Dissident Voice

1. URGENT: Don’t Punish Nicaragua for Defending Gaza

Dear Friend

We need your help to push out this petition (see below), urging the US Senate to Vote No on S1881 – a bill that will place additional unilateral coercive measures/sanctions on Nicaragua.  This Bill moved in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee after Nicaragua argued at the International Court of Justice to defend the Palestinian people from genocide.  We have also just found out that it will no longer pass through the Senate's Banking Committee, where we would have had an opportunity to slow it down, but go directly to the full Senate for a vote.  This could happen very quickly.  We need to gather at least 1,000 signers to this petition in the next few days so that it can be delivered to Senators mid week.  Please share widely through your networks  and social media. Signers do not have to be from the United States – please share internationally.

It is tweetedbhere: https://twitter.com/SolidarityNica/status/1784295271662252276

Thank you for taking urgent action!

John

The post URGENT: Don't Punish Nicaragua for Defending Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

2. Intervention in Gaza

Is there a point at which the genocide in Gaza becomes egregious enough to provoke other countries to directly intervene in the Gaza Strip to prevent further genocide? Can Israel exterminate the entire population without anyone stopping them?

This is not a rhetorical question. Intervention is not merely judgments by the International Court of Justice or resolutions introduced at the United Nations. It is not even shiploads of supplies sent to queue up for delivery into Gaza, pending permission from the Israeli occupying authorities. Rather, intervention means forcing one's way into Gaza, whether the occupying authorities like it or not, and being prepared for confrontation.

If there is such a point for some countries, what is that point? Half a million deaths, by massacre, starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, hyperthermia, exposure and disease? A million? And what are the countries that are willing to take action? Or can Israel exterminate the entire population without any countries intervening to stop the genocide?

The question is essential and not rhetorical, because it is now clear that there is no level of atrocity that Israel is not willing to commit, nor that the United States is not willing to support with all armaments necessary to commit the deed, as well as all aid necessary to sustain the Israeli economy. Israel will not be deterred by economic or diplomatic isolation. It is willing to be boycotted by the entire world other than the US. It cares nothing for legal judgments against it. Whether delusional or not, it sees genocide as its only means of survival, and will pursue it until it is deprived of the means to do so.

It therefore behooves us to ask the question whether there are any countries willing to intervene to stop the genocide, and at what point they will be willing to do so. If there are such countries, they will need to define the tripwire for their intervention and the means that they are willing to use to enforce it. They will need to form a consortium that is prepared to act in concert. The consortium will have to act outside the United Nations, because the US veto will prevent any UN action, other than symbolic.

The intervention need not be belligerent, but it must not accept to be impeded, nor to be attacked by the forces of the Israeli government. It must be prepared to defend itself if necessary. A suggested model for such an intervention may be found at https://dissidentvoice.org/2024/03/gaza-airdrops/, but the participating countries will make their own plans according to their own means and priorities.

The demonstrations, sit-ins, speeches, letters, phone calls, emails, boycotts, flotillas, legal judgments and other actions to apply pressure to stop the genocide are successful in raising awareness, changing opinions, and perhaps even partially forestalling the inevitable. But they have not in the least affected Israeli actions or US government support for them. Direct intervention is the only way that Israel can be made to stop.

The post Intervention in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

3. Anzac and the Pageantry of Deception

On April 25, along Melbourne's arterial Swanston Street, the military parade can be witnessed with its bannered, medalled upholstery, crowds lost in metals, ribbons and commemorative decor.  Many, up on their feet since the dawn service, keen to show the decorations that say: "I turned up".  Service personnel, marked by a sprig of rosemary.

The greater the pageantry, the greater the coloured, crimson deception.  In the giddy disruptions caused by war, this tendency can be all too readily found.  The dead are remembered on the appointed day, but the deskbound planners responsible for sending them to their fate, including the bunglers and the zealous, are rarely called out.  The memorial statements crow with amnesiac sweetness, and all the time, those same planners will be happy to add to the numbers of the fallen.

