have told the movement that Hamas must relinquish governance of Gaza as part of the deal, a term Hamas has long said it would agree to. In its own ceasefire proposal in May, Hamas itself included a commitment to hand over power “to an independent technical committee of Palestinians to administer all affairs in Gaza and to coordinate reconstruction.” Each time Hamas has proposed this, Israel removed this term from its own revised drafts.

The proposal says that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff will “travel to the region to finalize the agreement” and “chair the negotiations.”

[…]

Via https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/trump-netanyahu-hamas-united-states-israel-ceasefire

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Bill to Ban Weather Modification Chemicals in Bold Push Against Geoengineering

Marjorie Taylor Greene Proposes Federal Legislation Against Weather Modification

By County Local News | July 5, 2025

In a recent announcement, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has taken a bold step by filing federal legislation aimed at banning the use of chemicals for weather engineering or modification. This significant move, which she has termed a potential felony offense, is poised to spark discussions and debates surrounding environmental policies and the implications of weather manipulation.

Background of the Legislation

This initiative comes on the heels of Florida’s recently enacted legislation that also addresses the controversial subject of weather modification. Greene has stated, “We must end the dangerous and deadly…” implying that the use of chemicals to modify weather patterns poses risks that are unacceptable. The exact nature of these dangers has not been detailed, but the growing concerns around climate change and environmental safety continue to fuel public anxiety about human intervention in natural processes.

Understanding Weather Modification

Weather modification, often referred to as geoengineering, encompasses a range of techniques aimed at manipulating weather patterns to achieve desired outcomes—such as increasing rainfall, dissipating fog, or reducing the severity of storms. Techniques like cloud seeding have been employed in various regions worldwide, raising questions about their efficacy and safety. Critics argue that such practices could have unintended consequences on ecosystems, agriculture, and human health, thus making Greene’s proposed legislation resonate with a segment of the population wary of these interventions.

Legislative Implications

If passed, Greene’s legislation would make it illegal to utilize chemicals for weather manipulation on a federal level, aligning with the stricter regulations seen in states like Florida. The introduction of such a bill signifies a growing recognition of the need for oversight in environmental practices, particularly those that could alter natural systems. As climate change becomes a focal point in political discussions, Greene’s proposal adds another layer to the ongoing debate about how society should respond to environmental challenges.

Public Reaction and Future Outlook

The reaction to Greene’s announcement has been mixed, with supporters praising the move as a protective measure for public health and the environment. Conversely, critics argue that such legislation could hinder scientific research and technological advancements aimed at combating climate change. The implications of this legislation could resonate beyond the political sphere, influencing public perception of weather modification and its associated risks.

In a move that has sent ripples through both the political and scientific communities, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has announced her intention to file federal legislation aimed at banning the use of chemicals for weather modification. This initiative stems from concerns over the potential dangers associated with manipulating natural weather patterns. Greene’s proposal suggests that engaging in such practices would constitute a felony offense, raising questions about the implications for scientists and industries involved in weather engineering.

“It will be a felony offense.”

This powerful statement sets the tone for what Greene hopes will be a serious legal deterrent against weather manipulation. The idea of classifying weather modification as a felony offense is significant, especially considering the ongoing debates surrounding climate change and environmental sustainability. Greene’s legislation reflects a growing apprehension about the ethical implications of altering weather systems, as well as the potential consequences of such actions on human health and safety.

This will be FLORIDA-style legislation, which was just signed into law.

What does “Florida-style legislation” mean in this context? It refers to a recent trend in Florida politics where laws are enacted with a focus on protecting citizens from perceived external threats. In this case, Greene is aligning her proposal with similar measures taken in Florida, which recently passed legislation addressing environmental concerns and regulating industries that engage in weather modification. This approach aims to resonate with a broader audience who are increasingly concerned about the integrity of natural systems and the potential for corporate overreach.

“We must end the dangerous and deadly…”

Greene’s statement about ending “the dangerous and deadly” practices highlights the urgency of her proposed legislation. The implications of weather modification are vast. From droughts to hurricanes, the ability to manipulate weather patterns can have serious consequences for agriculture, infrastructure, and public health. Greene’s legislative initiative aims to put a stop to practices that could exacerbate these issues, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach to technology that can drastically alter our environment.

The Science Behind Weather Modification

Weather modification has been a topic of interest for scientists and policymakers for decades. Techniques such as cloud seeding have been employed to encourage rainfall in arid regions or mitigate severe weather events. However, these practices are not without controversy. Concerns range from the effectiveness of such methods to the ethical implications of “playing God” with nature. Greene’s legislation may serve as a wake-up call for those in the scientific community to reconsider the consequences of their work and the societal implications of weather manipulation.

