ISRAEL’S LIES ARE BEGINNING TO CHOKE ISRAEL

This Genocide Is One Nonstop Insult To Your Intelligence. The Lies Israel And Its Supporters Have To Pretend To Believe Are Getting So Ridiculous That Supporting Israel Is Now An Act Of Public Humiliation.

Netanyahu has confirmed reports that Israel plans an extreme escalation in Gaza which will entail the total military occupation of the entire enclave and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which the Israeli spin machine has termed “voluntary migration”.

To be clear, anyone who says the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza would be “voluntary” is lying. Starving a population and deliberately making their land uninhabitable is exactly the same as forcing them out at gunpoint. Saying “leave or you’ll starve” is not meaningfully different from saying “leave or I’ll shoot you in the head”. Israel’s planned mass expulsion will be as forced and involuntary as any in recorded history.

President Trump has fully signed off on this move, washing his hands of the mass atrocity he is cosigning by telling the press that it’s going to be “pretty much up to Israel.”

Trump is lying. It’s up to him. That’s why more than 600 former senior Israeli security officials from Mossad and Shin Bet just sent Trump a letter urging him to compel Netanyahu to make peace in Gaza. They understand that the American president has always had the power to end the Gaza holocaust; numerous Israeli insiders have said that this mass atrocity would not be possible without American assistance.

Trump could end all this at any time, and chooses not to. This makes him one of the most evil people in the world.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu now says the shocking images of Gaza’s completely flattened landscape aren’t the result of months of Israeli airstrikes, artillery, and systematic bulldozer operations—but because “Hamas booby traps every single building.”

This whole genocide is powered by lies. Netanyahu just told Fox News that the horrifying aerial footage of the destruction in Gaza that we’ve been seeing is because every single building in Gaza was booby trapped with explosives by Hamas.

“The reason you see the flattened buildings is because Hamas booby traps every single building,” Netanyahu said. “So when we come in, we first have the population moved even though Hamas tries to keep them in the combat zones. But after they move, and we start to move into the neighborhoods that are now populated only by terrorists, they ignite these booby traps. So what we do is we put in an APC, an armored personnel carrier, with a lot of explosives. Detonate it. It sets off all the booby traps and the buildings begin to collapse as a result of that. They’re empty buildings, they’re not populated buildings.”

Absolutely nobody believes this is true. Not one single person alive on this earth sincerely believes that Gaza now looks like a gravel parking lot because Hamas placed explosives inside every single building. Netanyahu doesn’t believe it. Israel’s most venomous supporters don’t believe it. It’s just part of the nonstop fountain of lies they are spewing to avoid acknowledging what we all know we’re looking at. They’ve told so many lies by now that they’ve got to keep lying and lying just to stay afloat, like a man desperately treading water to avoid drowning.

This genocide is one nonstop insult to our intelligence. It’s actually degrading at this point. The lies Israel and its supporters have to pretend to believe are getting so ridiculous that supporting Israel is now an act of public humiliation and self-debasement.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett warned that Tel Aviv is losing American support. He said that Israel was increasingly viewed as a “leper state” and “losing the Republican party.”

Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett has a long rant on his social media accounts complaining that Israel’s “status in the United States is collapsing”, including among Republicans, with public sentiment turning against them because of what is happening in Gaza.

As you might expect, Bennett does not frame this as a sign that Israel should stop committing genocide in Gaza, but rather complains of a crisis of “antisemitism” in the United States, and accuses Netanyahu of failing to adequately propagandize Americans.

“Jews in the United States are subject to a torrential wave of anti-Semitism, like him I don’t remember in my life,” Bennett moans, adding, “Antisemites increase to compare the ‘hunger’ in Gaza to the Holocaust, and thus reduce the memory of the Holocaust. They act that the hunger accusation will haunt israel its citizens, our soldiers, for generations.”

“If Netanyahu’s propaganda men worked against the enemies of Israel *outside* a tenth of the talent, speed and dedication with which they operate the propaganda machine against their political rivals *inside* israel our situation would be amazing,” Bennet writes, saying he wants to “re-establish a rapid and synchronized explanation headquarters”.

“Explanation” is the literal translation of the Hebrew word “hasbara”, i.e. pro-Israel propaganda.

Israel is dropping the term “hasbara” to describe its propaganda efforts and replacing it with “toda’a” (consciousness.)

Meanwhile the term “hasbara” itself is reportedly being abandoned by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, as westerners have come to associate the term with genocide propaganda.

The Times of Israel reports:

“Long referred to as hasbara, a term used to denote both public relations and propaganda that has been freighted with negative baggage in recent years, the ministry now brands its approach as toda’a — which translates to ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ — an apparent shift toward broader, more proactive messaging.”

So they’re not abandoning the genocide, and they’re not abandoning the genocide propaganda, they’re just abandoning the word for the genocide propaganda because people have come to associate that word with propaganda in support of genocide.

The entire Zionist project is built on a foundation of lies. And their lies are starting to catch up with them. They’re now at a point where the lies are beginning to damage the public image they’re intended to protect.

When a liar is recognized as a liar, his lies will forevermore work only as an antidote to his past lies, and as a light to further expose his intent. From that point on any lie he tells just shows people how ugly his character and intentions really are.

There is no other weapon that works that way. No other weapon which when it’s seen immediately stops working, actively disarms the attacker, starts fixing what he broke, and starts attacking him.

The truth will win in the end – we all should hope.

THE WRONG QUESTION IS: “WHAT WAS ISRAEL SUPPOSED TO DO AFTER OCTOBER 7?”