The events of April 25, known in Australia as Anzac Day, are saccharine and tinged about sacrifice, a way of explicating the unmentionable and the barely forgivable.  But make no mistake about it: this was the occasion when Australians, with their counterparts from New Zealand as part of the Australian New Zealand Corps, foolishly bled on Turkish soil in a doomed campaign.  Modern Australia, a country rarely threatened historically, has found itself in wars aplenty since the 19th century.

The Dardanelles campaign was conceived by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, and, like many of his military ventures, ended in calamitous failure.  The Australian officers and politicians extolling the virtues of the Anzac soldiers tend to ignore that fact – alongside the inconvenient truth that Australians were responsible for a pre-emptive attack on the Ottoman Empire to supposedly shorten a war that lasted in murderous goriness till November 1918.  To this day, the Turks have been cunning enough to treat the defeated invaders with reverence, tending to the graves of the fallen Anzacs and raking in tourist cash every April.

For the Australian public, it was far better to focus on such words as those of British war correspondent Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett written on the occasion of the Gallipoli landings: "There has been no finer feat in this war than this sudden landing in the dark and the storming of the heights."  Ashmead-Bartlett went on to note the views of General William Birdwood, British commander of the Anzac forces at Gallipoli: "he couldn't sufficiently praise the courage, endurance and the soldierly qualities of the Colonials".  They "where happy because they had tried for the first time and not found wanting."

In March 2003, these same "colonials" would again participate in the invasion of a sovereign state, claiming, spuriously, that they were ridding the world of a terrorist threat in the form of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whose weapons of mass destruction were never found, and whose subsequent overthrow led to the fracturing of the Middle East.  Far from being an act of bravery, the measure, in alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom, was a thuggish measure of gang violence against a country weakened by years of sanctions.

When options to pursue peace or diplomacy were there, Australian governments have been slavish and supine before the dictates and wishes of other powers keen on war.  War, in this context, is affirmation, assertion, cleansing.  War is also an admission to a certain chronic lack of imagination, and an admission to inferiority.

The occasion of Anzac Day in 2024 is one acrid with future conflict.  Australia has become, and is becoming increasingly, an armed camp for US interests for a war that will be waged by dunderheads over such island entities as Taiwan, or over patches of land that will signify which big power remains primary and ascendant in the Indo- and Asia-Pacific.  It is a view promoted with sickly enthusiasm by press outlets and thinktank enclaves across the country, funded by the Pentagon and military contractors who keep lining their pockets and bulking their accounts.

Central to this is the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States, which features a focus on nuclear powered submarines and technology exchange that further subordinates Australia, and its tax paying citizens, to the steering wishes of Washington.  Kurt Campbell, US Deputy Secretary of State, cast light on the role of the pact and what it is intended for in early April.  Such "additional capacity" was intended to play a deterrent role, always code for the capacity to wage war.  Having such "submarines from a number of countries operating in close coordination that could deliver conventional ordinance from long distances [would have] enormous implications in a variety of scenarios, including in cross-strait circumstances".  That's Taiwan sorted.

Ultimately, the Australian role in aiding and abetting empires has been impressive, long and dismal.  If it was not throwing in one's lot with the British empire in its efforts to subjugate the Boer republics in South Africa, where many fought farmers not unlike their own, then it was in the paddy fields and jungles of Vietnam, doing much the same for the United States in its global quest to beat off atheistic communism.  Australians fought in countries they barely knew, in battles they barely understood, in countries they could barely name.

This occasion is often seen as one to commemorate the loss of life and the integrity of often needless sacrifice, when it should be one to understand that a country with choices in war and peace decided to neglect them.  The pattern risks repeating itself.

The post Anzac and the Pageantry of Deception first appeared on Dissident Voice.

4. When Healthy People are Murdered and the Terminally Ill are Prevented from Dying

In the name of Hippocrates, doctors have invented the most exquisite form of torture ever known to man: survival.
— Luis Buñuel, My Last Sigh, January 1982

I recently lost someone dear to me and watched as they died in almost unrelenting agony over a period of three weeks. As American health care is dominated by sociopaths and a pathological corporate culture antithetical to bioethics, it became apparent to me that we would have to fight for the patient, which meant in this case, fight for their right to die with a modicum of comfort and dignity.