The Public Reaction

Public reaction to Greene’s announcement has been mixed. For many, the idea of banning weather modification resonates with a deeper distrust of large corporations and their role in environmental degradation. Others worry that such legislation could hinder legitimate scientific research aimed at combating climate change and its impacts. As discussions continue, it’s clear that this issue is far from black and white. Engaging the public in conversations about the ethics of weather modification is essential for shaping future policies.

Legal and Ethical Implications

As with any proposed legislation, the legal and ethical implications of Greene’s initiative cannot be understated. By categorizing weather modification as a felony, the law could have far-reaching consequences for researchers and companies involved in atmospheric sciences. Legal experts warn that such a classification could stifle innovation and discourage necessary research aimed at addressing climate change challenges. It raises critical questions: How do we balance the need for scientific advancement with the ethical responsibility to protect our environment?

The Future of Weather Modification Legislation

Greene’s proposed legislation is not an isolated case; it reflects a growing trend among lawmakers to scrutinize scientific practices that may have unintended consequences. As climate change continues to pose significant threats globally, the debate over weather modification will only intensify. Future legislation will likely focus on establishing stringent guidelines for research and applications, ensuring that any efforts to modify weather patterns are approached with caution and transparency.

[…]

Via https://countylocalnews.com/2025/07/05/rep-greenes-shocking-weather-control-ban-felony-charges-ahead-weather-modification-legislation-chemical-weather-control-ban-federal-environmental-policy-2025/

EU to propose sanctions on Israel

FILE PHOTO. ©  Thierry Tronnel / Sygma via Getty ImagesRTOptions reportedly include suspending the trade pact, an arms embargo, or sanctions on Israeli ministers, soldiers and settlers

The European Union is preparing to roll out a list of possible sanctions against Israel due to concerns of human rights violations during the fighting in Gaza, Euractiv reported on Saturday, citing sources.

The EU’s diplomatic service is expected to present a list of options to EU ambassadors on Wednesday. Among the options are reportedly a partial or full suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, sanctions on Israeli government ministers, military officials and extremist settlers, trade restrictions, an arms embargo, and the suspension of scientific cooperation.

While most of these measures have been discussed informally in the past, this is the first time they will be laid out formally in writing, Euractiv reported. EU foreign ministers are said to be scheduled to review the proposals on July 15.

Any move to impose sanctions on Israel would require the unanimous support of all 27 EU member states, which is widely seen as unlikely. Hungary, for instance, has been a consistent backer of the Jewish state, blocking EU sanctions on Israeli settlers last year.

According to Euractiv, the document follows an internal EU review of the Association Agreement last month, which found “indications of a breach” of Israel’s human rights commitments. Israel has strongly rejected the review. Its Foreign Ministry said it “should not be taken seriously” while arguing that the country was “engaged in an existential struggle by defending against the shared enemies of the West.”

In late June, the European Council called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza while sounding the alarm about “the unacceptable number of civilian casualties and the levels of starvation.” The Council also urged Israel to fully lift its blockade on Gaza to allow humanitarian aid to flow in. Although Israel claimed to have done so, numerous media outlets reported little real change on the ground.

There are currently no EU sanctions imposed on Israel. However, the EU has in the past sanctioned certain Israeli individuals and organizations, mainly those it described as “extremist” settlers in the West Bank who were allegedly involved in violence against Palestinian residents.

After Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel in 2023, the latter retaliated with a military operation in Gaza, which led to unprecedented destruction. Around 60,000 Palestinians and 1,200 Israelis were killed in the fighting, according to official figures.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/621033-eu-propose-sanction-israel/

Israel covered up Iranian hits on military sites

Streaks of light from Iranian ballistic missiles are seen in the night sky, as Iran resumes its retaliatory strikes against Israel. ©  Wisam Hashlamoun / Anadolu via Getty Images

RT

Successful missile attacks on air bases, a logistics hub, and an intelligence center were censored, the Telegraph claims.

Israel concealed that Iranian missiles hit several key military sites across the country during the recent 12-day war, The Telegraph reported on Saturday, citing radar data.

The data, provided to the British paper by Oregon State University researchers who track bomb damage using satellite radar, indicates that six Iranian missiles hit five military facilities in the north, south, and center of Israel, including a major air base, an intelligence gathering center, and a logistics base. The extent of the reported damage is unclear.