A Much More Useful And Interesting Is “What Were Palestinians Supposed To Do In Response To All Of Israel’s Abuses Prior To October 7th?”

As Israel and its supporters continue to lose control of the narrative around the world with more and more people awakening to the reality that a genocide is taking place in Gaza, There is the resurrection of a talking point that western Israel apologists have been trying to make work off and on since this mass atrocity began.

“What was Israel supposed to do in response to October 7th?” they ask confidently, taking it as a given that there is no possible answer to this brilliant checkmate question besides “Rain vast quantities of military explosives on a giant concentration camp full of children and deliberately starve a civilian population using siege warfare.”

But the real problem is that they are asking the wrong question.

A much more useful and interesting question than “What was Israel supposed to do in response to October 7th?” is “What were Palestinians supposed to do in response to all of Israel’s abuses prior to October 7th?”

Nobody’s ever been willing to give a serious response to this question which doesn’t entail mountains of lies and/or the dehumanizing expectation that Palestinians should accept conditions that none of us would willingly accept ourselves.

That’s why you never see us criticizing Hamas. If someone could tell us what specifically Palestinians should have done in response to Israel’s tyranny that they haven’t already tried in order to obtain real material justice, we would happily say Hamas should have taken that option instead of resorting to violent force. But if that option truly existed, Hamas never would have been created in the first place. That’s why nobody’s been able to tell us what such an option would have looked like without lying.

What was Israel supposed to do after October 7th? Same thing they should have done before October 7th: dismantle the apartheid state, give everyone equal rights, pay massive reparations, and right all the wrongs of the past. October 7th was a response to the tyranny and abuse of Israel; the correct thing to do when things finally came to a head with the Hamas attack would have been to remove all the tyranny and abuse which gave rise to it.

That’s what Israel should have done. Of course Israel was never going to do this, for the same reason they spent decade after decade murdering, displacing and oppressing Palestinians since Israel was created. Israel would never allow justice and equality after October 7th for the same reason Israel would never allow justice and equality before October 7th: because Israel has always been a settler-colonialist project that can only be sustained by nonstop violence and tyranny and theft and abuse and lies and breathtaking immorality.

That is the reason October 7th happened, and it’s the problem all decent people in the world are trying to address right now.

Those who suggest that everything Israel is doing in Gaza can be explained by October 7th have got it exactly backwards: everything we’re seeing in Gaza explains why October 7th happened in the first place.

The sadism and psychopathy we’re witnessing in Gaza didn’t magically appear 22 months ago; everyone in Gaza has been experiencing Israel’s abusiveness in various manifestations throughout their entire lives.

Israel has always been this way. October 7th just gave it the excuse to completely unleash its genocidal impulses.

TELL FUTURE GENERATIONS: THEY KNEW. THEY ALL KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN GAZA.

Don’t Let Them Get Away With Saying They Didn’t Know. They Knew The Entire Time. Brand Them Permanently With This Shame, And Make Them Carry It For The Rest Of Their Lives.

A note to future generations for historical record:

Every pundit, politician and reporter of our time who claims they didn’t know what was happening in Gaza is lying.

They knew what was happening. They knew Israel was telling lies. They knew about everything.

They had access to the same information as all the rest of us. We watched them make excuses and ignore indisputable facts every step of the way. There was absolutely no confusion about what they were looking at. It was all right out in the open.

Don’t let them get away with saying they didn’t know. They knew. They knew the entire time. Brand them permanently with this shame, and force them to carry it with them for the rest of their lives.

You should hate all genocide supporters equally, regardless of their religion. Talking about your religion is like telling us about your dreams: it’s completely uninteresting. If you support an active genocide you’re a bad person who deserves to be shunned and reviled, regardless of what your religion happens to be.

It’s so wild how Jewish people will just stride confidently into public discourse about Gaza while strongly emphasizing their Jewishness, as though their support for genocide is somehow special and different from any other idiot’s support for genocide. Wanting to starve civilians and mass murder children makes you a piece of crap, whether you are Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, or atheist.

Nobody cares what religious belief systems you happen to hold in your head while you advocate massacring civilians, they care about the fact that you advocate massacring civilians. Being Jewish doesn’t give you some kind of magical immunity from being held to basic moral standards and being judged by society for supporting a mass atrocity. It’s got nothing to do with anything.

After a whistleblower on the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation named Tony Aguilar shared the heartbreaking story about a boy named Amir who became one of the many Palestinians massacred by Israeli forces while trying to obtain food at an aid site, his family reported that he had been missing since that day and they hadn’t known what had happened to him. They still don’t know where his body is.

The fact that people just “go missing” in Gaza after being killed indicates Israel often buries the bodies of victims to cover up their deaths — something they’ve been caught doing before. This is one of many reasons why we can be sure that the actual death toll is much higher than the official record.

You shouldn’t be able to believe Israel supporters spent days yelling “Israel isn’t starving children, it’s starving SICK children!” and thought that was an awesome argument.

Friendly periodic reminder that the “Israel bombs hospitals because the hospitals are Hamas bases” narrative was conclusively debunked when IDF soldiers were repeatedly documented entering the hospitals they attacked and destroying individual pieces of medical equipment, one by one. Hamas isn’t the target, healthcare is the target. That has been irrefutably established.

Opposing the Gaza genocide has meant being proven right about everything from the very beginning every step of the way, hating being proven right, and then having the liberals who kept yelling at you for your rightness slowly begin to acknowledge that you were right, while still finding excuses to hate you for being right anyway.

