Like JD Vance said; ‘Uncontrollable Unaccountable ICE Race Soldiers were Hunting Immigration Criminals who Drop Off Their Kids at School when Terrorist Renee Good Disturbed Their Peace w/a Car Horn’

From [HERE] When Vice President J.D. Vance told reporters at a press briefing Thursday that Jonathan Ross, the federal immigration agent who was filmed fatally shooting Renee Good in Minneapolis, has “absolute immunity,” he was not referring to any recognized statute in United States law, according to legal experts.

Instead, said Human Rights Campaign press secretary Brandon Wolf, “masked federal agents who can gun people down with ‘absolute immunity’ is called fascism.”

Vance addressed reporters at the White House the day after Good was fatally shot at close range while serving as a legal observer of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) surge of federal agents in Minneapolis, where the Trump administration is targeting members of the Somali community in particular.

Widely available footage taken by onlookers shows ICE agents including Ross approaching the car and, according to at least one witness, giving her conflicting instructions, with one ordering her to leave the area and another telling her to get out of the car.

The wheel of Good’s car was seen turning as she began to drive away, just before Ross fired his weapon at least three times.

President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vance immediately blamed Good for her death, saying she had committed an act of domestic terrorism and had tried to run Ross over with her car.

Vance doubled down on Thursday when a reporter asked him why state officials in Minnesota were being cut off from investigating Good’s death—a fact that has left the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which had been planning to launch a probe, with few tools to bring a case to prosecutors.

The vice president said Minnesota prosecutors should instead investigate people who “are using their vehicles and other means” to interfere with ICE’s operations before claiming that Ross is protected from being held accountable for his actions.

“That guy’s protected by absolute immunity,” said Vance. “He was doing his job. The idea that [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after him and make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous.”

Robert Bennett, a veteran lawyer in Minneapolis, told Mother Jones that he has worked on hundreds of cases regarding federal law enforcement misconduct.

“I’ve deposed thousands of police officers,” he said. “ICE agents do not have absolute immunity.”

He continued:

There’s plenty of case law that allows for the prosecution of federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE. And it’s clear under the law that a federal officer who shoots somebody in Minnesota and kills them is subject to a Minnesota investigation and Minnesota law.

Constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer of Northern Kentucky University told CNN that more than a century of legal precedent has shown that state prosecutors can file charges against federal officials for actions they take while completing their official duties.

“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” Mannheimer said.

Should the state take up the case, Ross could attempt to raise an immunity argument if he were able to move the case to a federal court, where a judge would then conduct a two-part analysis—determining whether Ross was acting in his official capacity and whether his action was “reasonable” considering all the facts on the ground, gathered from video evidence and eyewitness testimony.

While holding Ross accountable may be an uphill battle, former federal prosecutor Timothy Sini told CNN, “officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law,” contrary to Vance’s claim. [MORE]

Israel Murders 5 Children in Surge of Attacks on Gaza “Safe Zone”

From [HERE] Eleven-year-old Hamsa Housou lay dead on a cold metal table at the morgue in Al-Shifa hospital. Blood covered her face and the upper part of her striped pajamas as one of her relatives gently wiped her mouth and cheek with a damp cloth, crying as he did so. She had been asleep in her bed early Thursday morning when she was fatally struck by Israeli gunfire. Her family’s home in Jabaliya, west of the so-called yellow line, is in an area designated as safe.

“We were sleeping, and suddenly, around 5 a.m., there were bangs—loud bangs and shells,” Hamsa’s uncle, Aouni Housou, said, standing over her small body. “I live upstairs, and there was screaming. We ran downstairs and they said the girl had been injured. We went to see her and she was covered in blood.” It took half an hour for an ambulance to arrive. When they finally reached the hospital, Hamsa had died.

The eleven-year-old was just one of as many as 14 Palestinians, including five children, killed in Israeli attacks across the Gaza Strip over the past 24 hours, according to an Al Jazeera toll. Since the so-called ceasefire went into effect on October 10, Israel has killed Palestinians in Gaza on an almost daily basis. The missile strikes, shootings, and shelling occur in areas both east of the yellow line, which Israeli troops are occupying as part of the initial agreement, and west of it, where the majority of Palestinians are crammed into less than half of Gaza’s territory. At least 425 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,200 wounded over the past three months of the “ceasefire”—a rate of nearly five Palestinians killed every day.

“Every night there is bombing, shooting, fire belts, robots. Every night. Shrapnel hits our home. What ceasefire? This ceasefire is just theater in front of the world. What caused them to kill her?” Housou said, pointing at his dead niece, unable to hold back the tears.

While much of the world’s attention has turned away from Gaza since the “ceasefire” took hold, the genocide has continued, with daily Israeli military attacks and heavy restrictions on life essentials, including medical supplies, food, building materials, and other items. [MORE]

Vijay Prashad: The absence of U.N. and O.A.S. condemnations of Washington’s attacks on Venezuela indicates the absolute mafia-type power the U.S. wields in the world

What makes the attack against Venezuela illegal? Given the way that the United States completely and consistently disregards international law, even as it talks about a “rules-based international order,” it is worthwhile to revisit the basics of international law as well as review the international laws that the country violated with its attack on Venezuela on Jan. 3.

First, when we talk about “international law,” we are referring to legal obligations that states — and, in certain cases, international organisations and individuals — recognise as binding in their relations with one another.

From [HERE] These rules come from two main sources: treaties (written agreements) and customary international law (rules that become binding through consistent state practice and are accepted as law).

A state must consent to be bound by a treaty (which means it should either sign the treaty or accede to it), but it may be bound by customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens, or “compelling law,” fundamental rules that bind all states) regardless of whether it has signed any treaty.