However, the hits were not publicly reported due to heavy military censorship, according to the report. When pressed on the issue, the Israel Defense Forces, declined to comment, only saying that “all relevant units maintained functional continuity throughout the operation.”

Analysis cited by The Telegraph suggests that Israeli and US air defenses generally performed well, intercepting most of the incoming fire, although the share of missiles that penetrated through Israeli defenses rose to about 16% by the seventh day. The paper noted that this could have been linked with Israeli attempts to conserve ammunition, improved tactics by Iran, or the deployment of more advanced and harder-to-intercept weaponry.

The conflict began on June 13 when Israel launched airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, top Iranian commanders, and military sites, triggering retaliation by Tehran. Israeli officials reported 29 deaths and over 3,200 injuries, while Iran estimated over 900 deaths and 4,700 injuries.

The US eventually joined the conflict by deploying heavy bombers against key Iranian nuclear sites. After a ceasefire was reached, both sides proclaimed victory.

The hostilities started after Iran declined a US demand to abandon its enrichment capabilities, which Washington believes could enable Tehran to create nuclear weapons. Iran has denied plans to create an atomic weapon, insisting that its nuclear program only serves peaceful purposes.[…]Via https://www.rt.com/news/621037-israel-covered-attacks-military-sites/

Fighting British Imperialism by Spreading the “American System” Internationally

Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, From Franklin to Kennedy Volume II 1830s-1890s

By Anton Chaitkin (2025)

Book Review

(Part 4)

During 19th century, there was a continued effort by US supporters of the “American System” of political economy to spread their ideas and technology to other countries – seeking international support in ending British imperial domination over global trade and economics.

Matthew Carey’s son Henry and his Philadelphia supporters payed a major role in shaping political revolutions in both Germany and Japan, as well aa reinvigorating Ireland’s battle for independence. They helped organize donations of cash and guns to the Irish republicans, ultimately leading to the formation of Sinn Fein.

It was largely thanks to their efforts that Chancellor Otto von Bismark ended the free trade agreement agreement with Britain, which was destroying the economies of the independent German principalities and unified Germany as a sovereign nation state in 1871.

Henry Carey had first sponsored German immigrant Frederich List to return to Germany in the 1820s and 1830s, were he helped develop the Zollverein (a protective tariff union of German principalities) List also met with Count Camillo Cavour, who was battling for Italian unification.

Under Bismark, protective tariffs would become permanent national policy. The chancellor also enacted unemployment compensation and pensions, as well as intensifying state sponsorship of education, infrastructure development and electrification.

Thanks to huge federal support for the “American System” under Lincoln, Grant and Hayes, after 1880 the US became the global number one industrial power, with Germany becoming number two

In response the British and Hapsburg oligarchy panicked and concocted the Austrian school of ultra free market (and anti-tariff economics) under Frederich von Hayek, a close associate of Otto von Hapsburg and other Hapsburg nobility.*

Russia had a link to “American System” supporters dating back to the visits of Pennsylvania colony envoy Benjamin Franklin. During the Civil War, Alexander II sent naval vessels to the US Atlantic and Pacific Coast to thwart British and French efforts to invade the US Mexico (in support Of the Confederacy). In return, the Lincoln administration sent US engineers (and US-produced locomotives) to Russia to assist in the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. After meeting up with Carey’s associates at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition in 1875, Russian envoy Dmitri Mendeleev returned to Russia to fight for full scale industrialization.

In 1852-54, Commodore Perry undertook the first US expeditions to Japan, opening the country to the outside world after 200 years of isolation. Influenced by the US Civil War, the Japanese overthrew their feudal warlords in 1868 and established their first national bank in 1873. Under President Grant, Ambassador John Bingham achieved the revocation of the universal treaties (imposed by Western powers) that prohibited Japan from enacting protective tariffs. He also supported new laws that freed Japanese serfs and compelled warlords to sell their lands and gave them loans to become industrialists.

During this period the British were covertly building Japan’s naval fleet and engineering a Japanese attack on Russia. In 1904 Anglophile Wall Street banker colluded with the UK foreign office in financing the 19 month Russo-Japanese War. The latter would effectively end the strategic US-Russia alliance against British imperial strategy. Thirteen years later Schiff would also help finance, via Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik Revolution. See Who Financed the Bolshevik Revolution?