A new poll by the Israel Democracy Institute has found that only 6.7 percent of Jewish Israelis say they are “very troubled” by reports of starvation and suffering in Gaza, with 67 percent saying they are either “not at all troubled” or “not so troubled” by the news. That means those who are pretty much fine with deliberately starving children outnumber those who hold a normal attitude on the matter ten to one.

Poll after poll after poll shows that Jewish Israelis are horrible people who are quantifiably much more cruel and immoral than pretty much any other population. At a certain point you have to stop thinking the polls might be mistaken and see that the only real mistake is Israel.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian support for the war with Russia has plunged even further, with a new Gallup poll finding that just 24 percent of Ukrainians now support continuing the fight until victory. A 69 percent supermajority now say they want peace negotiations as soon as possible.

A majority of Ukrainians have wanted this war to end for a while now. At this point the only ones who want more war are westerners, plus some of the Ukrainians who live far away from the fighting.

We’re being told the holocaust in Gaza can’t be ended, and we’re being told the war nobody wants in Ukraine must continue. We are ruled by monsters.

IT IS DELUSIONAL TO PURSUE REGIME CHANGE IN CHINA AND RUSSIA

Members Of America’s Foreign Policy Elite Are Extremely Fond Of “Regime Change” As The Preferred Method For Dealing With Adversarial Governments. Hawkish Allies In Europe Share That Mentality.

Some activists now want to see if the strategy can work to oust Russian president Vladimir Putin and end the war between Russia and Ukraine with a definitive victory for NATO’s Ukrainian proxy. A few hawks even advocate pursuing regime change in China.

In both cases, the strategy likely would prove catastrophic.

The love affair with regime change, whether through direct force or indirect destabilizing actions, has had a firm hold on the thinking of Western interventionists for a long time. As far back as 1953, the CIA worked with the British government to remove Iran’s democratically elected but sometimes uncooperative prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and restore the autocratic Shah to power. Washington’s targets throughout the international system over the decades number well into the double digits. Recent adversaries removed through direct or indirect American regime action include Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and (just last year) Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

As the Iran episode confirmed, dictators are not the only rulers put on Washington’s regime change hit list. Barack Obama’s administration aided—and perhaps even organized—the efforts of anti-government demonstrators to unseat Ukraine’s elected pro-Russia president, Viktor Yanukovych, in 2014.

American leaders regarded such regime change missions as great successes and have failed to learn two important lessons in the process. One is that apparent short-term successes frequently turn into longer-term fiascos. Getting rid of Gaddafi, for example, turned Libya into a cauldron of chaos where there were even credible reports of open-air slave markets for black African refugees. The overthrow of Mosaddegh ultimately helped pave the way to power for the current repressive Islamist regime and fostered an abiding hatred of the United States among many Iranians. Washington’s undermining of Yanukovych highlighted growing American contempt for Moscow’s view that Ukraine was crucial to Russia’s security. Repeated warnings from Putin and his associates that NATO’s continuing expansion toward Russia’s border, especially attempts to make Ukraine a NATO member or asset, would cross a bright red line went unheeded. The Kremlin’s subsequent military actions against Ukraine in turn led to the onset of a dangerous proxy war between NATO and Russia.

The other lesson that too many Western hawks have failed to learn is that even when regime change may prove feasible against relatively small, weak opponents, it will not work against larger, more powerful countries. Moreover, it is extraordinarily dangerous even to try such a coercive move. The risks include a vastly destructive war that could equal or even exceed the horrors of the two world wars. Nevertheless, reckless hawks indulge in regime-change fantasies with respect to both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia.

Although PRC officials remain suspicious of Washington’s long-term intentions, hardliners in the West focus more on strengthening Washington’s informal commitment to defend Taiwan than they think about fomenting regime change in the PRC itself. Even some of Beijing’s most aggressive opponents in America and its security partners in East Asia have concluded that seeking the overthrow of China’s communist government (however odious the regime might be) is a bridge too far.

It is imperative that American leaders avoid the temptation to pursue the objective of regime change in either China or Russia. Both powers are much more serious and capable geostrategic players than any of Washington’s previous targets. It is profoundly dangerous and unwise to equate such adversaries with the likes of Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, or Syria. Those countries were all second-tier or even third-tier military powers. Their ability to inflict damage on the American military was quite limited, although regime change in even those small, weak countries gave the American regime far more trouble than anticipated.

Russia and the PRC are full-fledged great powers capable of mounting very damaging diplomatic, economic, and even military countermoves against the United States. Most importantly both countries possess nuclear arsenals that could inflict enormous damage on the American homeland. The American regime has been able to overthrow adversarial regimes running much weaker countries, but it would be extremely dangerous, and quite possibly suicidal, to attempt the same strategy with respect to China or Russia. The American political and policy elites must abandon such irresponsible regime change fantasies.

THE FINAL SOLUTION FOR ISRAEL

As Gaza Starves, Netanyahu Pledges To Expand The “War”. According To Some Sources, This Is Being Done With President Trump’s Blessing. This Announcement Comes At A Time When Starvation In Gaza Has Reached The Tipping Point.

