Aletho News

1. Canadians Promoting Genocide

By Yves Engler | Dissident Voice | April 29, 2024

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.

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People's History of the Canadian Military .

2. The Interlocking of Strategic Paradigms

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 29, 2024

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran's 13th April swarm drone and missile 'demonstation' attack into Israel: A 'message', rather than an 'assault'.

The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial.

Professor Postol writes:

"This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary".
"The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles", [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000".

Furthermore:

"The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel's] David's Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems".

Postel adds, "I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones".

"The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability".

Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defence to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defence ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs.

But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defence assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily.

'Yes, Ukraine' … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.

Positioning scarce air defence 'to save Israel' therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation.

But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the 'near enemy' – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the 'Great Victory' that his government craves.

In short, the 'cost' for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians.

It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalisation) with Israel.

In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defences and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder.

In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, "had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)".

So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine.

For the western proxy war with Russia centred on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West's off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defence manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: 'saving Israel'; 'saving Ukraine' and preparing for war with China.

The western maximalisation of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present 'limited' Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.

Put plainly, this 'late stage' global imperialism has been living a 'false dawn': With the economy shifting from manufacturing 'things', to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilise society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails).

More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns,

"the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security "infant industry" arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary 'rules', while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can't expect others not to copy what it does". As the FT concludes, "the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs."

'Up for grabs': Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – "We're going back to basics": A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it 'old- fashioned' (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith's doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.

'European leaders', however, see the economic paradigm solution differently:

"The ECB's Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi's call for "radical change": He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)".

The 'false dawn' boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted.

It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen's call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.

But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a 'defence and national security-led political economy', as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero?

Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?

This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change?

Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?

For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a 'geo-political' empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armouries and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended.

It was this decision that has been de-industrialising Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington's failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.

Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor.

Do Europeans even want to be at the American 'top table'?

3. US military’s pier in Gaza to cost $320m

MEMO | April 29, 2024

The US military's cost estimate to build a pier off Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid has risen to $320 million, a US defence official and a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The figure illustrates the massive scale of a construction effort that the Pentagon has said involves about 1,000 US service members, mostly from the Army and Navy.

Still, the cost has roughly doubled from initial estimates earlier this year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

"The cost has not just risen. It has exploded," Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee, told Reuters.

"This dangerous effort with marginal benefit will now cost the American taxpayers at least $320 million to operate the pier for only 90 days."

Democratic President Joe Biden announced the pier in March as aid officials implored Israel to ease access for relief supplies into Gaza over land routes. Biden opted for a sea route for the delivery of aid rather than press Israel to open land borders with Gaza and allow aid into the Strip which is experiencing a "man-made famine".

Wicker and some other lawmakers have questioned whether the pier is a worthwhile endeavour, particularly given the risk that US military personnel could face if they were targeted during the war.

"For every day this mission continues, the price tag goes up and so does the level of risk for the 1,000 deployed troops within range of Hamas' rockets," Wicker said.

Biden has ordered US forces to not step foot on the Gaza shore.

The pier will initially handle 90 trucks a day, but that number could go up to 150 trucks daily when it is fully operational. The United Nations said last week that the daily average number of trucks entering Gaza during April was 200. They have also repeatedly warned that there can be no alternative to a land route for the delivery of aid, adding that though aid being delivered by sea may help Palestinians in Gaza, the amount arriving will be insufficient to stop the spread of famine.

A senior Biden administration official said last week that humanitarian aid coming off the pier will need to pass through Israeli checkpoints on land.

That is despite the aid having already been inspected by Israel in Cyprus before being shipped to Gaza.

The prospect of checkpoints raises questions about possible delays even after aid reaches shore. The United Nations has long complained of obstacles to getting aid in and distributing it throughout Gaza.

Israel stands accused of genocide at the Internatinal Court of Justice (ICJ), which in an interim ruling in January, called on the occupation state to ensure no genocidal acts are carried out by its officials or army and to allow for the unhindered delivery of aid to civilians in Gaza.

Palestinians fear the US pier will be used to forcibly displaced civilians from Gaza or to commandeer the occupied territory's offshore natural resources.

4. Tracing the origins of Zionist lobby’s malign influence on American academia

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | April 29, 2024

The ruthless police crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests in universities across the United States is a continuation of years of silent repression and malign Zionist influence on American academia.

