News Releases

Common Dreams reports: “Days Before Extradition Hearing, Australian Parliament Tells U.S. to Drop Assange Case.” Reuters reports: “Julian Assange’s appeal against US extradition is life or death, Wife Says.”

KEVIN GOSZTOLA, kgosztola@protonmail.com, @kgosztola
Gosztola is author of Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange and curates The Dissenter.

He has been publishing a series of pieces “Countdown To Day X” ahead of a major appeal hearing before the British High Court of Justice on Feb. 20 and 21, highlighting key aspects of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition to the United States.

The pieces include “CIA Reportedly Plotted To Kill Assange” and “Assange & The ‘Political Offense’ Exception” which states: “The legal team for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange contends that District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser erred by failing to recognize that it was an “abuse of process” for the United States government to seek Assange’s extradition for political offenses. They hope the British High Court of Justice will reconsider this aspect of the case. Individuals accused of treason, sedition, or espionage have historically been protected from extradition because those offenses involve acts directed at a particular government. Such offenses are viewed in international law as ‘pure political offenses’ and not ‘ordinary crimes.'”

Gosztola also just wrote the piece “In Lawsuit Against Spying On Assange Visitors, CIA Will Invoke ‘State Secrets Privilege.'”

The International Court of Justice announced on Tuesday that South Africa has filed an “urgent request for additional measures” in their genocide case against Israel, citing the “unprecedented military offensive against Rafah” and recent statements by Benjamin Netanyahu. See IPA news release from Tuesday.

Decensored News reports: “The request quotes the International Committee of the Red Cross and NGOs operating on the ground such as the Norwegian Refugee Council and Save the Children, who have warned of a ‘bloodbath;’ that ‘expanded hostilities in Rafah could collapse the humanitarian response‘ and that ‘what happens next’ would ‘be beyond our worst nightmares.'”

See the most recent statement from Norwegian Refugee Council: “Gaza: Israel’s military operation in Rafah would be fatal for displaced civilians and humanitarian aid,” which states: “An expansion of hostilities could turn Rafah into a zone of bloodshed and destruction that people won’t be able to escape,” said Angelita Caredda, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Middle East and North Africa Regional Director. “Conditions in Rafah are already dire, and a full-scale Israeli military operation will lead to even more loss of civilian life. Aid workers have been grappling with insecurity and insufficient aid for months. Attacks in areas where they provide food, water and shelter means this life-saving support will be impeded, if not entirely stopped.”

The group notes: “Rafah, 63 square kilometres in size, is now the most overcrowded governorate in the Gaza Strip with an average density of over 22,200 per square kilometre, five times its pre-conflict levels. Increased access to life saving assistance is crucial for the 1.4 million Palestinians now crammed into the area — or two-thirds of Gaza’s population.

“Any further deterioration in humanitarian conditions in Rafah would be catastrophic as disease and starvation already persist among the displaced population. An NRC assessment of nine shelters hosting 27,400 civilians in Rafah found that people had no drinking water, showers, or personal hygiene items. The shelters operated at 150 per cent capacity as hundreds of displaced people spent the night on the street. Diseases, including hepatitis A, gastroenteritis, diarrhoea, smallpox, lice, influenza, were reported in every location assessed. Expanded hostilities in Rafah could collapse the humanitarian response.

“Military ground operations in and around residential areas in Khan Younis have also intensified, where the latest relocation orders have pushed people to the outskirts of the governorate and into Rafah. These relocation orders have not included guarantees of safety, accommodation and return, and therefore amount to forcible transfer.”

“Repeated relocation orders issued by Israeli authorities over four months of hostilities have forced tens of thousands of people to flee multiple times to areas that are not safe and where shelter is not available,” said Caredda. “Palestinians are being pushed into tiny corners, narrow alleys, and overcrowded shelters while residential areas continue to be pounded.”

“Israel originally designated some of the relocation areas as ‘safe zones’, but they have been heavily bombarded. The UN estimates that 67 percent of the Gaza Strip, or 246 square kilometres, has been placed under evacuation orders.”