As these unsavory events were playing out, I ruminated on the macabre absurdity of what was unfolding: here was a man in his 80s dying from multiple metastatic cancers, who had battled these illnesses bravely for about a decade but was clearly reaching the end as he had become bedbound and could no longer feed himself, but whose oncologist was champing at the bit to charge once more into battle with toxic drugs, while simultaneously a US-backed genocide in Gaza and a US-orchestrated war in Ukraine were bringing about the slaughter of enormous numbers of mostly young healthy people.

According to a recent report by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by the US-backed Zionist war machine, over 15,000 of which have been children, with two million rendered internally displaced. (The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor number of dead includes those buried under the rubble and assumed deceased). Regarding the cataclysmic conflict in Eastern Europe, former chief of the Polish General Staff, Rajmund Andrzejczak, said "I believe that [Ukraine's actual] losses should be counted in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands;" while former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko has stated that Ukraine is incurring a staggering 30,000 casualties a month.

This depraved ideation underscores the logic of capitalism, where the fit are sent to the abattoir while those in the throes of terrible suffering from the latter stages of terminal illness regularly have their misery drawn out for as long as possible to fuel the egos of narcissistic physicians and to feed the medical-industrial complex's insatiable lust for profits.

In chess the term zugzwang (from the German, meaning "compulsion to move") refers to a point in the game where it is one's turn and yet all options bring the player closer to checkmate. I watched this process unfold recently at an elite Manhattan teaching hospital. Keeping the patient alive and making them comfortable had come into conflict and could no longer coexist. The patient, their family, and their physician had arrived at a fateful crossroads.

Most rational people would argue that it is preferable to choose hospice at this stage, as keeping the patient alive has become synonymous with imposing growing forms of biomedical torture, which begs the following question: once this tipping point has been reached, is it possible to prolong "life" or is it merely possible to prolong the process of dying?

American doctors are often trained to drag out a person's demise without regard for the ethical implications, and this is because their training is profoundly influenced by for-profit hospitals, private health insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry which care about one thing and one thing only: money. It is relatively easy for the medical-industrial complex to drag out a person's passing due to the interconnectedness of a fateful pentagon: powerful corporate entities that exist for no other reason than to maximize the greatest possible profit, ambitious and myopic doctors who have neither autonomy nor an understanding of the bioethical ramifications of their actions, a technocracy which demands obeisance and blind obedience to "the experts," a culture which has deified science and inculcated people with the notion that science can achieve anything – even immortality; and a dying, frightened, and increasingly malleable patient whose lucidity and ability to give informed consent are waning.

Consequently, there is no "wave the white flag class" in American medical schools. Why let someone die without being poked and prodded every ten minutes, when wretchedness can be protracted – and with this more profit-making? This sordid reality underscores the fact that a privatized health care system doesn't regard patients as human beings but as commodities such as oil, wheat, or cattle which offer opportunities for extraction and ruthless exploitation.

In a system that prioritized empathy and compassion medical students and residents would receive a significant amount of training in helping them to identify situations where further medical interventions are likely to be harmful. It is also critical that patients be asked when coherent and not in pain what their wishes are regarding end-of-life care. Only a minuscule fraction will instruct their physician to continue to keep them alive once zugzwang has been reached, even if this means ending up on a ventilator or incapacitated for a prolonged period of time. Regrettably, many oncologists are not interested in obtaining their patients' views on the subject.

Just as the Banderite junta and its Western owners are incessantly prattling on about how some new Wunderwaffe will magically turn the tide of the war, oncologists invariably have some new drug up their sleeve, even as death is clearly hovering inexorably. No veterinarian would continue to keep a horse or a dog alive if the animal were in terrible pain and there were no means available to alleviate that pain, and yet this is par for the course in American medicine.