More than 20 universities in the US are protesting against the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza, where nearly 34,500 people have been killed since October last year, mostly women and children.

According to reports, more than 900 people have been arrested on US campuses since April 18 when a pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University in New York was forcefully removed by police.

The police were called by university president Nemat Minouche Shafik to dismantle the tent encampment set up on campus, which triggered a massive outcry from students and faculty members.

The unwarranted police action against students at Columbia University led to the expansion of protests to other university campuses including Yale University in Connecticut, City University in New York, Northeastern University in Boston, Arizona State University in Phoenix, Indiana University in Bloomington, Washington University in St Louis, University of Texas in Texas and University of California in Los Angeles among others.

Like Columbia, the University of Texas president Jay Hartzell also faced a strong backlash from students and faculty members on Friday after he called in police to break up the pro-Palestinian demonstration.

Hundreds of Texas University faculty members signed a letter expressing no confidence in Hartzell for "needlessly putting students, staff and faculty in danger" after riot police moved against protesters.

The protesting students and professors are calling for universities to divest and disassociate themselves from companies that are aiding the occupying regime's no-holds-barred aggression on Gaza.

The US police, known for its notoriety, has responded with brute violence, drawing anger and outrage.

According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy', a major monograph on the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, the Zionist influence on academia has faced more problems than politics, media and think tanks.

The origins of Zionist influence on US academia

The origins of the Israeli lobby's influence can be traced to the late 1970s when the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) monitored campus activities and trained young advocates for Israel.

AIPAC, along with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), also recruited students to help them identify professors and campus organizations with anti-Israel positions, which they would document in dossiers and then systematically slander in their publications.

Toward the end of the 20th century, these lobby groups did not pay much attention to shaping the discussion at universities because the Oslo peace process was underway, with little violence in the occupied territories, and consequently with less criticism of the Israeli regime's policies.

However, at the beginning of the new century when peace negotiations failed, the extremists led by Ariel Sharon took the helm of the Israeli regime and the Second Intifada ensued, the criticism at higher education institutions in the United States became much stronger and more intense.

The Israeli lobby, exerting considerable influence, responded with an aggressive attempt to "take back the campuses," and the most important organization in that campaign was once again AIPAC, which more than tripled its spending on pro-Israel college programs.

According to AIPAC leadership at the time, these funds were intended to significantly expand the number of students involved in activities in favor of the Israeli regime on campuses, their competence, and their involvement in the national pro-Israel effort.

Hundreds of students were sent to AIPAC all-expenses-paid courses in Washington DC where they received intensive advocacy training, and they were instructed to concentrate on networking with campus leaders of all kinds and winning them over to promote the regime's cause.

The multi-year campaign resulted in annual AIPAC Policy Conferences being attended by over 1,200 students from 400 colleges and universities across the US, including 150 student body presidents.

Simultaneously, this campaign to cultivate students has been accompanied by efforts to influence university faculty and hiring practices.

Israel lobby groups involved in US academia

In addition to AIPAC, other pro-Israel lobby groups have also been involved in pro-Israel campaigns at American universities, notably the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), an umbrella organization for the coordination of 26 different Zionist groups in US universities.

Although the ICC is not registered under the required Foreign Agent Registration Act, its leadership admitted that they have close ties and coordinate actions with Israel's ministry of strategic affairs.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) likewise initiated a series of advocacy training sessions for college students with the aim of defending the Israeli regime on their campuses.

A similar role was played by the David Project (TDP), which partnered with Christians United for Israel (CUFI), organizing training programs for students to agitate for Zionism.

The founder of the David Project was an Islamophobe who advocated banning the construction of mosques on American soil and co-founder of CAMERA, another Zionist group involved in smearing pro-Palestinian students on campuses.

New groups also emerged, such as the Caravan for Democracy (CFD), which brought Israeli settlers to speak at American universities, promoting the farce of Israel as "the only democracy in the region."

The website Campus Watch, an affiliate of the Middle East Forum (MEF), was also established, whose dossiers continued AIPAC's tradition of publicly defaming all campus critics of Israeli politics.

Press TV website in July 2023 published an investigation on how the Middle East Forum has shaped into a hardline Zionist and anti-Muslim think tank, founded by Daniel Pipes in 1990.

Its website stated that its mission is to "promote American interests in the Middle East (West Asia) and protect Western values from Middle Eastern threats", secretly serving the Zionist agenda.