Contact:
NRC global media hotline: media@nrc.no, @nrc_norway
Ahmed Bayram, Middle East Media Adviser, in Amman: ahmed.bayram@nrc.no

The South African Government has just “made an urgent request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider whether the decision announced by Israel to extend its military operations in Rafah, which is the last refuge for surviving people in Gaza, requires that the court uses its power to prevent further imminent breach of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza. “Under Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court, ‘The Court may at any time decide to examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all of the parties.’ …

“The South African government said it was gravely concerned that the unprecedented military offensive against Rafah, as announced by the State of Israel, has already led to and will result in further large scale killing, harm and destruction. This would be in serious and irreparable breach both of the Genocide Convention and of the Court’s Order of 26 January 2024.” See from Jan. 26: “World Court Orders Israel to Abide by Genocide Convention and Stop Killing.”

The UN Security Council is expected to vote on a resolution based on the ICJ Order of provisional measures calling for a ceasefire.

Meanwhile, Middle East Eye reports: “Nicaragua has warned Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada that it will take the countries to the International Court of Justice over allegations that weapons they are providing Israel are being used in a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

Al-Haq and other Palestinian human rights and legal groups have just released the statement: “Deadly Assault on Rafah and Imminent Forced Expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza in Continuing Nakba, Requires Urgent International Intervention.”

FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@illinois.edu
Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Boyle’s books include The Bosnian People Charge Genocide (1996) Palestine, Palestinians and International Law (2009) and World Politics, Human Rights and International Law (2021). He was featured on the news release “On Israel: Lawyer Who Applied Genocide Convention for Bosnia Recommends it Now for Palestinians.”

He said today: “This is a good move by South Africa. The Court should issue new provisional measures of protection for the Palestinians especially given that Israel has continued its genocidal acts in wanton violation of the Court’s Order of January 26 and is threatening catastrophic genocide against the Palestinians by invading Rafah.” See from the Bisan Center for Research and Development: “128 Days on Israel’s Aggression and Two Weeks after the ICJ Ruling, Israel is Continuing its Genocide.”

“The warning from Nicaragua is significant. It could lead to World Court lawsuits against these four States for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinians, an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, another round of oral arguments, and new provisional measures of protection for the benefit of the Palestinians that would go to the Security Council for enforcement and, if that does not succeed, to the United Nations General Assembly for enforcement under the Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950). It is telling that Nicaragua is doing this because they won a resounding World Court Lawsuit against the United States from 1984 to 1986 for illegally mining their harbors. Although the United States richly deserves it too, it would be difficult for Nicaragua to successfully sue the United States for aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinians because of its disingenuous Reservation to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention denying such jurisdiction to the World Court.”

Nicaragua has also filed a Declaration of Intervention in the South Africa case, which other countries can do and several, including Jordan and Bangladesh, have stated they will.

See New York Times article from Monday: “Dutch Court Moves to Block Export of Fighter Jet Parts to Israel.”

The city of Flint in Michigan has launched a program, Rx Kids, that gives all mothers $1,500 while they are pregnant and $500 per month for the first year of their child’s life. 

SCOTT SANTENS; scott@scottsantens.com, @scottsantens
    Santens is an author on universal basic income and the founder and president of the Income to Support All Foundation. 

Santens celebrated the new Flint program. He told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “I like that Flint is doing something more universal than a lot of other cities are doing. Sometimes the thinking is ‘let’s target income, and make sure [recipients are] beneath the line.’ But it’s so much better to provide universally. If you’re going to be a parent in Flint, you can get this program. If you make someone jump through hoops––[like making parents provide] copies of their previous three years of tax returns––then people who need the program end up getting excluded from it. It’s [also] much easier to attack a program as being for ‘them’ if you don’t receive it yourself.”

Santens noted that the program in Flint is permanent, unlike many other cities that have begun to implement universal cash programs as small pilot programs. “A lot of these city-based pilots around the country promote their plan as being a pilot test. But when it comes to getting money to kids in their first year of life, the evidence is very strong.” In contrast to the enhanced Child Tax Credit, Flint’s program also allots money during pregnancy. 

Santens pointed to longitudinal studies out of North Carolina and Alaska. Alaska has had a form of universal income, distributed through a dividend, since 1982. Cash payments are delivered without a means test or a work requirement. “The amount in Alaska is usually one to two thousand dollars, and it’s provided once a year, so you get a natural experiment situation. Some kids are born and get the payment immediately, whereas others have to wait [nearly] a whole year before they get it. We see that when kids get that extra thousand dollars, there is a 10 percent reduction in instances of child abuse reported to child protective services. That’s per thousand dollars. They’ve looked at reduced child obesity. [The payments] also positively impact women while they’re pregnant, so kids are born healthier with healthier birth weights, which is associated with [many] positive health impacts [over time].