*They also supported the work of Fredrick Engels, a vocal free trade advocate who viciously attacked Frederick List, as well as Karl Marx, also an enthusiastic free trader. See https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1847/06/01.htm and https://libcom.org/library/on-free-trade-karl-marx

Einstein Opposed Zionist Colonization in Palestine and Predicted Current Catastrophe

[Source: en.wikipedia.org]

By Robin Philpot

A few weeks before the creation of the State of Israel, Shepard Rifkin, executive director of the Stern Group, requested that representatives of the group meet with Albert Einstein in the United States, “the greatest Jewish figure of the time” according to I.F. Stone. Einstein’s response was unequivocal:

“When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”[1]

To grasp Einstein’s prescience, one need only replace “the British” with “the Americans” and “terrorist organizations” such as the Stern Group and the Irgun group with the Netanyahu government, the political descendants of the leaders of these groups, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.

Einstein said that his “life was divided between equations and politics.” Yet, among his biographers—there are hundreds of them—and in the mainstream media, his extensive political writings on Israel and Zionism have been, at best, swept under the rug. At worst, completely distorted making him a supporter of the State of Israel.

Stern Gang preparing for assault on Palestinian population in Deir Yessin during Israel’s independence war in 1948. [Source: Haaretz.com]

That is until the late Fred Jerome sought them out, found them, had them translated, mostly from German, and published them in the book Einstein on Israel and Zionism.

Unfortunately, the first edition of this book, published by a New York publishing house, had a very small print run, was never promoted or made into an e-book, and sold out in no time, the publisher having bowed to enormous pressure from the Zionists. That is why Baraka Books has published a new edition with the agreement of Jocelyn Jerome, the author’s widow.

[Source: amazon.com]

It was in Germany in the 1920s, a time of rampant anti-Semitism when the theory of relativity was attacked as “Jewish science,” that Einstein was drawn to the Zionist movement. It was not until 1914, when he arrived in Germany, that he “discovered for the first time that he was a Jew,” a discovery he attributed more to “Gentiles than Jews.” Before that, he had seen himself as a member of the human species.

He called himself a “cultural Zionist,” but as early as 1921 Kurt Blumenfeld, a Zionist activist sent to recruit Einstein, warned Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, about the great scientist:

“Einstein, as you know, is no Zionist, and I ask you not to try to make him a Zionist or to try to attach him to our organization…Einstein, who leans to socialism, feels very involved with the cause of Jewish labor and Jewish workers…I heard…that you expect Einstein to give speeches. Please be quite careful with that. Einstein…often says things out of naïveté which are unwelcome by us.”

Apart from Einstein’s supposed “naivety,” Blumenfeld could not have said it better. Einstein would be a constant obstacle to the Zionist project of colonization of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel until his death in 1955.

Here are some examples of the positions he took.

His exchanges with Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, illustrate how important Einstein was to the Zionists, but more importantly how his views differed from theirs. In a letter to Weizmann on November 25, 1929, he wrote:

“If we are not able to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned nothing during our two thousand years of suffering, and deserve the fate which will befall us.”

The idea of “the fate which will befall us” recurs often. In 1929, he seems to have already foreseen that the State of Israel the Zionists dreamed of creating without “honest cooperation and honest pacts” with their Palestinian neighbors would become what it is today, namely the most dangerous place in the world for Jews to live.

A few weeks later, on December 14, 1929, he wrote to Selig Brodetsky of the Zionist Organization in London, “I’m happy that we have no power. If national pigheadedness proves strong enough, then we will knock our brains out as we deserve.”

Furthermore, Leon Simon, one of his early editors and translators, wrote:

“There is in Professor Einstein’s nationalism no room for any kind of aggressiveness or chauvinism. For him the domination of Jew over Arab in Palestine, or the perpetuation or a state of mutual hostility between the two peoples, would mean the failure of Zionism.”

Unlike the vast majority of Zionists, Einstein’s support for a possible “Jewish homeland”—not a state—was not limited to Palestine. There was nothing religious in his commitment. Some Zionists advocated the establishment of such a homeland in China, Peru or Birobidjan in the Soviet Union, but in full agreement with the state authorities and the populations in each case.

Einstein supported these steps. For example, on the Jewish homeland of Birobidjan in the Soviet Union after the Second World War he wrote:

“We must not forget that in those years of atrocious persecution of the Jewish people, Soviet Russia has been the only great nation who has saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. The enterprise to settle 30,000 Jewish war orphans in Birobidjan and secure for them in this way a satisfying and happy future is new proof for the humane attitude of Russia towards our Jewish people. In helping this cause we will contribute in a very effective way to the salvation of the remnants of European Jewry.”