Rodney Martin, a former Congressional staffer, says the AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have successfully placed a chokehold on the US government.

American-Israeli agendas at work

The ICC and the TDP were actively engaged in pressuring American universities to reject multimillion-dollar donations from Muslim governments to Islamic studies programs, characterizing them as "anti-American."

On the other hand, under the guise of expanding cultural cooperation and with the true goal of whitewashing the regime, Zionist megadonors launched a series of so-called "Israel studies" programs at American universities.

Fred Lafer and Sheldon Adelson, donors to such programs at New York University and Georgetown University, respectively, admitted that their motivation was to counter the Arab viewpoint at those institutions, referring to the pro-Palestine position.

After the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) spread across American colleges and universities, Adelson raised an additional 50 million in a secret summit in 2015 to fight the movement.

According to him, the funds raised were to go to operations on US campuses to fight the BDS movement and to "researchers" who would supply information about groups on campuses critical of Israel and recommend possible legal avenues to block their activities.

The precise amount of donations to American universities is difficult to determine because dozens of donors and Zionist charities regularly pay millions and some are given anonymously.

In the case of the University of Pennsylvania alone, pro-Israel lobbyists Marc Rowan and Ross Stevens are known to have donated 50 million and 100 million respectively.

AIPAC, the group that enjoys maximum influence on American academia, received about 12 million monthly donations before the start of the war in Gaza, and the receipts have multiplied since then.

Last month, prominent progressive organizations in the US formed a coalition to defend lawmakers targeted by the powerful AIPAC and counter its sway in US Congress.

Pertinently, one of the key but underreported factors of the unwavering US support for the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza is the overwhelming presence of Zionist Jews in the Biden administration.

The Zionist Jewishness of Biden's cabinet was pointed out recently by The Forward, a progressive media for a Jewish American audience, as well as the Israeli right-wing newspaper Times of Israel.

5. Malala slammed for collaboration with Clinton, cheerleader of Gaza genocide

By Humaira Ahad | Press TV | April 29, 2024

Dressed in traditional Shalwar Kameez, with her hair loosely covered, the youngest Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai recently shared the stage with former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the release of a musical about women's suffrage in the US.

Born in the Swat district of Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Malala rose to international fame after she was shot in the head by masked militants while she boarded her school bus in October 2012.

She then left her home country and settled in the UK, where she has been living in Birmingham.

Malala is known for lending her voice to campaigns related to children and education. However, her silence over the killing of children in Gaza and the bombing of schools has enraged her followers.

Her decision to collaborate with Clinton, the self-proclaimed votary of the Israeli regime whose country and party have been deeply complicit in the genocide unfolding in Gaza, came under fire.

The duo made their Broadway production debut this month with the "Suffs", a Broadway musical about the early 20th-century suffragette movement in the US, which sparked outrage as people accused Malala of blatant double standards.

Many questioned her silence over the killing of more than 34,400 Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, including more than 15,000 children, while sharing the stage with cheerleaders of the genocide.

Branded as a 'sell-out' on social media, netizens described Malala as a factotum for partnering with the former US Secretary of State on the music project.

Importantly, the United States has been supplying lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to the Israeli regime, which are used to slaughter Palestinians in Gaza.

President Joe Biden, who, like Malala, is a member of the Democratic Party, has gone out of his way to defend the Benjamin Netanyahu regime's genocidal onslaught on Gaza, including the murder of civilians and the bombing of hospitals and schools.

After coming under blistering fire for sharing the stage with the former US presidential candidate while maintaining silence over the Israeli-American war on Gaza, Malala swung into damage control mode.

The 26-year-old took to social media to condemn Israel's aggression on Palestine.

"I wanted to speak today because I want there to be no confusion about my support for the people of Gaza. We have all watched the relentless atrocities against Palestinian people for more than six months now with anger and despair. This week's news of mass graves discovered at Gaza's Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals is yet another reminder of the horrors Palestinians are facing," she wrote on X.

"It is hard enough to watch from afar – l don't know how Palestinians bear it in their bones. We do not need to see more dead bodies, bombed schools and starving children to understand that a ceasefire is urgent and necessary. I have and will continue to condemn the Israeli government for its violations of international law and war crimes, and I applaud efforts by those determined to hold them to account. Publicly and privately, I will keep calling on world leaders to push for a ceasefire and to ensure the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid," she added.

The statement, according to critics, was an attempt to appease her legions of supporters scattered across the world who have in recent days and weeks been critical of her silence over Gaza.