For instance, the prohibition against genocide and slavery does not require a state to sign anything, since these prohibitions are recognised as peremptory norms that bind all states as a matter of international law.

Another way of saying this is that some laws are so fundamental that no state can opt out of them. The obligations that I will refer to below come from both sources: treaties (such as the U.N. Charter) and customary international law (including the principle of non-intervention and head-of-state immunity), sometimes interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice (ICJ, the U.N.’s highest court for disputes between states), whose judgements carry special authority in explaining what international law requires in practice.

• Prohibition of the threat or use of force. There are two key treaties that should restrict the United States’ use of force against other countries:

  1. The most important is the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, whose Article 2(4) says that all states must refrain from the “threat or use of force” against another state. There are limited exceptions to this, such as if the U.N. Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter (Articles 39–42), determines that there is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and then authorises the use of force to “maintain or restore international peace and security,” or if a state is acting in self-defence. Since there is no other exception, the U.S.’ act of aggression against Venezuela is in clear violation of the U.N. Charter, the highest treaty obligation in the interstate system.

  2. In Latin America, there is also the 1948 Charter of the Organisation of American States (OAS), in which Article 21 says that the “territory of a state is inviolable” and that no “military occupation” or “measures of force” are permitted by one state against another. The OAS Charter follows the U.N. Charter, in which Article 103 makes clear that, where treaty obligations conflict, members’ obligations under the U.N. Charter prevail over those under any other international agreement.

  There should already be resolutions at both the U.N. and the OAS to condemn the recent actions of the United States. The absence of such resolutions is a demonstration less of the powerlessness of the interstate system by itself and more of the absolute mafia-type power wielded by the United States in the world.

Oswaldo Vigas, Composición IV, 1943. (Via Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research)

• Non-intervention in the internal or external affairs of a state. Article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter underscores the centrality of state sovereignty by making it clear that nothing in the Charter authorises the United Nations to intervene in matters “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of any state (except through enforcement measures under Chapter VII).

The prohibition of states intervening in one another’s affairs is also set out plainly in Article 19 of the OAS Charter, which says that no state “has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever” in the internal or external affairs of another state, and that includes any “form of interference” — including a military invasion and the seizure of a head of government.

The U.N. Charter and the O.A.S. Charter are treaties, and customary international law reinforces these treaty rules, independently prohibiting intervention. [MORE]

Marjorie Cohn: Cloutlaw Trump's Attack on Venezuela is a Plainly Unlawful, "War of Aggression" within the Meaning of the International Criminal Court

From [HERE] The Trump administration’s massive military attack on Venezuela, launched with 150 aircraft, reportedly killed upwards of 80 people, including civilians.

In utter defiance of the mandates of the United Nations Charter, U.S. forces launched the attack as they kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, First Lady Cilia Flores, who have been transported to New York, where they face drug trafficking charges.

After two world wars claimed more than 100 million lives, 50 countries came together and enacted the U.N. Charter to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” The United States, one of the drafters of the Charter, is a party to that treaty.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, and judges across the country are bound by them.

Article 2 (4) of the Charter declares,

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The only two exceptions to that prohibition are when a country acts in self-defense after an armed attack or when the U.N. Security Council approves the use of force. The attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores did not constitute self-defense nor did the Security Council authorize it.

Venezuela had not launched an armed attack on the U.S. or any other country, nor did it pose an imminent threat. In a stark example of the tail wagging the dog, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in the press conference following the invasion that the U.S. military engaged in “multiple self-defense engagements as the force began to withdraw out of Venezuela.”

Indeed, it is Venezuela that has the right to exercise self-defense in response to the armed attack by the United States.

Illegal Aggression

Donald Trump’s Jan. 3 attack constituted illegal aggression. In its 1946 judgment, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held:

“To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of whole.”

Under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, an

“‘act of aggression’ means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” That includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”

The U.S. military attack violated the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Venezuela, and thus constituted aggression.

Trump attempted to justify his aggression by claiming that Maduro was the kingpin of an operation that brought drugs into the U.S., saying in his press conference after the abduction that Maduro “sent savage and murderous gangs, including the bloodthirsty prison gang, Tren de Aragua, to terrorize American communities nationwide.”

But an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies from February 2025 determined that Tren de Aragua was neither controlled by the Venezuelan government, nor committing crimes in the U.S. on its orders.

[See: Behind the DOJ’s Politicized Indictment of Maduro]

And most of the cocaine coming into the U.S. is thought to travel not through the Caribbean but rather through the Pacific, according to data from Colombia, the U.S., and the United Nations. Venezuela doesn’t have a Pacific Coast.

Trump also stated at his press conference that he intends to take over Venezuela’s oil and sell it to other countries because it belongs to the United States and U.S. corporations.

But the U.S. has never owned Venezuela’s oil or territory. In 1976, Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized Venezuela’s oil industry. In a process contemporaneously described by The New York Times as “peaceful and orderly,” U.S. and European oil companies that had previously been operating in Venezuela were compensated with about $1 billion.

Foreign oil companies have lodged and won awards in further complaints against Venezuela in the World Bank’s state-corporate dispute arbitration system after then-President Hugo Chávez nationalized other segments of the country’s oil production in 2007, which Venezuela has not paid out. Even if Trump’s bizarre claim that the U.S. owns Venezuela’s oil were true, that would not provide a legal basis for his military attack.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio put forth still a different rationale for the military operation. He claimed it was “largely a law enforcement operation” to arrest Maduro and Flores, on charges in a U.S. indictment alleging that they and other members of the Maduro government committed narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine.

