Sunday, February 14, 2021

Things could have been much worse

Tweet (American Values): 

"On this day in 1991, the U.S. bombed the Amiriya civilian air raid shelter in Iraq, which was sheltering a thousand sleeping civilians, massacring 408 Iraqi civilians (261 women and 52 children)."

"As column in Moscow's top progressive newspaper labels West 'New ethical Reich,' are Russian liberals turning away from EU & US?" (Robinson).

"Neither Lenin, nor Moreno" (Karganovic).

"Israel's arrest campaign aims to destroy a new Palestinian movement" (Kayyal).

"Palestinian Resistance Running in the New Legislative Elections Simulates Insanity" (Allan):
". . . if Hamas runs in the elections on a party list with Fatah, and it agrees to be a minority in the legislative elections, it will become an opposition party within the Oslo system. At which point, they will be obliged to play according to the Oslo rules. We observe the emergence of two parallel lines on the Palestinian scene- that can never converge. One represents the PA which has become linked to the occupation (and part of it, in reality), and which does not believe in any form of confrontation with the occupation, even a peaceful one; whilst the other believes in Resistance to restore Palestinian rights. As a result, the resistance factions will find themselves facing the same current dilemma. With the difference that this time they will have given to the opposite side new ammunition to use against them.

The Palestinian resistance will be required internally and internationally to respect the elections’ results and hand over the Gaza Strip to the PA before any easing of the blockade takes place.  And because the blockade keys are with the occupation, the Palestinian resistance will have to follow the Zionist Entity’s definition of handing over control of the Gaza Strip. And that means the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance and nothing else.

It must be recognized first that finding a solution to the Gaza crisis is not a simple task, because the blockade is linked first and foremost to the occupation itself and is only one of its   symptoms. Nevertheless, what deserves attention is that the Occupation Entity has allowed a lot of financial aid to the PA in Ramallah and even to the Gaza Strip, whenever the status quo nears the point of collapse in the West Bank or Gaza. This indicates that the Zionist Entity fears an explosion in either of these arenas. For instance, Netanyahu retreated from his decision to announce the West Bank’s annexation fearing the break of a third intifada based on the estimates of his security advisers and nothing else. This casts doubt on the idea that the West Bank    is not ready for a popular movement and a third intifada. It is true that starting a popular movement is not without many obstacles, first of which   is the presence of the PA intelligence services, who are now directly coordinating with the Shin Bet. Nevertheless, is it really possible that the Palestinian factions are short of the means to motivate people and move onto the street if they put their mind to it?

In addition to what has been said, if we put the blockade imposed on the Palestinian resistance in its broader context as part of the economic war imposed on all resistance forces in the region, movements and states alike, the lifting of the siege on Gaza clearly becomes a common interest for all these actors. And this calls for the Palestinian factions to try to formulate a unified strategy with all the resistance forces in the region (i.e. the Axis of Resistance) to lift the blockade. It is, of course, obvious that this requires rounds and rounds of discussion, and that any strategy to break the siege with the support of the Axis of Resistance will be a medium-term strategy, but this remains the more productive option. Engaging in uncalculated adventures such as new elections will only lead to more time-wasting, even according to the most optimistic estimates."
Also:  "What’s the point of Palestinian elections?" (Abunimah).

"This Is Yemen After Biden Declared an End To American Support for the War" (Abdulkareem).  "New American Regime = Exact Same Challenges for Russia" (Kirby).  Biden = Trump + (sometimes) politeness.

"Wuhan probe members blast NYT story for ‘misquoting’ them as Beijing mocks US bid to hold WHO ‘to higher standards’".  I guess you could say that while the JYT has always lied (a lot), at least in the past they were better at it.

"Vaccine Transparency: Why Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Might be a Ticking Time Bomb" (Verkerk).  The mass experiment continues.

"'A Complete Capitulation': Outrage as Democrats Abruptly Back Off Push for Witnesses in Trump Trial" (Johnson).  Had to get home for Valentines Day.

"'Things could have been much worse,' Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island said earlier in the trial. 'As one senator said, they could have killed all of us.'"

Bizarre story of the Alberta hillbillies doing the right thing, something which has never happened before, and no doubt will never happen again:  "How a public uprising caused a province built on fossil fuels to reverse course on coal mining" (Riley).

"Here Are The Many Controversies Surrounding Biden’s Pick For Science Adviser" (Aldhous).  "Biden’s Nominee For New Cabinet-Level Science Position Is Epstein-Linked Geneticist" (Webb) (it appears that the Epstein connection improved his chances, which would have been slim in the light of various wokenness crimes including praising Watson, which by itself normally would have been fatal):
". . . Biden placing Lander in this role begs the question of exactly what type of science he will promote in his new position, as eugenicist and intelligence-linked pedophile Jeffrey Epstein bragged on his website about having “had the priviledge [sic] of sponsoring” Lander’s research via the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. Lander’s spokesperson told the New York Times in 2019 that “Mr. Epstein appears to have made up lots of things and this seems to be among them,” regarding whether or not Lander had indeed received funding from Epstein.  

In addition to the issue of funding from Epstein, Lander, who is also a biology professor at MIT, is known to have met with Epstein at least once, as he was pictured taking part in a 2012 meeting with Epstein at the office of Harvard’s Martin Nowak, a mathematical biologist who received millions in funding from Epstein. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, Lander claimed that he had been invited to the meeting by Nowak and had been unaware of who was set to attend the event. He additionally stated that he “later learned about [Epstein’s] more sordid history” and denied having had a relationship with Epstein.

Yet, there remains the issue that Epstein himself included Lander in a list of scientists he sponsored, with the other scientists on that list having indeed been supported by Epstein in some fashion. If we are to believe Lander, it remains unclear why Epstein, before he became so infamous, would falsely claim to fund Lander and why Lander would wait to deny any association until only after Epstein’s arrest. Given that the other scientists listed alongside Lander on Epstein’s website did receive funding from his foundation, it seems unlikely that Epstein would deceptively throw in Lander’s name among a list of several other scientists he was funding at a time, particularly when he was not yet publicly controversial and did not present such a grave risk to his associates’ reputations. 

However, Lander’s denials seem to have been more than sufficient for some mainstream media outlets following his nomination to serve in the Biden administration, with some outlets now claiming that Lander was not reported to have received funding from Epstein, despite Epstein’s own claims to the contrary. For instance, BuzzFeed wrote on January 19, 2021 that Lander “has not been reported to have received any money from Epstein”."
blog comments powered by Disqus