Malala's public appearance with Clinton only added fuel to the already raging fire of anger and outrage as people around the world, including her supporters, lashed out at her.

Clinton, who is co-producing the musical with the Pakistan-born education activist, has been quite outspoken about her support for the occupying regime in Tel Aviv.

Last November, she wrote an op-ed for The Atlantic arguing against a complete ceasefire in Gaza. She said that a ceasefire would "perpetuate the cycle of violence" in the war-torn region.

"A full cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power would be a mistake," she wrote at the time.

The former first lady of the US also labeled criticism against the Zionist regime as "antisemitic"

In a 2005 speech to "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC), Clinton defended Israel's move to build a barrier wall inside the occupied West Bank.

The move was deemed illegal even by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004. The ICJ had said that Israel should dismantle the wall and should pay reparation to those individuals who had suffered as a consequence of the construction of the wall.

In 2006, when the regime was bombing Lebanon and Gaza, Clinton praised the bombardment at a pro-Israel rally in New York.

During her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton's staunch support for Israel was clearly evident.

In a letter in July 2015, she vowed to combat the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement, urging the need to "make countering BDS a priority" and"fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel."

"I am very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival," she wrote in that letter.

In August 2015, Clinton again bragged about her staunch support for the illegitimate regime in an op-ed published in a Jewish newspaper. I "stood with Israel my entire career," she said.

Besides her unwavering support for Israel, the top diplomat in the Obama administration oversaw a campaign of deadly American drone strikes targeting tribal areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

These drone strikes killed hundreds of civilians in Malala's home region of Swat, propelling online criticism against the youngest Nobel Laureate's partnership with Clinton.

Since its inception, the Nobel Prize has been a farce as the award was born out of a blunder.

A French daily in 1888 carried a story of Alfred Nobel's death, after whom the award is named.

The newspaper wrote, "Dr Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." Petrified by the thought that he would be remembered as a "death trader", Nobel set up the foundation for the Nobel Prize, an activity to rebrand himself.

On his TV show 'Have it Out With Galloway', George Galloway, a British parliamentarian while responding to a panelist on whether Iran or Houthis should get Nobel Peace Prize this year, said: "Neither will get the prize as you have to be a warmonger for the empire to get that prize."

The selection process for the Nobel Peace prize has been shady, reducing the whole process to a farce. The people who get the prize are either war criminals or stooges of the imperialist empire.

In 1973, one of history's most vicious war criminals Henry Kissinger, was a co-recipient of the prize with Vietnamese Le DucTho for the "peace agreement" that did not achieve peace and the Vietnam war continued.

Tho, however, turned down the controversial award. While negotiating the "peace agreement", Kissinger was also carpet-bombing Cambodia.

Former US President Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. In Obama's tenure as the president of the US, there were at least ten times more air strikes in the so-called "war on terror" than under his predecessor, George Bush.

A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama's two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Hundreds of people were killed in these strikes.

Another farcical Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Shimon Peres in 1994, who shared that with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Peres, one of the founding fathers of the apartheid regime, systematically helped the regime to bolster its nuclear capabilities.

Peres launched two full-scale wars against the Gaza Strip, killing more than 3,700 Palestinians.

Under him, Israel shelled a United Nations compound near Qana, a village in southern Lebanon. The raid killed 106 people and injured around 116 others.

Bushra Shaikh, a London-based political commentator and analyst, in a post on X, said Malala's case as someone with brown skin used as an operative is an old practice employed by the West:

"Malala Yousafzai working as an agent for the West isn't new. Her selective activism for women and girls fails to extend to ALL. A personal struggle soon engineered into a Brown face actor for dollar bills. We've seen this happen time and time again."

Zaman from India questioned the Nobel Laureates' meeting with Clinton, a staunch supporter of Israel's genocide in Gaza:

"It's disheartening to see Malala Yousafzai cozying up to war criminals. Meeting with Hillary raises serious questions about her commitment to justice & human rights. She should be using her platform to hold accountable those responsible for violence and oppression, not rubbing shoulders with them."

Based in California, US, Maryam regarded Malala as a performer activist whose activities bring forth her reality:

"Never forget I was bullied on every platform for weeks for calling Malala Yousafzai a performative activist 3 years ago. And she keeps proving me right without me doing ANYTHING… truth will always come out."