But a state has no enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another state unless the latter has given its consent. Without consent, it is a violation of the second state’s territorial sovereignty.

Moreover, under customary international law, Maduro has “head of state immunity” from foreign enforcement jurisdiction. The U.S. withdrawal of recognition of him as head of the Venezuelan government does not negate his personal immunity under customary international law. These are two defenses Maduro will invariably raise when his case is heard in the United States.

The 1989 OLC Opinion

In an attempt to justify its illegal aggression against Venezuela, the Trump administration will undoubtedly rely on an opinion written in 1989 by then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The opinion was dated six months before President George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Panama, in which the U.S. arrested Gen. Manuel Noriega on drug-trafficking charges.

That opinion says that the president has inherent constitutional authority to order an extraterritorial arrest even if it violates customary international law by intruding “on the sovereignty of other countries.”

The opinion also asserts that domestic U.S. law trumps the U.N. Charter, which prohibits the “use of force against the territorial integrity” of any state. Barr wrote that the Charter doesn’t “prohibit the Executive as a matter of domestic law from authorizing forcible abductions” abroad.

“The OLC opinion completely failed to address numerous recognitions of the founders, framers, and Supreme Court justices that the president and members of the executive branch are bound by international law,” Jordan Paust, professor emeritus at the University of Houston Law Center and former captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, told Truthout. “Further, the express constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the law — not to disobey law.”

Additionally, a significant difference between the Noriega and Maduro cases is that before Bush ordered the arrest of Noriega, Panama’s general assembly had formally declared war against the United States.

Illegal Regime Change & US Occupation

After Maduro’s abduction, Trump said that the United States would occupy Venezuela and “run” the country. “We’re going to stay until such time as the proper transition can take place. So we’re gonna stay until such time as, we’re gonna run it, essentially, until such time as a proper transition can take place.”

Forcible regime change is illegal. The U.N. Charter; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all guarantee the right to self-determination.

The two covenants have the same first sentence of Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

By kidnapping President Maduro and removing him from Venezuela, Trump engaged in illegal regime change and violated the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination. [MORE]

Chris Hedges: Territorial Gangsters [governments] Cannibalize their own country and pillage the natural resources of other countries

From [Chris Hedges] The ruling class of the United States, severed from a fact-based universe and blinded by idiocy, greed and hubris, has immolated the internal mechanisms that prevent dictatorship, and the external mechanisms designed to protect against a lawless world of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy.

U.S. democratic institutions are moribund. They are unable or unwilling to restrain the ruling gangster class. The lobby-infested Congress is a useless appendage. It surrendered its constitutional authority, including the right to declare war and pass legislation, long ago.

It sent a paltry 38 bills to Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law last year. Most were “disapproval” resolutions rolling back regulations enacted during the Biden administration. Trump governs by imperial decree through executive orders.

The media, owned by corporations and oligarchs, from Jeff Bezos to Larry Ellison, is an echo chamber for the crimes of state, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinians; attacks on Iran, Yemen and Venezuela; and the pillage by the billionaire class. Money-saturated elections are a burlesque.

The diplomatic corps, tasked with negotiating treaties and agreements, preventing war and building alliances, has been dismantled. The courts, despite some rulings by courageous judges, including blocking National Guard deployments to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, are lackeys to corporate power and overseen by a Department of Justice whose primary function is silencing Trump’s political enemies.

The corporate-indentured Democratic Party, the purported opposition, blocks the only mechanism that can save Americans — popular mass movements and strikes — knowing its corrupt and despised party leadership will be swept aside.

Democratic Party leaders treat New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — a flicker of light in the darkness — as if he has leprosy. Better to let the whole ship go down than surrender their status and privilege.

Dictatorships are one-dimensional. They reduce politics to its simplest form: Do what I say or I will destroy you.

Nuance, complexity, compromise, and of course empathy and understanding, are beyond the tiny emotional bandwidth of gangsters, including the Gangster-in-Chief.

Dictatorships are a thug’s paradise. Gangsters, whether on Wall Street, Silicon Valley or in the White House, cannibalize their own country and pillage the natural resources of other countries.

Dictatorships invert the social order. Honesty, hard work, compassion, solidarity, self-sacrifice are negative qualities. Those who embody these qualities are marginalized and persecuted. The heartless, corrupt, mendacious, cruel and mediocre thrive.

Dictatorships empower goons to keep their victims — at home and abroad — immobilized. Goons from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Goons from Delta Force, Navy Seals and Black Ops C.I.A. teams, which as any Iraqi or Afghan can tell you are the most lethal death squads on the planet.

Goons from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) and Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.) — seen escorting a hand-cuffed President Nicolás Maduro in New York — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and police departments.

Can anyone seriously make the argument that the U.S. is a democracy? Are there any democratic institutions that function? Is there any check on state power?

Is there any mechanism that can enforce the rule of law at home, where legal residents are snatched by masked thugs from our streets, where a phantom “radical left” is an excuse to criminalize dissent, where the highest court in the land bestows king-like power and immunity on Trump? [MORE]

Trump Creates a Free Range Plantation in Venezuela: Imposes Involuntary Rule Over Subjects Who Must Obey US Authority or Face Violence but are Otherwise “Free” to Live w/o Autonomy, Self-Determination

From [HERE] President Trump has told The New York Times that he expects to “run” Venezuela for many years following the US attack on Caracas to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

By “running” Venezuela, the president appears to mean controlling its oil industry and getting access to the country’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world, for more American companies.

“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” he told the paper. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”

When asked how long he expects the US to remain Venezuela’s “political overlord,” three months, six months, or a year, the president said, “I would say much longer.”