On Tuesday, August 4th, reports began to appear in Israeli media that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to launch a more “aggressive” military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which will end with Israeli occupation of the territory. According to these same sources, this is being done with President Trump’s blessing. This announcement comes at a time when starvation in Gaza has reached the tipping point and there is the highest level of famine, while countries besides the United States increasingly criticize Israel’s actions and demand a resolution to this grim chapter in history. Netanyahu, however, instead of showing concern for international pressure or the impact this has on his American patrons, is solidifying power, including illegally firing the Attorney General who has been prosecuting him. With the notable exceptions of Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who became the first Republican Representative to call Israel’s actions genocide, the ruling party in the United States is unfazed and is even doubling down, with the Trump Administration attempting [and then reversing] to tie state and local disaster relief funds to support for Israel, while a large number of Congressional Republicans just went to Israel and were photographed with Netanyahu, who has an outstanding international warrant for war crimes. It should be undeniable at this point that Israel’s objectives in Gaza are genocidal. It is not just the government: a new poll showed that roughly 80% of Israel Jews are at least largely unconcerned about famine in Gaza. All of this notwithstanding, our corrupt and fanatical governing class is determined that Americans be as culpable for this crime as possible. It is past time to take every possible action to end Israel’s genocide, feed Gaza, and remove the Likud government from power. However, despite increasing public criticisms from new quarters, it seems the policy of the “civilized world” will be to support or at least remain neutral towards Israel until there is greater mass death among the Palestinians of Gaza and those who remain are restricted to an even smaller concentration camp.

From the start of Israel’s war on Gaza we have been flooded with propaganda about 10/7 itself, Israel’s goals and actions, and the entire history of Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Much of it was of surprisingly poor quality, as we have learned that Israel was never actually good at propaganda, the American and British media just cover for them to an incredible extent. They have, as with any propaganda campaign, also relied on public ignorance about the workings of human affairs. For example, many have claimed Israel has been going “easy” on Gaza and that no other power would show this degree of restraint following an attack, despite that Israel’s behavior has been among the most unrestrained of any state in modern history. Israel was bombing at roughly the fastest sustainable rate it was capable of, when you figure that pilots need to sleep and planes need to be reloaded and maintained and that sort of thing. It is said that in the first 13 months of this conflict Israel dropped more munitions on Gaza than were used in entire Second World War. Though they have murdered as many Gazan journalists as possible and have prohibited foreign journalists from entering, a surreptitious video was recently taken of Gaza City from the air, and the scale of destruction is unprecedented:

Much of the public for some reason believes that genocide is something one can just decide to do, not something which takes an enormous amount of work and planning. As genocide scholar Mark Kersten recently explained, genocide is a process, not an event,

“Genocide is not perpetrated instantaneously. It does not ‘just happen’. Rather, those who seek to commit genocide must prepare their population to either support violence or to turn a blind eye to it…

In part because human beings have an innate aversion to harming others and participating in atrocities, genocide also takes on insidious forms, what some call “slow violence”…This lack of instant violence – often accompanied by continued births and parts of the population surviving – is often used to deny genocidal violence.

It is perhaps instructive to imagine the amount of work that would goes into two people killing one person and then disposing of the body, but on an industrial scale. By any method one would use, and whether or not one leaves corpses lying around, to instruct one large body of men towards the extermination of as many of a population of 2 million as possible is an enormous undertaking which takes years, particularly when you want the amount of plausible deniability- or in this case implausible deniability, that allowed Israel to go through the first 20 or so months of this with the word “genocide” remaining taboo in most “respectable” circles in the powerful “Western” countries. Further, the human instinct for survival is great, as seen by the willingness of Gazans to brave indiscriminate gunfire to grab bags of flour. Starvation is a slow and miserable process, particularly as any society starts with quite a lot of stored food and will ultimately kill their livestock, eat the seeds they intended to plant, hunt for insects, peel the bark off of trees, and boil their leather belts for food; hunger will drive humans to such lengths for survival that during the siege of Jerusalem a woman killed, cooked, and ate her own baby, and was so driven to madness by hunger that she saved half of him to present to partisans who would inevitably be attracted to the smell of meat and come to take it.

Time is running out for Gaza and there is every indication that the Netanyahu regime intends to make things worse instead of better, even if they do let in a nominal amount of food to provide themselves with an alibi. International law, always fragile, is collapsing under the weight of Israel’s genocide which is backed and enabled by the powers that consider themselves to be world police. America’s political leaders are determined to involve all American’s in these crimes and put the guilt onto the entire population, following Israel into perdition. It is time for a radically different course: the world must come together to stop Israel and save what people of Gaza can still be saved. Given the scale of Israel’s well-documented crimes, supporting an international invasion force to overthrow the Likud regime and protect the Palestinians is at this point a moderate position. By committing genocide Israel has lost its place among the nations of the world: the only question now is how many more they bring down with them.

ISRAEL IS A LIABILITY – NOT AN ALLY

The American Regime And It’s People Are Paying Mightily For Israel’s Reckless Policies. My People Are “Starting To Hate Israel.” That’s What President Donald Trump Reportedly Told A Prominent Jewish Donor Recently.

His remark wasn’t just a political aside; it was a warning. As images of starvation and devastation from Gaza flood American screens, even Trump has privately acknowledged the reality of “real starvation.” A shift is underway, and it is reshaping the foundations of American politics and foreign policy.

Once-unquestioning support for Israel on the American right is beginning to erode. MAGA-aligned voices—from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who labeled Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide,” to populist influencers like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson—are now publicly challenging the American–Israeli relationship. Bannon has observed that Israel has “very little support” among the under-30 MAGA base. Carlson, in an interview with progressive host Ana Kasparian, went further: “They [Israel] are not allowed to use my tax dollars to bomb churches,” he declared, accusing Tel Aviv of war crimes and questioning continued American military aid.