It is the oncologist's duty to discuss the pros and cons of hospice versus continuing to hammer away with powerful cancer medicines when death is encroaching and defeat inevitable. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of bodily autonomy and the oath to do no harm. Going once more unto the breach one time too many can have devastating consequences and trap the patient in a purgatorial state where, like Prometheus in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, suffering is dragged on interminably – a nightmare without end.

Following John of Gaunt's blistering chastisement of Richard in act 2, scene 1 of Shakespeare's Richard II ("Landlord of England art thou now, not king"), noble Gaunt asks his attendants to "Convey me to my bed, then to my grave." Scarcely a minute later Northumberland emerges to inform the king that Gaunt is no more. If Gaunt died in America today, months or even years would likely pass before Northumberland would have emerged saying "His tongue is now a stringless instrument," together with a fistful of medical bills totaling hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. The scientific prowess inherent in this capability is undoubtedly impressive, but does that make it ethical?

Common sense dictates that it is preferable to die over a period of weeks rather than months, and that it is preferable to pass away in a relatively demedicalized setting. Every cancer journey ends in remission or death. Once it is clear that the former is unattainable, the question arises as to what kind of death the patient will have.

Long regarded as one of the great generals of the 19th century, Robert E. Lee battled until he realized that the Confederate military had been degraded to the point where further resistance would only lead to needless suffering and death. He surrendered. Pushing a vulnerable patient to fight till one's dying breath denies a human being the right to a tranquil resolution of their life, and as transpired with Germany and Japan at the end of the Second World War can lead to apocalyptic destruction. Writing in Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End, Atul Gawande warns of the deplorable state of end-of-life care in America:

The problem with medicine and the institutions it has spawned for the care of the sick and the old is not that they have had an incorrect view of what makes life significant. The problem is that they have had almost no view at all. Medicine's focus is narrow. Medical professionals concentrate on repair of health, not sustenance of the soul. Yet—and this is the painful paradox—we have decided that they should be the ones who largely define how we live in our waning days.

Understanding when a cancer patient is in a zugzwang that can only be resolved by comfort care allows a human being to die surrounded by loved ones rather than under relentless medical bombardment by strangers in an ICU or pre-ICU — a lonely, harrowing, and terrifying death.

Good doctors know that prolonging dying is seldom a victory just as surrendering to death when the patient has reached a severely debilitated state is seldom defeat. Not all medical problems can be solved through aggressive medical interventions, just as not all geopolitical problems can be solved through war and aggressive foreign policy meddling. Indeed, the wise oncologist knows that the most difficult battles can only be fought and won by sheathing one's blade and letting the patient drift peacefully, silently, and restfully out to sea.

The post When Healthy People are Murdered and the Terminally Ill are Prevented from Dying first appeared on Dissident Voice.

5. Is US Officialdom Insane?

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, April 26, 2024. Photo: Xinhua

A foreboding article was published on April 24. It was pointed out that China had provided a berth to a Russian ship Angara that is purportedly "tied to North Korea-Russia arms transfers."

Reuters cited Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) – that boasts of itself to be "the world's oldest and the UK's leading defence and security think tank" – which claims Angara, since August 2023, has transported "thousands of containers believed to contain North Korean munitions," [italics added] to Russian ports.

Container ships transport containers, and along the way they dock in certain harbors. Until satellite photos have X-ray capability any speculation about what is inside a container will be just that: speculation. Discerning readers will readily pick up on this.

Despite China repeatedly coming out in favor of peace, Reuters, nonetheless, plays up US concerns over perceived support by Beijing for "Moscow's war" (what Moscow calls a "special military operation") in Ukraine.

And right on cue, US secretary-of-state Antony Blinken shows up in Beijing echoing a list of US concerns vis-à-vis China.

Blinken had public words for China: "In my meetings with NATO Allies earlier this month and with our G7 partners just last week, I heard that same message: fueling Russia's defense industrial base not only threatens Ukrainian security; it threatens European security. Beijing cannot achieve better relations with Europe while supporting the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War. As we've told China for some time, ensuring transatlantic security is a core US interest. In our discussions today, I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will."

It would seem clear that the Taiwan Straits is a core China interest, no? Or is it only US core interests that matter?