Trump has threatened to attack Venezuela again and potentially send troops, but declined to say what sort of situation could lead to that. “I wouldn’t want to tell you that,” he said.

Trump and his top officials have said that the US will be controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and will start by acquiring 30 million to 50 million barrels. However, Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, has framed the deal as a routine sale of oil to the US, similar to its dealings with Chevron, which continues to operate in the country.

Trump insisted to the Times that Venezuela’s government, which is currently led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s vice president, is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”

Rodriguez has said that no “foreign agent” is running Venezuela and has maintained that Maduro is the rightful president and must be released by the US. “Today, more than ever, the Bolivarian political forces stand firm and united to guarantee the stability of our nation,” she said in a post on Telegram on Thursday.

“Together with the Great Patriotic Pole Simón Bolívar (GPPSB), we have reviewed and cohesively adopted three lines of action: the release of our heroes, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores; preserving peace and stability throughout the national territory; and consolidating governance for the benefit of our people,” she added. [MORE]

Why is Yurugu in Venezuela? It Has the World’s Largest Oil Reserves, the 9th Largest Natural Gas Reserves, and Vast Untapped Minerals Including Gold, Coal and Diamonds

Following the abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro last week, the administration of US President Donald Trump has stated that it wants to quickly restore the country’s oil production and expand its mining sector.

“You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals, they have great mining history that’s gone rusty,” US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Sunday from aboard Air Force One. “President Trump is going to fix it and bring it back.”

Venezuela’s oil reserves are concentrated primarily in the Orinoco Belt, a vast region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000 square kilometres (21,235 square miles), which is controlled by Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

The Orinoco Belt holds extra-heavy crude oil, which is highly viscous and dense, making it much harder and more expensive to extract than conventional crude oil. As a result, it typically sells at a discount compared to lighter, sweeter crudes, such as those extracted from US shale.

Refining oil from this region requires advanced techniques that the US possesses, particularly in the states of Texas and Louisiana. [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Yurugu – a mythological figure within the Dogon tribe (Africa) who is “the incomplete being” (fiend without a face) referring to Neuropeans (neurotic Europeans) within the European asili. 2) a regressive (degenerative) state of consciousness where the soul is cut off from itself. 3) the inability to recognize or abate unacknowledged destructive capabilities. Yurugu also expresses itself and manifests as the pathological condition that utterly fails to convince those in geographical proximity of its harmlessness, therefore has to kill them. Yurugu is in a vicious spiral increasingly at odds with his own humanity—as fragmented, pathological, and distorted as it is. (See: Asili, Caucasian, Racism White Supremacy, Elite, Western Civilization, Neuropean, Oppression, Scarcity, Violence, Genocide, Manifest Density & Ma’afa)

The Blight House is Forcing the Venezuelan Economy to Collapse to Coerce Cooperation with Its Unwanted, Illegitimate Rule by Force

From [HERE] After seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration is increasing the already substantial pressure on the country’s new president, Delcy Rodríguez, demanding she cut ties with U.S. adversaries before a blockade on Venezuelan oil is lifted.

The economic pressure campaign has emerged as central to President Donald Trump’s vow that the United States would “run” Venezuela. In an apparent indication of early compliance, Rodríguez’s government agreed to a deal under which Venezuela would hand millions of barrels of oil over to the U.S.

Inside Venezuela, a nervous quiet has descended on many parts of the capital as people grapple with the aftermath of the U.S. attack and a widening government crackdown against dissent. For now, Caracas residents report no shortages of goods in markets, but inflation is up, normally busy streets are empty and the businesses that do open only do so for set periods of time.

Under the current conditions, Trump administration officials say the Venezuelan government only has a few weeks before it would “go broke” if it doesn’t “play ball,” according to two U.S. officials briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations.

Analysts and economists said that timeline probably describes how long the U.S. assesses that the government in Caracas has before its cash reserves run out and it is left unable to make critical payments, such as salaries for security forces.

“The president is speaking about exerting maximum leverage with the interim authorities in Venezuela and ensuring they cooperate with the United States,” said a senior administration official. “As the president stated, the embargo on sanctioned Venezuelan oil remains in full effect,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Trump has said he is demanding the U.S. get “total access” to Venezuela’s oil reserves and “other things.” Among those is a demand that Venezuela cut ties with China, Iran, Russia and Cuba and agree to partner exclusively with the U.S. on oil production, according to one of the U.S. officials briefed on the matter.[MORE]

More Proof that “Anti-Semitism” has No Meaning: Tucker Carlson Named ‘Antisemite of the Year’ for Opposing Israel’s Ongoing Genocide in Gaza

ACCORDING TO THE FUNKTIONARY:

antisemantic – pertaining to statements whose deliberate purpose is to mean or impart nothing while sounding as if they express some significant point or penetrating insight—like “Adjunct” Professor. Adjunct is a title meaning “non-essential.” 

anti-Semitism – “A European political ploy.” (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.) 2) bigotry against European “Jews” and “Arabs” (as both are Semites)—although most so-called “Jews” are of Eastern European genetic lineage (from Russia). The Jewish race (Twelve Tribes of Israel) is an invented construct (mythology). (See: Twelve Tribes of Israel)

A US pro-Israel advocacy group has named political commentator and journalist Tucker Carlson as its “Antisemite of the Year”, citing his opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

StopAntisemitism announced the designation on Sunday, accusing Carlson of hostility towards Israel after he used his podcast and media appearances to criticise the war and the political influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington.

Carlson, whose online platform reaches millions, has become one of the most prominent rightwing voices denouncing Israel’s grip on US politics, particularly since Tel Aviv launched its war on Gaza on 7 October 2023.