In the pivotal years between the end of the war and his death in 1955, Einstein was outspoken about the Jewish state project. Invited to testify before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in Washington, D.C., in January 1946, Einstein answered unequivocally when asked about the possible State of Israel versus a cultural homeland: “I have never been in favor of a state.”

In March 1947, I.Z. David, a member of the Irgun terrorist group led by Menachem Begin, sent him a questionnaire to which he responded sharply and clearly:

Question: What is your opinion about the establishment of a free National Jewish Palestine?

Einstein: Jewish National Home? Yes. Jewish National Palestine? No. I favor a free, bi-national Palestine at a later date after agreement with the Arabs.

Question: Opinion about partition of Palestine and Chaim Weizmann’s proposals re partition?

Einstein: I am against partition.

On the question of British and American imperialism, Einstein had no illusions as London handed over to Washington:

“It seems to me that our beloved Americans are now patterning their foreign policy on the model of the Germans, since they appear to have inherited the latter’s inflatedness and arrogance. Apparently, they also want to take on the role England has played up to now. They refuse to learn from each other; and learn little even from their own harsh experience. What has been implanted into the heads from early youth is rooted more firmly than experience and reasoning. The English are yet another good example of this. Their old-fashioned methods of suppressing the masses by using indigenous unscrupulous elements from the economic upper class will soon cost them their whole empire, but they are incapable to bring themselves to change their methods; no matter whether it’s the Tories or the Socialists. With the Germans, it was exactly the same. All of this would be good and well, except for the fact that it’s so sad for the better elements and the oppressed… (Letter to Hans Mühsam)

As for the political ancestors of the current Netanyahu government, Einstein tore into them and their political parties, particularly in The New York Times. When Menachem Begin came to New York in late 1948, Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and other Jewish figures in the United States published a letter denouncing his visit and the organization he led calling it “a political party very close in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and fascist parties.” One example they cited was the massacre of 240 men, women, and children in the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin.

Wanted poster in late 1940s which Begin is featured because of his involvement in terrorist acts. [Source: greenolivetours.com

Einstein would repeat this accusation until his death in 1955: “These people are Nazis in their thoughts and actions.” Anyone who says this today in the mainstream media is immediately labeled an anti-Semite and banned from the same media.

It is common knowledge that when Chaim Weizmann died in 1952 the Prime Minister of Israel offered the presidency of Israel to Albert Einstein. Less well known, however, is the reason Einstein gave for this refusal: “I would have to say to the Israeli people things they would not like to hear.” Even less well known is Ben Gurion’s statement: “Tell me what to do if he says yes! I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.”

War Amnesia on the Fourth of July

By Kurt Nimmo

In 1961, William Lederer wrote “A Nation of Sheep,” a book now largely forgotten that documented the ignorance and apathy of the American people in regard to foreign policy. Lederer knew his subject well. He was a US Naval Academy graduate in 1936, and his first appointment was as the junior officer of a river gunboat on the Yangtze River. In 1958, he wrote, along with Eugene Burdick, the bestseller, “The Ugly American.”

“We are acting like a nation of sheep—not a vigorous community of bold, well-informed Americans,” Lederer wrote, and added, Americans at the time were “uneasy, but too apathetic and uninformed to know why.”

More than 60 years later, this situation has persisted. The Fourth of July, formerly a celebration of liberty and independence—no matter how short-lived and restricted to wealthy white male landowners of the time—is now nothing if not a meaningless national holiday of fireworks, parades, barbecues, carnivals, fairs, picnics, concerts, and baseball games, all of it devoid of a commemoration of the ratification of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress.

Ignorance of the founding principles is widespread among Americans.

The Cato Institute’s 2025 4th of July National Survey of 2,026 Americans, conducted by Morning Consult, reveals 53% of surveyed Americans are unaware that the Declaration of Independence was adopted to separate the colonies from Britain on July 4, 1776. Moreover, 54% are unaware that only Congress can declare war.

This last point is critical. Since the Second World War, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war—and many undeclared wars there has been: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and a score of lesser conflicts across the world, often described as “police actions,” many covertly orchestrated.

The scorched earth policy of the Pentagon during the Korean War resulted in the death of millions of Koreans (and 40,000 US soldiers), while the disastrous Vietnam War claimed the lives of more than three million people in Southeast Asia (and 60,000 US soldiers).

In 2007, a Lancet poll estimated a total of 1,220,580 deaths after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 (other estimates put the number over 1.5 million). While the exact number of people killed in the US-NATO invasion of Libya may never be known, some put the estimate at more than 30,000. Likewise, the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan is not known, although it is presumed to be in the thousands.