This growing skepticism reflects a deeper structural problem in the America–Israel relationship: a classic case of moral hazard. Israel operates with the expectation that Washington will foot the bill—politically, financially, and militarily—regardless of how destabilizing or damaging its actions may be. Israeli leaders have repeatedly defied American warnings, expanded illegal settlements, and abandoned even the pretense of a two-state solution with the Palestinians, all while receiving billions in unconditional aid and carte blanche diplomatic cover.

As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said back in 2011, Israel is an “ungrateful ally” that gives “nothing in return” for American guarantees, military support, and intelligence sharing. Generals David Petraeus and James Mattis, both former commanders of the American Central Command, have likewise warned that Israel’s policies directly undermine American interests in the region, inflame anti-American sentiment, and fuel recruitment for extremist groups.

Yet, Israel’s leaders continue to act with impunity, confident that the United States will absorb the political and strategic fallout. That is not the mark of a healthy alliance. It is exploitation.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel’s recent actions toward Iran. Despite explicit warnings from Washington, Israeli forces launched a surprise attack on Iran on June 13th, hitting nuclear, military, and civilian sites, and killing senior commanders, scientists, and hundreds of civilians, including children. The timing was no accident: the strikes came just as American diplomats were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough in nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The fallout was immediate, and its costs to the United States extended far beyond diplomacy, striking at the heart of American strategic and material security. For example, in rushing to defend Israel during the 12-day war, the United States depleted roughly a quarter of its entire stockpile of THAAD missile interceptors, a vital component of America’s high-end missile defense network. These interceptors are not easily replaced; experts estimate it could take up to eight years to replenish the supply. For a country increasingly focused on deterring China, this is not burden-sharing. It is free riding by Israel, and it leaves America less secure.

And what was gained? Despite triumphalist claims that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated,” the reality is murky. The fate of Iran’s enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges remains unknown, and Tehran has expelled international inspectors while embracing a posture of nuclear ambiguity, mirroring Israel’s own opaque doctrine. Far from eliminating the challenge, the attacks have reinforced a hard truth: Short of a full-scale American invasion, there is no military solution to Iran’s nuclear program. Without inspectors or boots on the ground, its status is fundamentally unverifiable. Only diplomacy—long preferred by Trump—offers a path to lasting and verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Moreover, despite advanced American and Israeli air defenses, dozens of Iranian missiles broke through, inflicting the worst damage Israeli cities have seen in decades. Rather than projecting strength, the war revealed deep vulnerabilities. Even leading voices on the right are rejecting the triumphalist spin: Bannon asserted that the ceasefire was needed “to save Israel” as it took “brutal hits” and ran low on defenses, while Trump acknowledged that Israel got hit “very hard.” Far from boosting American deterrence, the Israeli war on Iran drained critical American resources, exposed strategic gaps, and entangled America in yet another foreign conflict.

Worse still, Israel’s ambitions don’t end with Iran. Its most hawkish advocates in Washington are now floating escalatory military action against Syria and even NATO ally Turkey. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders have their eyes set on annexing the West Bank and fully occupying Gaza, moves that would further destabilize the region. These reckless objectives threaten to entangle the United States in a cascade of endless wars, isolate it diplomatically, and drain resources and credibility better spent countering real strategic threats. Once again, Israel will expect Washington to pick up the tab—politically, financially, and militarily.

All of this is unfolding as global headlines denounce American complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza, widely seen as genocidal and driven by ethnic cleansing. Around the world, public opinion is shifting sharply against Washington. Trust in the United States is collapsing at a time when it can least afford it, just as it seeks to rally global allies and compete with rising powers like China and Russia.

In this strategic context, the comparison often made between Israel and American partners like Ukraine or Taiwan simply falls apart. Iran is not a great power rival, and Israel is not on the frontlines of a global contest. The American military assesses that Iran’s military posture is defensive, and its nuclear program—while a concerning proliferation risk—is aimed at deterrence, not aggression. Yet for over four decades, Washington has treated Iran as a primary adversary, fixating on a mid-sized, conventionally weak country with no nuclear weapons and a stagnant economy. This misplaced obsession—driven by Israeli pressure and domestic politics—has undermined American diplomatic leverage and distracted from the real challenges of Great Power Competition.

At the same time, Israel continues to prioritize its own interests with little regard for America’s strategic concerns. While Washington calls for global alignment against Russia and China, Israel maintains ties with both powers. It has refused to sanction Russia. It has deepened commercial ties with Beijing, allowing a Chinese state-owned company to operate the Haifa port—used by the American Navy—despite warnings from American officials about espionage risks. Chinese investment in Israel’s tech and cyber sectors has surged. In effect, Israel safeguards its own flexibility on the world stage while pressuring Washington to forfeit its diplomatic options in the Middle East.

Indeed, Israel has consistently opposed American engagement with other regional powers—particularly Iran and, at times, Saudi Arabia—on balanced terms. Unlike competitors like China and Russia, which maintain relations with all sides to maximize influence, Israel pressures the United States to adopt rigid, zero-sum approaches that shut down diplomatic avenues and heighten the risk of war. This is not the behavior of a responsible ally. It reflects a pattern of coercive dependence in which Israel seeks to constrain American policy while securing unrestrained freedom of action for itself.

This pattern has played out for decades, with devastating consequences. Since 9/11, America’s entanglement with Israel’s hardline agenda has fueled a series of disastrous interventions. In 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu stood before Congress and “guaranteed” that invading Iraq would bring “enormous positive reverberations” across the Middle East. The reality was catastrophe: hundreds of thousands killed, the rise of ISIS, and an emboldened Iran.