Blinken: "I also expressed our concern about the PRC's unfair trade practices and the potential consequences of industrial overcapacity to global and US markets, especially in a number of key industries that will drive the 21st century economy, like solar panels, electric vehicles, and the batteries that power them. China alone is producing more than 100 percent of global demand for these products, flooding markets, undermining competition, putting at risk livelihoods and businesses around the world."

It sounds like sour grapes from the US that China's R&D and manufacturing is out-competing the US. Take, for example, that the US sanctions Huawei while China allows Apple to sell its products unhindered in China. China has hit back at the rhetoric of "overcapacity."

Blinken complained of "PRC's dangerous actions in the South China Sea, including against routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations near the Second Thomas Shoal. Freedom of navigation and commerce in these waterways is not only critical to the Philippines, but to the US and to every other nation in the Indo-Pacific and indeed around the world."

Mentioning freedom of navigation implies that China is preventing such. Why is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea critical to the US? Second Thomas Shoal is a colonial designation otherwise known as Renai Jiao in China. The "routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations" that Blinken speaks of are for a navy landing craft that was intentionally grounded by the Philippines in 1999. Since then, the Philippines has been intermittently resupplying its soldiers stationed there.

Blinken: "I reaffirmed the US's 'one China' policy and stressed the critical importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait."

How does the US stationing US soldiers on the Chinese territory of Taiwan without approval from Beijing reaffirm the US's commitment to a one-China policy? The Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 states "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."

Blinken: "I also raised concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic institutions as well as transnational repression, ongoing human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, and a number of individual human rights cases."

Evidence of human rights abuses in Xinjiang? This is a definitive downplay from the previous allegations of a genocide against Uyghurs. It would be embarrassing to continue to accuse China of a genocide in Xinjiang due to a paucity of bodies which is a sine qua non for such a serious allegation as a genocide; meanwhile the US-armed Israel is blowing up hospitals and schools with ten-of-thousands of confirmed Palestinian civilian bodies. Even if there are human rights abuses in Xinjiang (which should be deplored were there condemnatory evidence), the US would still be morally assailable for its selective outrage.

Blinken: "I encouraged China to use its influence to discourage Iran and its proxies from expanding the conflict in the Middle East, and to press Pyongyang to end its dangerous behavior and engage in dialogue."

Is the US militarily backing a genocide of Palestinians a "conflict." Are US military maneuvers in the waters near North Korea "safe behavior"?

Blinken responded to a question: "But now it is absolutely critical that the support that [China's] providing – not in terms of weapons but components for the defense industrial base – again, things like machine tools, microelectronics, where it is overwhelmingly the number-one supplier to Russia. That's having a material effect in Ukraine and against Ukraine, but it's also having a material effect in creating a growing [sic] that Russia poses to countries in Europe and something that has captured their attention in a very intense way."

Are the ATACMS, Javelins, HIMARS, Leopard tanks, drones, artillery, Patriot missile defense, etc supposed to be absolutely uncritical and have no material effect on the fighting in Ukraine? And who is posing a threat to who? European countries are funding and arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia not vice versa? It sounds perversely Orwellian.

*****

From Biden to Harris to Yellen to Raimondo to Sullivan to Blinken, US officials again and again try to browbeat and put down their Chinese colleagues.

At the opening meeting on 18 March 2021 of the US-China talks in Anchorage, Alaska, the arrogance of Blinken and the US was put on notice by the rebuke of Chinese foreign affairs official Yang Jiechi: "[T]he US does not have the qualification to say it wants to speak to China from a position of strength." It doesn't seem to have sunk in for the American side.

The Russia-China relationship is solid. China's economy is growing strongly. Scores of countries are clamoring to join BRICS+ and dedollarization is well underway. Yet, the US continues to try to bully the world's largest – and still rapidly growing – economy. This strategy appears to affirm the commonly referred to aphorism about the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The post Is US Officialdom Insane? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

6. Canadians Promoting Genocide

In the name of protecting Canadian Jews many are promoting the cultural and physical erasure of a faraway people.