“The post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the most violent conflicts in which the U.S. government has engaged in the name of counterterrorism since September 11, 2001, have taken a tremendous human toll. Indirect deaths are estimated to be 3.6-3.8 million, bringing the total death toll, including direct and indirect deaths, to 4.5-4.7 million and counting. Precise mortality figures remain unknown,” The Watson School of International and Public Affairs noted in June, 2025.

Most Americans are unaware of these staggering numbers, primarily due to a corporate media that works to keep such horror and complicity hidden. Lederer wrote that

“the common man is blocked from finding out what the bureaucrats [at the Pentagon, State Department, et al] are doing, let alone controlling them.”

Furthermore, according to Noam Chomsky, the average American, if aware at all of the crimes perpetuated by his or her government, is unable to effectively interpret such information. Chomsky wrote that the “sign of a truly totalitarian culture is that important truths simply lack cognitive meaning.”

Former CIA officer John Stockwell claimed in 1987 (before the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) that the US and CIA had killed “at minimum” six million people following the Second World War. James A. Lucas, writing in 2007, however, cited a study that put this number far higher:

the “U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.”

The vast majority of Americans, celebrating a “national holiday” today (minus context), are woefully ignorant of the violent and illegal history of U.S. interventions and wars, all without formal declaration, as stipulated by the Constitution. However, this may be changing somewhat now that war is transmitted in real-time over social media, specifically in the case of the genocide in Palestine, conducted with direct participation of the United States. A Gallup poll conducted in March revealed

“Americans now oppose the campaign [in Gaza] by a solid margin. Fifty-five percent currently disapprove of Israel’s actions, while 36% approve.”

However, according to a poll by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “a plurality of Americans [are] not informed enough to opine (42%),” thus revealing that Lederer’s conclusions still apply to a large extent, although this may be changing.

The American public is more well-informed than they were in 1961 when William Lederer published “A Nation of Sheep,” but this has yet to translate into effective action to put an end to the hegemonic and profit-oriented wars of the United States.

Donald Trump’s repeat of Richard Nixon’s “peace through strength” ideology has moved the nation closer to participation in a catastrophic war in West Asia and also the possibility of war with China and Russia, although Trump’s rhetoric on foreign policy and the use of US military power has fluctuated, often in bizarre and contradictory ways.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-amnesia-fourth-july-kurt-nimmo/5893849

EU Rolls Out ‘Disinformation Law’ to Censor Americans Who Share Non-Mainstream News

By The Blogging Hounds

July 4, 2025

In a sweeping move that critics say targets freedom of speech beyond its own borders, the European Union has enacted a controversial new “disinformation law” — and it’s not just Europeans who should be concerned. The sweeping digital censorship framework is already being used to monitor and suppress American voices, particularly those sharing non-mainstream or dissenting news online.

The Law That Crosses Borders

Officially called the Digital Services Act (DSA), the legislation was designed to combat “harmful online content, misinformation, and threats to democratic processes.” But critics say the law’s vague language and expansive enforcement power open the door to silencing alternative media, dissenting political opinions, and whistleblowers — even if they’re not in the EU.

What’s most alarming? American citizens and content creators are already feeling the impact, as platforms with global reach — including Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube — scramble to comply by flagging, throttling, or removing content that may not align with the EU’s approved narrative.

Targeting “Disinformation” — Or Dissent?

Under the DSA, massive fines can be imposed on tech companies that fail to act swiftly on flagged content. This has incentivized preemptive censorship of politically sensitive or controversial viewpoints — especially on topics like:

Ukraine-Russia conflict narrativesCOVID-19 origins and treatmentsClimate change policy criticismsImmigration and border concernsU.S. election integrity debates

Many of these subjects are central to U.S. political discourse — yet now they’re being filtered through the lens of European regulators, who have no accountability to American voters or courts.

“This is digital colonialism,” said free speech advocate Dr. Emily Harper. “Foreign governments are now effectively dictating what Americans can or can’t say online.”

Big Tech Becomes the Global Thought Police

Major platforms — including Meta, Google, and TikTok — have already confirmed partnerships with EU “disinformation watchdogs” to identify and suppress flagged narratives. But those watchdogs include state-funded organizations and so-called “fact-checkers” with strong political leanings.

The result? Alternative media outlets, independent journalists, and citizen reporters across the U.S. are reporting shadow bans, post removals, and sudden account suspensions — not for inciting violence or hate, but for challenging the mainstream storyline.