He has singled out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), calling its influence "an ongoing humiliation ritual" for American lawmakers and the country, and has warned that the US is complicit in Israel’s war.

He has also accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, of openly boasting about his leverage over US leaders. [MORE]

UN Human Rights Office says Israel ‘Asphyxiating’ Palestinians for Its ‘Apartheid System’ in West Bank [a most strict free range Plantation Prison]

From [HERE] The United Nations human rights office has called on Israel to “dismantle all settlements” in the occupied West Bank, saying its “oppression and domination” of Palestinians resembles “apartheid”.

In a new report on Wednesday, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed Israel’s “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians, citing restrictions on movement through checkpoints, and “limited access to roads, natural resources, land and basic social facilities”.

“There is a systematic asphyxiation of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank,” said UN rights chief Volker Turk in a statement. “This is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination and segregation that resembles the kind of apartheid system we have seen before.”

The United Nations human rights office has called on Israel to “dismantle all settlements” in the occupied West Bank, saying its “oppression and domination” of Palestinians resembles “apartheid”.

In a new report on Wednesday, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights slammed Israel’s “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians, citing restrictions on movement through checkpoints, and “limited access to roads, natural resources, land and basic social facilities”.

“There is a systematic asphyxiation of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank,” said UN rights chief Volker Turk in a statement. “This is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination and segregation that resembles the kind of apartheid system we have seen before.” [MORE]

Trump Pulls US Out of UN Forum: Stupidly Believes Reparations are an Act of Benevolence (like DEI), Not Pay Back Owed for Unjust Enrichment, Demonstrable Oppression and Crimes Against Humanity

President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday to pull the US out of a UN coalition that State Department officials claim has been pushing unconstitutional and racist policies — including a push for global reparations.

The UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent promoted racial grievances and “victim based social policies” within the world’s governing body that ran afoul of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment and Equal Protection clause, according to Trump administration officials.

“Radical activists who embrace DEI ideology and seek to compel the United States to adopt policies mandating race-based wealth redistribution, in organizations such as the UN Permanent Forum on People of African Descent will no longer be entertained,” he added.

The coalition has advocated for a “global reparations agenda” to “compensate Africa and the African diaspora for the enduring legacies of colonialism, enslavement, apartheid and genocide between the 16th and the 19th centuries.” [MORE]

Murder: Hollywood Police Claimed They were Forced to Fatally Shoot an Armed Black Man but New Video Shows Cops Shoot Him in the Back as He Walked Away w/His Hands Up, Made No Other Effort to Stop Him

From [HERE] and [HERE] Five months after police in Broward County said they were forced to fire on a man who was armed during a confrontation, the man's family says new video tells a different story.

Donald Taylor, 32, was fatally shot by Hollywood Police in Miramar on Aug. 3, near Southwest 19th Street and 61st Avenue.

Detectives said they were trying to make contact with Taylor, who they accused of being involved in a string of violent crimes in Miramar and Hollywood, including a shooting and armed robbery.

When they spotted Taylor, he was armed and refused to listen to officers' commands, before the officers opened fire, officials said.

Taylor's family now has an attorney, and said the new video of the encounter doesn't match what police told the public.

In the video shared by the family's attorney, Taylor is seen walking away from officers with his hands raised and away from his body. The video ends just before Taylor falls to the ground.

Police said a gun was recovered at the scene, but have not released body camera video or identified the officer who fired that fatal shot.

“I can’t think of one thing that they could say or describe that he did off camera that would justify the 20 seconds that he’s on camera with his hands up, walking away and then shot in the back," said Erian White, the family's attorney. "We’ve seen many times, on camera, people accused of worst, terrible, terroristic crimes, and somehow, they are able to be taken into custody, and they are tried.”

White believes the video raises serious questions about whether that legal standard was met, and now the family has demands. “They would like to know the name of the officer that fired the fatal shot, the names of the officers on scene and an arrest is what should be happening at this point,” White said.

---

Under Florida law police officers are authorized to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon where the officer has probable cause to believe that the arrestee poses a threat of death or serious harm to the officers or to others. Specifically Fla. Stat. § 776.05 states,

A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use ofdeadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

• (a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

• (b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

The Florida law has codified the legal standard set by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985). The Garner standard rule goes way beyond the natural law of self-defense. In Florida, an officer having probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a felony, may use the amount of force reasonably necessary to apprehend the suspect even to the extent of shooting and killing him. Shooting him/her will be justified where it is necessary to prevent the escape. To be clear here, the police may use deadly force where the person poses a threat to the public or the officer OR where “there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.” According to the Supreme Court, an officer may infer that a person poses a future danger to others simply because he is suspected of having committed a forcible felony. Garner at 11. Thus, an escaping suspect does not need to pose a specific threat of harm against a person, let alone one that is imminent. Florida courts have explained “the fact that the person has not actually committed a felony or that no crime of any sort has been committed makes no difference, as long as the appearances are such as to lead a police officer to reasonably believe that a felony has been committed and the person he is about to arrest or apprehend is the person who committed the felony.”

In this case, it appeared that the cops had probable cause to believe that Taylor had committed various felonies. If they did, then the police could use deadly force to make an arrest. The only legal question would be whether the use of deadly force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent Taylor from escaping. According to the Garner standard, shooting a person in the back would be lawful where the fleeing felon arrestee would escape but for shooting him because he is too fast or too far away or entering an area where he could be lost to the police.

Under such analysis, from the video it looks like the cops made no other effort to stop Taylor other than shooting him. That is, the cops had an opportunity to chase him because he was in sight and not a far distance away from him and he was not running but walking. If so, then the cops committed murder. However, the entire interaction between cops and Taylor has not been made available by the government so the whole context is unknown until they do.