These misadventures have cost trillions of dollars, stretched America’s capacities thin, and damaged Washington’s diplomatic standing. China’s successful brokering of a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran highlighted just how far the American regime has fallen from its once central role as a regional peacemaker.

Even more corrosive is the collapse of America’s moral authority. By defending Israel’s worst excesses—including apartheid policies and the horrific onslaught in Gaza—Washington is no longer seen as a champion of human rights, but as an enabler of extreme oppression. A foreign policy that sacrifices both national interests and democratic ideals at the altar of an extreme client state is not just irrational, it is strategically untenable.

It is long past time for a strategic reset. Israel is not the indispensable ally it is often portrayed to be, but a regional actor pursuing narrow objectives with little regard for the costs imposed on the United States. No serious partner would repeatedly push the American regime to choose between its principles and another ruinous war. Unconditional support for Israel has produced one debacle after another, leaving America poorer, weaker, and more isolated.

A realignment of American policy is urgently needed. No alliance should be unconditional, especially one that undermines American diplomacy, security, and global standing. A foreign policy rooted in restraint, realism, and responsibility would condition aid on Israeli behavior and reassert American freedom of action in the Middle East. Washington should engage with all major regional powers based on national interest, not ideological rigidity. Leveraging American influence to secure compromises from Israel, such as halting settlement expansion or ending the Gaza blockade, would not only ease anti-American sentiment but also serve Israel’s own long-term security.

Failing to change course will only further empower hardliners—in Tel Aviv, Tehran, and Washington—who thrive on endless conflict. America must choose: Continue down a path of costly entanglement and strategic decline, or chart a new course anchored in sovereignty, balance, and hard-nosed diplomacy.

CALLS TO “NUKE GAZA” SHOW HOW LITTLE WAS LEARNED EIGHTY YEARS AFTER HIROSHIMA

From Japan To Palestine, The Dehumanization Of The Victims Of American Imperialist Violence Has Enabled That Type Of Mass Killing To Be Repeated – And Rationalised.

On May 22nd 2025, the register of all victims of the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima was brought out from its stone-chamber cenotaph at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, following a silent prayer at 8.15am – the exact time the bomb fell on August 6th 1945, 80 years ago.

The register lists 344,306 names, with one volume dedicated to those whose identities are unknown. Marking the 80th anniversary, the city allowed media to view the inside of the chamber for the first time.

That very same day, as Hiroshima quietly marked its dead, Republican Congressman Randy Fine went on Fox News to suggest that a nuclear weapon be dropped on Gaza. Despite his history of incendiary and extremist remarks, he was not the first American politician to make such a statement.

A year earlier, on March 21st 2024, Republican Congressman Tim Walberg also suggested dropping a nuclear weapon on Gaza, “like Nagasaki and Hiroshima”.

The previous November, less than a month after Israel began its assault on October 7th 2023, heritage minister Amichay Eliyahu, of the Jewish Power Party, told a Hebrew radio station that a nuclear bomb should be dropped on Gaza.

Some Israeli commentators warned that calls to “nuke Gaza” risked drawing international outrage and undermining Israel’s long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity – its refusal to confirm or deny possessing such weapons. After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suspended him from cabinet meetings and publicly disavowed the remarks, Eliyahu claimed his words were “metaphorical”.

Since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza, comparisons to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place three days later on August 9th 1945, have been invoked by a range of figures.

The frequency and flippancy with which politicians and pundits have entertained – and at times encouraged – the nuclear destruction of Gaza has struck a nerve in Japan, where anti-war and pro-Palestine sentiment has surged.

The frequency and flippancy with which politicians and pundits have entertained – and at times encouraged – the nuclear destruction of Gaza has struck a nerve in Japan

Last year, Nihon Hidankyo, the group representing living atomic bomb survivors (hibakusha), won the Nobel Peace Prize. One of its leaders, Toshiyuki Mimaki, said aid workers in Gaza deserved the honour instead. Earlier that year, the mayor of Nagasaki refused to invite the Israeli ambassador to the city’s memorial, despite public criticism from Israel’s embassy and its supporters.

Japan’s pro-Palestine mobilisation has not been confined to civil society. In July 2025, Reiwa Shinsengumi, a five-year-old left-wing populist party led by former actor Taro Yamamoto, overtook the century-old Japanese Communist Party in the lower house and gained an additional seat in the upper house. Reiwa’s platform includes an explicit opposition to Zionism and support for Palestinian rights.

After nearly two years of a live-streamed genocide, the Japanese response carries a particular historical resonance.

In a country where the devastation of nuclear war is a living memory, casual calls to obliterate Gaza reflect the same logic of annihilation. That this recognition comes from survivors of mass destruction – who have stood publicly with Palestinians in Gaza – underscores not only the cruelty of such rhetoric, but the ease and impunity with which it is voiced.

Eighty years after Hiroshima, politicians’ open calls for the extermination of an entire civilian population – even as Palestinians are starved, bombed and incinerated – reveal how little has been learned, and how thoroughly such apocalyptic violence has been normalized.