Why Americans Should Be Alarmed

While the law technically applies only within the EU, its enforcement extends to anyone whose content appears on global platforms. And since most major tech companies are based in the U.S., they are enforcing these rules preemptively across the board to avoid international penalties.

“This is how global governance begins — not with a bang, but with a quietly implemented algorithm,” warned constitutional attorney Mark Glenn. “Free speech in America is now being shaped by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.”

The Beginning of a Global Speech Crackdown?

Free speech advocates warn that the DSA is just the beginning. Similar legislation is now under discussion in Canada, Australia, and even parts of the U.S., all under the banner of “fighting misinformation.” But critics argue this is simply a new excuse to crack down on inconvenient truths and control public perception.

[…]

Via https://theblogginghounds.com/2025/07/04/eu-rolls-out-disinformation-law-to-censor-americans-who-share-non-mainstream-news/

US defense secretary personally halted weapons to Ukraine

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. © Getty Images / John Lamparski

RT

Pete Hegseth suspends military aid to Kiev without informing State Department or allies, the outlet claims

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suspended shipments of weapons to Ukraine on his own accord despite a military review claiming that the aid would not endanger US readiness, NBC News has claimed. The decision was reportedly made without consulting lawmakers or foreign partners.

Reports of a halt in US military aid to Ukraine emerged earlier this week. US news outlets claimed that the items affected included Patriot missile systems, artillery shells, GMLRS rockets, and other munitions. Washington’s envoy to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, has since confirmed the move, attributing it to concerns that continued military assistance to Kiev could deplete key munitions needed for US forces.

However, NBC reported on Friday, citing three unnamed sources, that a review by senior military officers had found that American stockpiles are not yet beyond critical minimums. The outlet claimed that Hegseth nevertheless halted the shipments in a “unilateral step,” marking the third time he has done so since taking office. The previous suspensions were reversed following pushback from Congress.

NBC further suggested that none of the suspensions were coordinated in advance with lawmakers or the administration. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told the outlet that the justification based on readiness concerns was “disingenuous,” suggesting that the decision reflected a broader agenda within the White House to end US aid to Ukraine.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell has described the halt as part of a “capability review,” stating on Wednesday that the US cannot “give weapons to everybody all around the world.”

The White House has defended the pause, citing an ongoing Defense Department review. At the same time, US President Donald Trump also told reporters on Thursday that the US is still “giving weapons” to Ukraine, but must also ensure its own military needs are met.

Military experts have noted in statements to the German tabloid Bild that if weapon shipments to Ukraine stop, Kiev could run out of key ammunition stocks by late summer. The halt could leave the Ukrainian military struggling to intercept Russian strike drones and make Kiev’s US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launchers “virtually useless.”

Moscow has welcomed the suspension of military aid to Kiev. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested that the freeze could speed up the end of the conflict. “The fewer missiles that arrive in Ukraine from abroad, the closer the special military operation is to ending,” Peskov said.

Russia has long condemned Western arms shipments to Ukraine, arguing they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome and increase the risk of escalation.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/621011-hegseth-us-ukraine-weapons/

Man Wakes Up on Operating Table as Doctors Harvesting His Organs

Average cost for LEGAL organ transplants in the U.S. Source

Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

October 21, 2024

NPR broadcast a show last week about a man who was brought to a Kentucky hospital in 2021 because of a drug overdose, was declared “brain dead”, and then ushered into the operating room to harvest his organs.

The problem was that he was not dead, and woke up on the operating table, where he began to cry and was “thrashing around”, horrified at what was happening.

Natasha Miller says she was getting ready to do her job preserving donated organs for transplantation when the nurses wheeled the donor into the operating room.

She quickly realized something wasn’t right. Though the donor had been declared dead, he seemed to her very much alive.

“He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed,” Miller told NPR in an interview. “And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly.”

Donna Rhorer of Richmond, Kentucky, told NPR that her 36-year-old brother, Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II, was the patient involved in the case. He was rushed to the hospital because of a drug overdose, she says.

Rhorer was at the hospital that day. She says she became concerned something wasn’t right when TJ appeared to open his eyes and look around as he was being wheeled from intensive care to the operating room.

“It was like it was his way of letting us know, you know, ‘Hey, I’m still here,’ ” Rhorer told NPR in an interview.

But Rhorer says she and other family members were told what they saw was just a common reflex. (Source.)

But what happened next, is what is truly horrifying about this story.

While the doctors stopped immediately with the head surgeon stating “I’m out of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it”, the case coordinator at the hospital for Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA) called her supervisor for advice, where they allegedly told her to “find another doctor to do it. We’re going to do this case. You need to find someone else.”