“Multiple studies have been done that look at long-term return on investment of investing in kids. Child poverty is not free. It’s expensive to all of society; we pay for it in terms of taxes going to the criminal justice system, taxes to Medicare and Medicaid, our own insurance higher premiums. We spend money on all these things. It doesn’t make sense to spend $60,000 a year to keep someone in prison if that could have been avoided if that person had a healthier childhood and more money as a baby. We need to look at this with a wider lens. With the enhanced Child Tax Credit, we were arguing over $100 billion. But the return on investment is 10 times that––it’s 10 to one. 

“The cost of child poverty is calculated at over a trillion dollars per year. The younger [we give kids money], the more impactful it is. The program in Flint [will help kids] start off on the right foot. I hope other areas take note and start doing what they can. We know that this stuff works.”

Convoys arrived in communities in Arizona, California and Texas early this month to rally for border security. In Eagle Pass, Texas, some community members and experts expressed concerns about the anti-immigrant rhetoric employed by the convoy there.

HEIDI BEIRICH; heidi@globalextremism.org, @heidibeirich, @globalextremism 
    Beirich is cofounder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE). 

America’s Voice held a press call with Beirich and several U.S. Representatives. They called the Take Our Border Back rallies part of an “escalating standoff between Texas and the federal government…fueling a dangerous climate of potential right-wing violence and vigilantism at the border.” 

Beirich told the Institute for Public Accuracy that the America’s Voice press call prompted important reporting––but she wished the coverage had been there already. “People should have been watching this. It’s a far-right movement that has gone under the radar, and it shouldn’t have, given [Texas Governor Greg] Abbott’s anti-immigrant rhetoric.” Beirich pointed to the convoy’s use of Great Replacement rhetoric, a “conspiracy theory directly connected to mass violence. [GPAHE] does monitoring of unregulated social media platforms like Gab and Telegram, and [saw] that Great Replacement rhetoric spiked to heights not seen in six months. They are radicalizing the MAGA movement into anti-immigrant rhetoric. Abbott is doing his part to demonize the immigrant situation. It’s dangerous––not just for migrants but for anyone [the far right] thinks might be an immigrant.” 

Beirich noted that the convoy was smaller than expected and “thankfully peaceable.” But an Eagle Pass migrant center was evacuated after militia groups involved in the Take Our Borders Back rally threatened the facility. Approximately 175 migrants were relocated to other facilities around Texas after a militia member “threatened to torch the Eagle Pass site.”

Beirich says the convoy is “riling up the far right.” 

GPAHE covers transnational hate movements––especially in countries that don’t get as much attention for their far-right movements, such as Portugal, Ireland and Australia––as well as U.S. groups that export hate to other countries, usually in the form of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women’s-rights thinking about bodily autonomy and abortion. Beirich told the Institute for Public Accuracy that “the American press hasn’t done a good enough job [covering] Christian nationalists or the [groups like] Alliance Defending Freedom” in particular. These organizations have “gotten a pass,” she said, “given that their angle is to transform this country––or, at a minimum, to pull back the civil rights of certain populations like LGBTQ [people] and women.” She also pointed to the need for more coverage of people living in the Eagle Pass community who have spoken out about the convoy. 

MOHAMAD BAZZI, mohamad.bazzi@nyu.edu, @BazziNYU
Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and is a journalism professor at New York University.

He recently wrote the piece “The Middle East conflict is spiraling. Biden must force Israel to end the war” for the Guardian: “Without a huge airlift of U.S. weapons since October, Israel would run out of bombs to drop on Gaza. But Biden has refused to use that leverage to force Netanyahu’s government to accept a ceasefire. In fact, the Biden administration has gone out of its way to hide the extent of U.S. arms shipments and other recent military aid to Israel — unlike the detailed breakdowns that Washington has provided of its billions of dollars in weapons shipments to Ukraine.

“Recent reports in the Israeli press make clear that because of a global shortage of ammunition that started with the Ukraine war, Israel would not be able to sustain its bombardment of Gaza without the U.S. resupplying the Israeli military.

“Biden has the power to restrain Israel — he has simply refused to use it. Biden is also aware of the responsibility that comes with providing an ally like Israel with a virtually unlimited pipeline of weapons to continue its war.