Don’t be mad at BW. The fact that cops can lawfully shoot people in the back in the lex-icon is evidence that so-called authority, which includes the so-called right of government agents to initiate unprovoked acts of violence, is evil and immoral. Nevertheless, physical coercion is the sole basis of our legal system. The belief in authority is slavery.

---

Joy Reid is Correct: Coin-Operated SNigger Stephen A Smith’s Ratings are Proof that His Only Function is to Shadowbox Black Folks and Parrot the Messaging of His Elite, White Masters

Go jump in the fucking lions den at the zoo sambo mf.   

"Showcase Blacks" like Stephen A. Smith are high-profile blacks that are constantly paraded before the public. They may be political dignitaries, pro athletes, entertainers, educators, business people, judges or elected officials. Their real purpose is to mask the REALITY of being black in America. [MORE] They are rewarded handsomely for their activities by elite whites who control the media and the domain of discourse. Rarely critical of each other, showcase Blacks are pet negros who stroke each other's egos for master's benefit - as said created personas are a career investment. However, promoting stupid beefs among non-showcase Blacks is one of their assigned tasks. 

Showcase Blacks are a necessary illusion of the media, which Dr. Blynd calls  a "mind shampoo"- shaping the thoughts and understandings of non-white people with miseducation about themselves and their environment giving them a false consciousness - a mind filled with lies, non-realities and self-hatred. 

Racial Shadow Boxing occurs when victims of racism (non-white people) are directly or indirectly, "assigned", bribed, coerced, and/or otherwise influenced, by the racists (white Supremacist), to speak or act to do harm to other victims of racism. White Supremacists oftentimes hide behind others whom they use as shadows of themselves. [MORE] Shadowboxing is a tool used by racists to filter out Blacks who are perceived as threatening [for some reason] to elite racist whites or who have fallen out of favor with them. Shadowboxing also is used to set the parameters or outer bounds of conduct & discussion by Blacks - conduct/speech deemed undesirable by racists is ridiculed [Kapernick]. In contrast, showcase Blacks are awarded, promoted for their shenaniggerisms or sniggering conduct

Making Police Work Look Impossible: Philadelphia's Strawboss Sheriff is Correct, 'ICE are Not Real Police. It Is "Made-Up, Fake, Wannabe Law Enforcement"

MAKING POLICE WORK LOOK IMPOSSIBLE. Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal declared Friday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a "made-up, fake, wannabe law enforcement" agency that violates "not only the legal law, but the moral law."

Here, strawboss is correct; a mere costume does not bestow authority on ICE-hole cops. The public must believe in the legitimacy of authority. Such belief is entirely necessary because authority, which means the implied right to rule, is only a belief in our minds and has no valid or substantive existence. Sheriff Bilal is not a believer in ICE - as she shouldn’t be. No one should believe in granfalolloons or shit that isn’t real. But what about her own authority, does it have a real basis? [MORE] [MORE]

Totalitarian Patriots Barking and Clapping Over the Execution of Renee Good and the Destruction of Freedoms by Uncontrollable, Unaccountable Authorities are Sharpening the Blade for Their Own Throats

According to FUNKTIONARY:

totalitarian Patriotism – terrified silence created through the suppression of principled cognitive dissent under the First Amendment and the Declaration of Independence. 2) allowing the officers of so-called “government” to become free from the limits of law. “Criticism of the federal government’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing less than treason.” ~US Attorney General “Jailin’” John Ashcroft, December 6, 2001 remarks at Senate Judiciary Committee. “Either you’re with me or you’re with the terrorists.” ~Curious George Custard Dubya Bush. “If you say the government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you’re wrong…There’s nothing patriotic about hating you’re government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country.” ~Bill ‘$lick-Willy-Style’ Clinton, (husband of future president Hillary Rob’em Clinton), statements made during 1995 Commencement Address delivered shortly after the inside-job Oklahoma City Bombing. These statements are the language of totalitarianism. Totalitarian Patriotism is a goose step in the wrong direction. The plot thickens as it sickens! (See: American Protective League, Fascism & Cooperative Federalism)

From [FTP] On a freezing Wednesday morning in Minneapolis, the pavement ran red with the blood of a 37-year-old mother, poet, and writer named Renee Nicole Good. According to witnesses, the scene was one of chaos and conflicting commands. “Get out of the car!” screamed one agent, while another bellowed, “Don’t you move!” In the ensuing panic of a terrified, unarmed woman trying to navigate impossible orders, an ICE agent made the executive decision to act as judge, jury, and executioner, firing multiple shots into the vehicle that ended her life.

According to a report by The Intercept, the ICE agent responsible for the fatal shooting of an observer in a Minneapolis neighborhood has been identified as Jonathan Ross, a 43-year-old deportation officer based out of St. Paul. Court documents reveal that Ross has been with the agency since at least 2016 and was previously involved in a violent traffic incident in June, where he was injured while attempting to apprehend an undocumented man.

If you are a card-carrying member of the “MAGA” movement or a staunch supporter of the current administration, your reaction to this news was likely pre-programmed by the cable news cycle. You probably repeated the talking points currently being disseminated by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump himself, who took to Truth Social to label this unarmed mother a “domestic terrorist” and a “professional agitator,” who tried to kill Ross with her car.

You might have even posted “Comply or Die” on social media.

But if we rewind the clock exactly five years to the week—January 6, 2021—we see a mirror image of this tragedy, and it exposes the fatal flaw in the American psyche.

When Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran, was gunned down in the Capitol by Lt. Michael Byrd, it was the Left who cheered. It was the “Liberal” establishment that flooded the internet with memes mocking her death. It was the Biden Administration that labeled the group she was with as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists,” granting a moral pass to the state agent who pulled the trigger. The Left, usually so vocal about police brutality, suddenly discovered a deep love for the boot on the neck, provided that boot was wearing a blue tie instead of a red one.

I made this warning when Babbitt was killed, and it's now come full circle once more.

The script has flipped, but the actors are playing the exact same roles. The Right, blinded by their loyalty to the current regime, is cheering for the execution of Renee Good with the same bloodlust the Left had for Babbitt. [MORE]

"Fucking Bitch." New ICE Cell Video Doesn’t Help Gov; 1) Renee Good Turned the Steering Wheel as She Backed Up to Drive Away from Cop, 2) Wife Urged Her to Flee (no facts support intent or cop mantra)

From [WASHPOST] Cellphone video recorded by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent as he fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis surfaced online Friday, revealing new details about the hotly disputed incident from a perspective rarely seen.

The 47-second recording, published by the Minnesota website Alpha News, shows for the first time that Renee Nicole Good spoke to the ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, before he shot her. It reveals that, a split second before the gunfire, Good’s wife urged her to drive away from the scene.

It does not show whether Good’s SUV came into contact with Ross, as the Trump administration contends. Vice President JD Vance said Friday that the video exonerated Ross. “The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense,” Vance wrote on X.

The Washington Post previously reported that Good’s SUV did move toward Ross as he stood in front of it, according to a frame-by-frame analysis of different video footage. But Ross was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him, according to The Post’s analysis.

Neither Ross nor a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security returned messages seeking comment. Good’s wife also declined to comment.

1. Good speaks to Ross

On Wednesday morning, less than a minute before the gunfire, Ross walks around Good’s vehicle.

2. Good’s wife confronts Ross

Good’s wife, Rebecca Good, confronts Ross as he walks behind the SUV.

“We don’t change our plates every morning,” she says, an apparent reference to criticism that ICE agents have swapped license plates on agency vehicles amid immigration sweeps. “Want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy,” she says.

3. Good’s wife tells her to drive

As additional agents arrive and instruct Renee Good to get out of her vehicle, Rebecca Good attempts to open the front passenger side door, the video shows. The door does not open. A dog is visible in the back seat.

One of the additional agents attempts to open Renee Good’s door. She puts the vehicle in reverse and her wife appears to encourage her to flee.

“Drive, baby, drive,” says Rebecca Good.

Ross moves in front of the vehicle as it moves in reverse.

The camera briefly captures Renee Good, who had been talking with the agents at her side window, turning her gaze to look ahead through the windshield.

She then looks down as she shifts the vehicle into drive. She looks up again as she turns the steering wheel to the right, away from Ross.

As the vehicle moves forward, Ross is standing near the front driver’s side corner of the vehicle. Someone yells, “Whoa.”

Ross’s camera pans skyward but does not fall to the ground.

One shot can be heard, then two more can be heard in rapid succession. Ross appears to refocus his camera on the SUV almost immediately, before it crashes nearby.

A male voice — it is not clear whose — can be heard uttering two expletives: “Fucking bitch.”

After Keith Porter Fired a Shot Up Into the Air to Celebrate the New Year An Unidentified ICE Cop Gunned Him Down. DHS Claims It Can Kill Anyone While Doing Duty, Only the Law of the Jungle Applies

From [HERE] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said an off-duty ICE agent was responding to an ‘active shooter’ when he gunned down Keith Porter Jr. on New Year’s Eve in Northridge.

• Porter’s family and their attorney contend he was firing a gun into the air and posed no threat. 

• The LAPD and L.A. County district attorney’s office have said they are investigating the incident, but a charging decision could take years (sounds racial).

When Adrian Metoyer first heard government officials describing his best friend as an “active shooter” and threat to his community, he was furious. 

Keith Porter Jr. was a lot of things: a jack of all trades who worked dozens of jobs, a proud “girl dad” to his two daughters, an avid fisherman, a die-hard San Francisco 49ers fan and a “performer” who loved to drive a room to laughter with his “goofy” antics, friends and relatives said.

But, they contend, Porter wasn’t the threat Trump administration officials claimed he was after an off-duty U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed him in Northridge on New Year’s Eve. 

“That is far from the truth. I can’t even fathom that idea of him being looked at in a negative light. Calling the officer a hero, before any investigation had been conducted … this is ridiculous,” Metoyer, 45, said. 

In the week that has passed since Porter’s death, his loved ones and community activists have rejected the narrative offered by federal officials to explain his killing, acknowledging he may have been armed but maintaining he was only celebrating the new year — not trying to shoot anyone. 

The use of deadly force by immigration agents was back in the national spotlight on Wednesday, after an ICE officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis and drew condemnation from the city’s mayor, who called the incident “reckless.”

In a statement issued last week, Tricia McLaughlin, chief spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, claimed Porter was suspected to be an “active shooter,” and said he was killed following an exchange of gunfire with an off-duty ICE agent at the Village Pointe Apartments on Roscoe Boulevard. 

McLaughlin said the “brave officer,” who has not been identified, lived at the apartment complex and was “protecting his community.” He reported the incident to authorities after it happened, she said. 

McLaughlin did not respond to a detailed list of questions from The Times this week.

In a statement, the Los Angeles Police Department declined to name Porter or provide any further details, except to confirm that a gun was recovered at the scene.

Early news reports after the incident said that Porter was firing an assault-style rifle. A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss an active case, confirmed that detail to The Times this week.

Porter’s loved ones and advocates said they believe he was ringing in the new year by firing a gun into the air — an illegal and dangerous L.A. practice that city officials discourage because the falling bullets can hit bystanders.