Recently there's been a push to suppress a traditional Palestinian garment. To the delight of many, the speaker of the Ontario legislature banned kaffiyehs from the provincial assembly. In a sign of support for this racist policy, prominent 'progressive' doctor and Ottawa-Carleton District School Board trustee, Nili Kaplan-Myrth, recently bemoaned a fellow trustee who "put on a keffiyeh", making it "not safe for Jews". Similarly, author Dahlia Kurtz posted about a friend who panicked when a worker at her child's daycare had on a kaffiyeh and a similar thing happened when the president of a Canadian Union of Public Employees local wore the garment while addressing members. In a particularly odious expression of this thinking, right-wing X account Love My 7 Wood quote tweeted a picture of a member of the Alberta legislature wearing a kaffiyeh noting, "She and her NDP colleagues wear that for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate Jews." (To which I replied "All Palestinian culture exists for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate Jews.")

Others have sought to erase Palestinian poetry. B'nai Brith recently gloated that they got a Toronto library branch to remove prominent poet Refaat Alareer's "If I Must Die" from a display. Four months ago Alareer and five family members were wiped out by the Israeli military and on Friday they killed his daugher, her husband and their infant child.

Not content with suppressing Palestinian poetry and garments, many express their ethnicity/religion by seeking to suppress Palestinian history. Recently, there was a push to stop the Peel District School Board from marking the Palestinian catastrophe, which saw over 700,000 ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1947/48. To the chagrin of some, the suburban Toronto school board adopted Nakba Remembrance Day' as one of over 20 similar historic or cultural days. A Canadian Jewish News headline explained "Peel school board's move to add 'Nakba Remembrance Day' to its calendar spurs objections from Jewish parents—and the Ontario education ministry". The story reported that the Jewish Educators and Family Association of Canada "launched an online campaign from within the Jewish community, encouraging people to write to [education minister Stephen] Lecce protesting the addition of Naqba (or Nakba) Remembrance Day."

A similar campaign was instigated after the British Columbia Teachers Federation called for education on the Nakba last month. The founder of Nonviolent Opposition Against Hate, Masha Kleiner, instigated a petition to oppose it.

Alongside the push to erase Palestinian history and art, there's a bid to starve Palestinians. The advocacy agent of Canada's Jewish Federations, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), is boasting that they filed suit against Ottawa for funding the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. They want the Federal Court to order the government to block assistance to refugees in Gaza even though the International Court of Justice has twice ruled that humanitarian assistance must be delivered to Gaza.

The federations, CIJA, B'nai Brith, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Honest Reporting Canada and other organizations have supported the slaughter of 40,000 Palestinians over the past six months. CIJA's director in Israel David M. Weinberg calls Palestinians in Gaza "the enemy population" and pushed "to reduce Gaza neighborhoods from which Hamas operated to rubble (as a matter of principle and not just for military advantage – and no, this is not a war crime)." In December the mayor of Hampstead, who boasts about leading "one of the most concentrated Jewish populations outside of Israel", expressed his support for wiping out all Palestinian children. Jeremy Levi told me he would continue supporting Israel even if they killed 100,000 or more Palestinian kids since "good needs to prevail over evil".

Many within the Jewish community are, of course, appalled by this supremacist, genocidal thinking. Jews Say No to Genocide has become an important organizing force in Toronto and in Montreal a contingent of Hasidic Jews have participated in many anti-genocide demonstrations in recent months. Independent Jewish Voices has also organized a slew of events against genocide.

Still, it's remarkable how many Canadians' religious/ethnic identity is expressed by seeking to erase a people 8,000 kilometers away. As I've detailed, the political forces at play are multifaceted, but part of it is a network of Jewish Zionist organizations that actively promote this type of thinking. There are numerous private schools, summer camps, community centres, synagogues and other organizations that push people into worshiping a violent faraway state that oppresses millions.

This elaborate genocidal network is rarely scrutinized. But, for those of us who believe in human rights for all it's necessary to disrupt the institutions seeking to erase Palestinians.

The post Canadians Promoting Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.