“On 30 January, reporters at the White House asked Biden whether he holds Iran responsible for the killing of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan. ‘I do hold them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it,’ Biden said.

“It was a remarkable admission by the U.S. president, and it poses a basic follow-up question: does Biden think the same about the more than 27,000 deaths in Gaza enabled by a steady supply of U.S. weapons he has provided to Israel?”

ABBA SOLOMON, abbasolomon@gmail.com, www.threads.net/@abba.a.solomon
Solomon just wrote the piece “Many Jews and Jewish Organizations Recognized the Dangers of Zionism. They Were Right,” which states: “The pernicious results of insisting on forcing Jewish sovereignty over Palestine — and necessarily disrupting Arab life there — was well understood within the Jewish organizations and in the general press.”

Solomon examines the American Jewish Committee in particular, but also highlights positions of noted Jewish leaders: “In November 1939, Louis D. Brandeis objected to a planned visit to the United States by Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. … In a public letter, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and others stated that in the years up to statehood, Jewish terrorists ‘inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and widespread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.’ …

“Mainstream Jewish organizations knew endless violence and oppression would result from imposing a Jewish state in Palestine against the stated wishes of its non-Jewish inhabitants. This has proved accurate, most recently in Israel’s methodical destruction of the means of life for millions in Gaza, and increasing state and settler terror against residents of the occupied West Bank.”

Solomon is author of two books on Zionism, The Speech, and Its Context: Jacob Blaustein’s Speech “The Meaning of Palestine Partition to American Jews” and The Miasma of Unity: Jews and Israel.

A recent review of Solomon’s second book in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states: “It’s amazing — and frightening — to find from Solomon’s research that the AJC” back in January 1948, castigated “a Zionist state as a ‘monstrous idol,’ a state set to act as a ‘complete master not only over its own immediate subjects but also over every living Jewish body and soul the world over, beyond any consideration of good or evil.'”

British Channel 4 has examined “confidential Israeli documents” regarding Israel’s claim that UNRWA staff were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks.

The network reports Israel has “provided no evidence” in its charges against UNRWA personnel.

CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS, cgunness@outlook.com
Gunness is former spokesperson for UNRWA and is featured in the Channel 4 report. He calls the halting of funding to UNRWA, which provides food, education and other forms of relief for Palestinian refugees “utterly shocking” and a “violation of international law” and a “violation of the orders by the International Court of Justice.”

In the suit brought by South Africa, The ICJ on Jan. 26 ordered: “Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

Hours later, Israel made its charges regarding UNRWA and the U.S. government and other donors then halted funding.

See in-depth interview with Gunness on the Electronic Intifada.

The Electronic Intifada reports: “The Israeli allegations appear to be based off of confessions made by Palestinian detainees, likely under conditions of torture.”

The noted Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert asked: “Why is Israel not being investigated for the killing of 154 UNRWA employees in Gaza?”

See: “International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine Demands Full Funding of UNRWA.”

See from Ryan Grim of The Intercept: “What Are We Doing?? By cutting funding from UNRWA, the U.S. moves Israel closer to its goal” and “Republicans Move to One-Up Biden and Permanently Defund UNRWA.”

Also see from Jonathan Cook: “In waging war on the UN refugee agency, the West is openly siding with Israeli genocide,” which notes among other things: “UNRWA is separate from the UN’s main refugee agency, the UNHCR, and deals only with Palestinian refugees. Although Israel does not want you to know it, the reason for there being two UN refugee agencies is because Israel and its western backers insisted on the division back in 1948. Why? Because Israel was afraid of the Palestinians falling under the responsibility of the UNHCR’s forerunner, the International Refugee Organisation. The IRO was established in the immediate wake of the Second World War in large part to cope with the millions of European Jews fleeing Nazi atrocities. Israel did not want the two cases treated as comparable, because it was pushing hard for Jewish refugees to be settled on lands from which it had just expelled Palestinians.”

In 2021, AP reported: “A confidential Israeli dossier detailing alleged links between Palestinian human rights groups and an internationally designated terrorist organization contains little concrete evidence and failed to convince European countries to stop funding the groups.” And in 2022: “Dutch stop funding Palestinian NGO, question Israeli charges.”