Firing a gun into the air in the city can bring felony charges, but Jamal Tooson, an attorney for Porter’s family, said at a news conference earlier this week that the ICE agent overreacted.

“What should have been an arrest and possible citation has turned into a death sentence and potentially cold-blooded murder from an ICE agent who was not equipped to handle the situation,” Tooson said.

Tooson claimed several people at the apartment complex were firing guns in the air and “only one was murdered.” The shooting happened around 10:40 p.m., according to the LAPD, long before fireworks and gunshots mark midnight around the city on New Year’s Eve.

Two neighbors told Capital & Main that they heard three shots followed by a pause lasting about one minute. Then another volley of three shots followed. Carter Nuñez, a resident of the apartment complex where the shooting occurred, said he saw Porter’s body lying in a courtyard, and police officers searching for bullets with metal detectors. [MORE]

Tooson did not dispute that his client was in possession of a rifle. On Wednesday, he said he’d interviewed several witnesses at the scene, including one person who heard someone demanding that Porter “put down the rifle” more than once.

Tooson said that witness then described hearing three shots fired, which ended the conflict. At no point did that person hear anyone identify themselves as law enforcement, according to Tooson.

Tooson said he did not “believe there was any exchange of gunfire” between Porter and the agent.

Clarity on how the shooting transpired may not come anytime soon. 

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office is reviewing Porter’s killing, though it sometimes takes years for the agency to determine if a deadly use of force constitutes a crime, especially if the victim was Black. [MORE]

The All Seeing Eye on the Free Range Plantation: IsrAliens are Subjecting Gazans to Total Aerial Video Surveillance that Monitors All Movements, Communications and Tracks Social and Familial Networks

From [HERE] Discussions of the war in Gaza tend to focus on what’s visible. The instinct is understandable: Over two years of brutal conflict, the Israel Defense Forces have all but destroyed the diminutive strip on the Mediterranean coast, with the scale of the carnage illustrated by images of emaciated children, shrapnel-ridden bodies, and flattened buildings.

But underlying all of this destruction is a hidden force — a carefully constructed infrastructure of Israeli surveillance that powers the war effort and keeps tabs on the smallest facets of Palestinians’ lives.

Few people understand this system more deeply than Mohammed Mhawish, a Palestinian journalist who fled Gaza in 2024 after being targeted by Israeli airstrikes for his reporting. In a recent essay for New York Magazine, Mhawish traced the contours of Israel’s surveillance system through the eyes of the Gazans who live through it every day.

RS spoke with Mhawish over email to get his insights about how this system of surveillance has powered the war in Gaza and created a culture of fear among Palestinians. The conversation also touches on Mhawish’s decision to leave Gaza — and how he knows that Israel tried to kill him for his journalism.

RS: In your piece, you mention a poll saying that "nearly two-thirds of Gazans believed they were constantly watched by the Israeli government." How does this feeling of surveillance affect life in Gaza? How would you describe the feeling to those of us who have never experienced it?

Mhawish: In Gaza, surveillance actively structures daily life. It determines how people move, communicate, gather, and survive. Nearly everyone I spoke to understood themselves as data points inside a system that continuously observes, records, and evaluates them.

This awareness produces a constant state of constraint. Phones are treated with suspicion, even fear. People limit calls, change SIM cards, power down devices, avoid repeated routes, and hesitate before gathering with others. Parents instruct children not to linger in certain places. Journalists and medics described modifying their work because they knew patterns could be extracted and interpreted later. Surveillance works by narrowing the range of what feels safe for everyone there.

What distinguishes Gaza is that surveillance is both totalizing and opaque. People know they are being watched, but they don’t know how, by whom, or according to what criteria. There is no way to clarify a misunderstanding or correct a false assumption. The system does not explain itself. That uncertainty turns ordinary behavior into potential exposure.

For those who have never lived under it, they might need to imagine that every movement, call, or association could be logged and assigned meaning by an unseen authority, and that those judgments could lead directly to deadly consequences in real time. It is fear of being misclassified by a system that can not be challenged.

RS: Israeli officials often point to the fact that they withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2006 as evidence of their benevolence. They argue Israel had essentially allowed Palestinians to have a territory that they could govern on their own, and Palestinians had wasted that chance by allowing Hamas to take power. How does your work complicate the narrative of Israeli disengagement from Gaza? What did surveillance look like before the war?

Mhawish: My reporting shows that Israeli “disengagement” from Gaza was never a withdrawal from control. It was merely a shift in how control was exercised. Physical presence was replaced with technological dominance.

Long before the current war, Gaza existed under constant aerial surveillance, communications interception, population registries, and data-driven monitoring. Israel controlled Gaza’s borders, airspace, coastline, electromagnetic spectrum, and civil registries. Movement in and out of the Strip, access to medical care, imports, and even family reunification were all mediated through Israeli databases informed by surveillance.

Surveillance allowed Israel to manage Gaza remotely and comprehensively. Intelligence sources and prior investigations describe systems that mapped neighborhoods, tracked social and familial networks, and analyzed behavioral patterns. Control did not require soldiers on every street, only access to required sensors, databases, and algorithms capable of rendering the population legible from afar.

This fundamentally undermines the idea that Gaza was ever allowed to govern itself. Governance without sovereignty is not autonomy. Surveillance ensured that Israel retained decisive authority over Gaza’s population while maintaining the fiction of withdrawal.

RS: Israel bombed your apartment in late 2023, destroying your home and injuring you and your family. What led you to conclude that this attack was a response to your journalistic work? Did other press colleagues have similar experiences? [MORE]