IT IS NOT OKAY TO STILL BELIEVE THE LIES ABOUT GAZA IN AUGUST OF 2025 IF YOU ARE A GROWN ADULT

It’s Not Okay To Be A Grown Adult With Internet Access In August 2025 And Still Believe This Mass Atrocity And Genocide Is About Self-Defense.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe this mass atrocity is about self-defense.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that people in Gaza are not being deliberately starved by Israel.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that Israel destroyed Gaza’s entire healthcare system because there were Hamas bases in every part of that healthcare system.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that Israel is banning foreign journalists from entering Gaza because it is concerned for the journalists’ safety.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that Israel has been killing a record-shattering number of journalists in Gaza because all of those journalists were Hamas.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that Israel has been killing a shocking number of civilians in Gaza because Hamas is using civilians as human shields.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that unproven claims made by Israeli officials about what’s happening in Gaza should be considered plausible until proven false.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that this mass atrocity is about hostages, or is about Hamas, or is about October 7th, or is about anything besides the long-sought agenda to remove Palestinians from a Palestinian territory.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe this is a very complicated issue.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still believe that this all started on October 7th.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still frame an active genocide as a moral gray area with bad actors on both sides.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still say you don’t know enough about Gaza to have an opinion one way or the other.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still support Israel.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still support Donald Trump.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and still support the western power alliance.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and not be outraged at what you are seeing.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and not be doing everything you can to end this nightmare.

It’s not okay to be a grown adult with internet access in August 2025 and not be doing everything you can to make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

AMERICA STAGED AN ALL-STAR FOOTBALL GAME IN THE FALLOUT ZONE AFTER BOMBING NAGASAKI

On New Year’s Day, 1946, One Of The Most Surreal And Disturbing Sporting Events In American History Was Held In The Japanese City Of Nagasaki.

Less than five months after an dropping atomic bomb on August 9th that destroyed half the city and killed at least 75,000 people the game was staged by the occupying forces of the American military.

The game received wide coverage in the American media at the time and was dubbed the Atomic Bowl.

Then it became largely forgotten, almost lost to history.

As we approach the 80th anniversary of this attack, this game remains an appropriate metaphor for the Nagasaki bomb, the second nuclear weapon dropped on a large Japanese city by the United States at the end of World War II. This horrific bombing and its aftermath has long been overshadowed by the first atomic blast three days earlier at Hiroshima.

In late September 1945, shortly after the Japanese surrender that ended the war, tens of thousands of American Army troops and Marines landed near Nagasaki in southern Japan. They found the city decimated—the bomb had exploded a mile off target over a suburb where 15,000 Catholics had lived—with countless survivors injured or suffering from radiation disease. Many of the Americans were exposed to lingering (and poorly monitored) levels of radiation in the ruins.

“What were we doing here, happily celebrating an American holiday…on a grotesque golgotha so recently hallowed by horror? The question had no answer.”

Since the end of hostilities, American commanders had looked for ways to normalize the American occupation in the Pacific and Europe. A military orientation film, Our Job in Japan, (written by Theodore Geisel, who later became Dr. Seuss) was shown to arriving members of the occupying forces. It told them their main job was “to be ourselves” and show that “the American way…was a pretty good way to live.” This included mounting baseball and football games in which American soldiers could compete. Military officials believed this was also a way for servicemen, as one put it, to “blow off steam” and impress the locals with the glory of American sports.

In December, a Marine commander ordered that a football game be held in Japan for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. Why did the military choose Nagaskai of all places as the site for this game, on a field so close to ground zero? No written records documenting the reasons exist. Additionally, later in 1946, American servicemen helped organize—and served as judges for—a Miss Atom Bomb beauty pageant in Nagasaki for local women.

One of the organizers of the Atomic Bowl football contest, Lt. Gerald Sanders later noted that the game was a kind of tribute to fallen colleagues. “We thought it would be totally appropriate,” he said. “It was certainly not to look like there was a joyful glee in what had happened there… We were there, yet we had many buddies that didn’t make it through the war.”

A gridiron was cleared in front of a middle school which had lost 162 students and 13 teachers to the atomic bomb. Angelo Bertelli, who had won the Heisman Trophy in 1943 as quarterback for Notre Dame, and “Bullet Bill” Osmanski, the Chicago Bears’ star running back, were selected as captains. A top officer wrote a press release promising that the game would have “all the color—and more” of the bowl games to be played that day back in the States. On hand would be a Marine band and Japanese girl cheerleaders.

But they would have to play touch, not tackle, football because shards from the atomic blast still littered the field.

On an unusually chilly day in Nagasaki, about 1,500 servicemen gathered to watch the spectacle. “Here and there were isolated Japanese—a father and his boy, a group of giggly girls, two old men—all looking small and lost and bewildered by it all,” one observer, a Naval officer, wrote in a letter to his wife.

The result was hardly important—Osmanski scored a late touchdown and kicked the extra point for the 14-13 win—but for two days the game was covered widely in America. Then no one wrote about it. At all. No photos and no footage emerged. This lack of subsequent attention reflected Nagasaki’s second-class atomic status. In coming decades, American journalists and notables frequently visited Hiroshima, but they rarely trekked to Nagasaki, which the locals referred to as “the inferior A-bomb city.”

Even the players in the briefly celebrated game were reluctant to discuss it. Growing up, Robert Bertelli never once heard his father talk about playing in an all-star football match in Japan in 1946. Angelo would die in 1999 at the age of 78, and his son—by then known as Bob Bert, a drummer who was a member of the influential rock group Sonic Youth—never heard him mention the game. The former quarterback never spoke about it in interviews. Neither did Osmanski.

The offspring of other players in this game had not been told anything about it by their fathers. This sports stunt disappeared from journalism and history for decades.