Reuters reports: “U.S. launches strikes in Iraq, Syria, nearly 40 reported killed.”

JOSHUA M. LANDIS, landis@ou.edu, @joshua_landis
Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, Landis just wrote the piece “U.S. Troops Should Have Left Syria and Iraq Long Ago” for Responsible Statecraft.

He writes that recent events, including the killing of three U.S. soldiers “should prompt the United States to speed up its exit from Syria and Iraq, something policy makers have been contemplating for some time….

“Hawks in Washington insist that by striking Iran directly and hard, the U.S. can bring security to its troops, the danger will subside because Iran understands force. But this analysis misunderstands the region and minimizes the dangers arrayed against U.S. troops.”

Landis writes that the Syrian government is “determined to drive Americans from its soil. It accuses Washington of illegally occupying 30 percent of its territory and stealing its oil to subsidize the quasi-independent territory the U.S. has established in northeast Syria. As a consequence, the majority of Syrians languish in poverty and must survive with only a few hours of electricity per day, while the economy remains paralyzed by U.S. sanctions. They want the U.S. out.

“The Iraqi government is also demanding that U.S. troops leave. It was provoked into doing so by Washington’s January 4 assassination of Mushtaq al-Jawari, a leader of Harakat al-Nujaba, one of the Shi’a militias that belongs to the popular mobilization forces. Washington targeted him in retribution for an earlier attack on a U.S. base. Did this show of force cow the Harakat al-Nujaba or the popular mobilization forces? No. On the contrary, it led to an escalating drumbeat of missile and drone attacks on American bases.”

Also see from Responsible Statecraft: “Unreal: White House still denies Mideast turmoil linked to Gaza.”

Since 2016, critics have become more comfortable labeling Trump––and Trumpism––as fascist. 

JEFF SHARLET; jeffrey.sharlet@dartmouth.edu, @JeffSharlet
    Sharlet is a journalist and author, and an expert on the far right. His books include The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War. 

In an interview on Democracy Now! after Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary, Sharlet asserted that “fascism is on the ballot.” 

Sharlet told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “Until 2016 or 2017, I was rejecting the term fascism in application to the U.S. There have been moments of fascism in American history. It’s not just Italy and Germany; there have been fascist movements all over the world, and most have not succeeded. [Until now,] there hasn’t been a full cult of personality or the celebration of violence, which are two key facets of fascism. [But] Trump has achieved a blurring of the line between divinity and person. [And] there has been a normalization of violence.

“Trumpism has gotten more fascistic in the last four years. It’s been a long time since Trump led his movement––but he does follow it. He tries to keep up. Trumpism has gotten more fascistic, so Trump has too. He has osmosed some of [the] conspiratorial thinking” and the antisemitism and xenophobia of the far right. 

Sharlet argued that even as Trump has made antisemitic and fascistic comments––toward special prosecutor Jack Smith, toward immigrants––that have echoed language straight from Adolf Hitler, the press has not been direct enough. “The press needs to say ‘Trump is quoting Hitler.’” 

Sharlet also questioned why media outlets are not devoting coverage to the frenzy and undertow of violence that is taking place at Trump rallies. “We overlook the ecstasy and eroticism [of fascism]. You go to a Trump rally and it feels like a Deadhead show. You dance in the parking lot for hours. There is a violent festivity to it. It’s not just that Trump’s fans relish his rudeness. [Trump gives his supporters] permission to feel that level of anger. It’s really fun to give in if you have been resisting that anger and hate for a long time. That permission structure is incredibly empowering.” 

Sharlet added: Outlets like the New York Times tend to use the term “fascism” to describe other countries, but not the United States. “Calling Trump [labels like] ‘neo-fascist’ is a dodge and an evasion. The fascism of 2024 doesn’t look like the fascism of Germany in 1936––that’s a given. Fascism gets hardened and concretized into a static thing. But fascism is less an ideology than it is an aesthetics, and it evolves. It mutates. 

“There is an exceptionalism going on here. That’s where the mainstream press needs to catch up. Left media, meanwhile, needs a more sophisticated definition and understanding of white supremacy. They’re convinced that the only people at Trump rallies are white.” The left imagines fascism as an “other,” Sharlet said. “If fascists are this other, then you are immune and you don’t need to contend with its gravitational force. Because that force is not a sharply delineated ideology, [fascism] allows people to imagine their way into it from all different angles and identities.”