The donor’s condition alarmed everyone in the operating room at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Ky., including the two doctors, who refused to participate in the organ retrieval, she says.

“The procuring surgeon, he was like, ‘I’m out of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it,’ ” Miller says. “It was very chaotic. Everyone was just very upset.”

Miller says she overheard the case coordinator at the hospital for her employer, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), call her supervisor for advice.

“So the coordinator calls the supervisor at the time. And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to ‘find another doctor to do it’ – that, ‘We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else,’ ” Miller says. “And she’s like, ‘There is no one else.’ She’s crying — the coordinator — because she’s getting yelled at.” (Source.)

Some of the KODA employees quit over this incident, and some of them had to receive therapy over the trauma this incident caused them.

The organ retrieval was canceled. But some KODA workers say they later quit over the October 2021 incident, including another organ preservationist, Nyckoletta Martin.

“I’ve dedicated my entire life to organ donation and transplant. It’s very scary to me now that these things are allowed to happen and there’s not more in place to protect donors,” says Martin.

Martin was not assigned to the operating room that day, but she says she thought she might get drafted. So she started to review case notes from earlier in the day. She became alarmed when she read that the donor showed signs of life when doctors tried to examine his heart, she says.

“The donor had woken up during his procedure that morning for a cardiac catheterization. And he was thrashing around on the table,” Martin says.

Cardiac catheterization is performed on potential organ donors to evaluate whether the heart is healthy enough to go to a person in need of a new heart.

Martin says doctors sedated the patient when he woke up and plans to recover his organs proceeded.

KODA officials downplayed the incident afterwards, according to Martin. She was dismayed at that, she says.

“That’s everybody’s worst nightmare, right? Being alive during surgery and knowing that someone is going to cut you open and take your body parts out?” Martin says. “That’s horrifying.”

“Several of us that were employees needed to go to therapy. It took its toll on a lot of people, especially me,” Martin told NPR. (Source.)

All of this was revealed last month (September, 2024) by a letter Nyckoletta Martin wrote to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which held a hearing investigating organ procurement organizations.

KODA stated that this was a mistake, and rarely happens, but others interviewed by NPR disagreed that this was “rare.”

Some critics of the organ procurement system say they weren’t entirely surprised by the allegations. With more than 103,000 people on the waiting list for a transplant, organ procurement organizations are under enormous pressure to increase the number of organs obtained to save more lives. In addition, there is an ongoing debate about how patients are declared dead.

“I hope that a case like this really is extreme, but it does reveal some of those underlying issues that can arise when there are disagreements about the determination of death,” says Dr. Matthew DeCamp, an associate professor of Medicine and bioethicist at the University of Colorado.

But some wonder how rarely this happens.

“This doesn’t seem to be a one-off, a bad apple,” says Greg Segal, who runs Organize, an organ transplant system watchdog group. “I receive allegations like that with alarming regularity.”

Likewise, Thaddeus Pope, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul who studies organ donation, cites similar accusations reported elsewhere.

“This is not a one-off,” Pope says. “It has been alleged to happen before.” (Full article.)

The whole world was able to see how evil the U.S. medical system is during the COVID Scam, where profits almost always take precedence over patients’ lives.

One of the problems here is with the medical system’s definition of “brain dead.” This diagnosis is premised on the false belief that our life and consciousness is located in our brain.

But historically, as well as in the Bible, the heart has always been considered the center of one’s life and consciousness. The word “brain” does not even exist in the Bible, whereas the word “heart” is found almost 1000 times.

Science also backs this up, as there are documented experiences of people receiving someone else’s heart, and then experiencing their memories, even when they never knew the donor.

See:
The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

Here is a video that ABC News published 8 years ago about a baby who was born with virtually no brain, and how doctors told the parents to abort him, because he had no chance to live with no brain.

But the parents did not take their medical advice, and their baby, Jaxon, lived for almost 6 years without a brain. The reason he was able to do so, in defiance of doctors and medicine, is because his consciousness was in his heart, which was fine, and not his brain.

 

A person is not “dead” just because their brain is not functioning properly, as medical doctors would have us believe.

A person is dead when their heart stops pumping blood through the body.

For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. (Leviticus 17:14)

You might want to think twice the next time you renew your Driver’s License and choose to be an organ donor. As we can see here, your organs are worth more to the medical system than you are alive.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2024/man-wakes-up-on-operating-table-as-doctors-were-harvesting-his-organs-the-medical-system-places-a-higher-value-on-your-organs-than-your-life/