Finally, in 1984, one of the Atomic Bowl’s attendees, William Watt, a Navy officer, poet, and literature professor, wrote a short piece for the New York Times’ sports section describing the game and his reaction at the time: “What were we doing here, happily celebrating an American holiday…on a grotesque golgotha so recently hallowed by horror? The question had no answer.”

While a large segment of the American public continues to support the use of the first atomic bomb at Hiroshima, historians have debated that decision. Some have especially questioned the second bombing. For example, Martin Sherwin, a Pulitzer Prize winner for co-authoring, with Kai Bird, the biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, American Prometheus, called the Nagasaki attack “gratuitous at best…and genocidal at worst.”

The disappearance of the Atomic Bowl and the relegation of Nagasaki to an afterthought of Hiroshima raises the question of whether there are lessons from the second atomic attack that extend beyond those prompted by the Hiroshima bombing.

Nearly all of the victims of the Nagasaki bombing were non-combatants, mainly women and children and the elderly, as well as many foreign workers who had been seized and sent to Japan to work in arms factories. Hiroshima did host a major military base—a fact long used to justify the tremendous loss of civilian life there. The bombing of Nagasaki, which was added as a target at nearly the last-minute, showed that civilian casualties could be completely ignored. So much so that a football game could even be played by Americans on one of the killing fields.

The Nagasaki bombing is a reminder, perhaps more so than Hiroshima, that a military attack on a large city, killing tens of thousands of civilians, can become morally accepted not just by civilian and military leaders, but by the public. Some polls in the past have showed that many if not most Americans would today support an American nuclear strike that might kill massive numbers of civilians in, for instance, North Korea.

As we currently witness massive civilian casualties in wars from Africa to Ukarine to Gaza—more kids dead than soldiers in some cases—there’s good reason for the second atomic bombing to receive as much attention as the first.

THE CASE AGAINST THE ATOMIC BOMB FROM GEORGE ORWELL

In October 1945, George Orwell Wrote An Article Titled “You And The Atom Bomb” For The Socialist Publication Tribune.

Orwell’s piece makes a compelling argument against the atomic bomb, noting the myriad ways in which it maximizes state power and enables a handful of empires:

“From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose—and really this the likeliest development—that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.”

In spite of his commitment to democratic socialism, Orwell’s contentions here are decidedly libertarian. At the core of his polemic is the premise that nuclear weapons grease the wheels of statism by allowing the world’s superpowers to hold the global population hostage. Orwell dispels the most optimistic argument put forward by proponents of the atomic bomb, namely that such technology would inaugurate a new era of peace. That peace, however, would be maintained by the threat of mutual assured destruction. The ruling class would be permitted to amass even more power, all while waving the banner of “peace through strength” and stockpiling tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. The threat of nuclear war would facilitate the exponential growth of the state. Rather than reaping a peace dividend, it would use the prospect of nuclear annihilation to expand its empire, thereby exerting its awesome tyranny over both its own citizenry and billions of foreign civilians.

It should come as no surprise that the advent of the atomic bomb kicked off a period of heightened American military intervention abroad. The Cold War undoubtedly fueled that trend, but at the heart of the Cold War was an arms race that nuclear technology accelerated. For over forty years, the world’s two greatest superpowers sought to expand their influence over weaker states. Rather than discourage military aggression, the availability of atomic weapons encouraged the United States to embark on costlier, deadlier foreign adventures. The prospect of mutual assured destruction meant that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had any incentive to back down or avoid conflict. Both powers, bolstered by their respective nuclear arsenals, felt inclined to pursue militaristic agendas with relative impunity.

When the Cold War ended, the specter of nuclear annihilation receded, at least temporarily. But the September 11th “terrorist” attacks allowed the George W. Bush administration to tap into the American public’s fears of a nuclear holocaust. The unipolar moment posed no hindrance to the neoconservative lobby. It convinced the American public that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon. 73% of Americans supported the initial invasion of Iraq precisely because they believed that the United States risked eventual nuclear attack if it didn’t launch a preventive war. In the two decades since, American military interventionism has only grown more brazen. Much in the same way that the Iron Dome incentivizes Israel to pursue a belligerent foreign policy, America’s vast nuclear arsenal allows the American regime to sidestep any concerns that its actions abroad will engender blowback.

At the end of his article, Orwell writes:

“Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police State. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a ‘peace that is no peace.’”

Orwell correctly deduces the paradox at the heart of the Cold War. In actuality, it was a series of hot wars marked by a lack of direct hostilities between the United States and the Soviet Union. And like all hot wars, it necessitated the erosion of individual liberties and the deployment of propaganda to expand the national security state and its military apparatus. The costliness of the atomic bomb—the American government spent the modern equivalent of $30 billion on the Manhattan Project—meant a compounding of state power, one that would further exacerbate the asymmetry between government authority and individual liberty. After all, an atomic bomb is too expensive a weapon to be attained by anybody without access to a wealthy government’s revenue stream. As a result, it proved incapable of erasing the “distinction between great states and small states.” Nor did it crystallize a future in which the “power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened.” On the contrary, it strengthened the health of the state.

Technology is often the handmaiden of authoritarianism. Whether it takes the form of the atomic bomb, mass surveillance, social media, or artificial intelligence, technology has a habit of accelerating statist trends, rendering the citizen more and more powerless. The more complicated a technology becomes, the more difficult it becomes for the individual to reproduce it, and the more burdensome it becomes for non-elites to harness its potential in service of non-statist aims. Orwell’s warning of “two or three monstrous super-states” holding the world captive with their nuclear weapons has proven prophetic. As Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton argues, the only recourse is abolition.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started