6. China rejects US election interference claims

RT | April 29, 2024

China's foreign ministry has shot down allegations by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that it interferes in American elections, accusing Blinken of "paranoia and shadow-chasing."

Upon returning from a visit to China on Friday, Blinken told CNN that the US government had seen attempts by Beijing to manipulate US elections. "We have seen, generally speaking, evidence of attempts to influence and arguably interfere. And we want to make sure that's cut off as quickly as possible," he told host Kylie Atwood.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian rejected these allegations at a press conference on Monday. "Non-interference in other countries' internal affairs is a basic principle for China's diplomacy," Lin told reporters.

"The US presidential election is the US' internal affair," he continued. "We have never had any interest and will not interfere in any way in the election. Nevertheless, we staunchly reject anyone making an issue of China and damaging China's interests for election purposes."

"The US needs to stop the paranoia and shadow-chasing, stop slinging mud at China to divert attention and deflect the blame, and contribute to a stable China-US relationship and the wellbeing of our two peoples," Lin concluded.

American politicians often accuse foreign nations of interfering in US elections, with the now-debunked claim that Russia intervened to help Donald Trump clinch the presidency in 2016 spiralling into an espionage operation against Trump's campaign and a years-long probe by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump and President Joe Biden have both accused China of similar meddling attempts, with Biden pressing Chinese President Xi Jinping on the issue during a meeting in San Francisco in November. According to CNN, Xi promised Biden that China would not interfere in this year's presidential election.

US spies insist that Xi's promise was a hollow one. In a threat assessment published in February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that Chinese operatives aim "to sow doubts about US leadership, undermine democracy, and extend Beijing's influence" through information operations and possible election meddling.

"Even if Beijing sets limits on these activities, individuals not under its direct supervision may attempt election influence activities they perceive are in line with Beijing's goals," the document stated.

According to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, such accusations are rooted in American insecurity over China's rising economic and military might. Pointing to Washington's espionage allegations, sanctions, and trade restrictions, Wang said in March that its "methods of suppressing China are constantly being renewed."

"The challenge for the United States comes from itself, not from China. If the United States is obsessed with suppressing China, it will eventually harm itself," Wang told reporters in Beijing.

7. “Disinformation Czar” Jankowicz Returns as Head of New Project Before Election

By Jonathan Turley | April 29, 2024

Nina Jankowicz  is back . . . with a vengeance. The former head of the infamous "Disinformation Governance Board" within the Department of Homeland Security is now heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project. With a close election looming in November, Jankowicz has found funding to "to expose and oppose efforts to weaponize disinformation in the United States." The establishment of the group is only the latest example of how many in politics and media are doubling down on efforts to paint opposing views as dangerous for democracy as the nation readies for a historic election.

Jankowicz promises that "Once researchers are free to conduct their essential work, the American people will gain a better understanding of the nature and severity of the disinformation threats we face," she said. "Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy."

It is not clear who has funded the new project in an election year. However, the co-founder  is Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos, who is best known for his association with Protect Democracy, a group viewed by many as an anti-Trump and highly political outfit. Protect Democracy sued the Trump campaign based on the debunked Russian collusion claims that "the Trump Campaign conspired with Russian agents and Wikileaks to strategically disseminate the information Russia had hacked and that, in exchange, the Campaign would help Russia advance its foreign policy goals."

The lawsuit was dismissed.

Many would call that lawsuit and the Russian collusion claims to be "disinformation," but there is a clear bias in what is given this designation by groups pushing blacklists and censorship.

For example, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner, the federal government helped to fund the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which discourages advertisers from supporting sites accused of promoting disinformation.

All 10 of the sites that GDI claimed were the riskiest are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting "reputational and brand risk" by "financially supporting disinformation online."

The "risky" sites included Reason, a libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. Conversely, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation. (GDI included USA TODAY in this group.)

I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang "You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation" in a TikTok parody of the song "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious." She later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.

Jankowicz portrays herself as a defender of free speech who opposed efforts to censor viewpoints. As one of her critics, I strongly contest that self-portrayal.

When she was appointed the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022, she was tasked with combating "disinformation" on subjects ranging from the U.S. southern border to other forms of disinformation.

While Jankowicz objects to the "overly personalized, false, and incendiary coverage of me," it is only the false part that is actionable. Coverage is allowed to be "personalized" and even "incendiary" so long as it is true or protected opinion.

She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.

Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including "provisions against online gender-based harassment."

Jankowicz testified before the British House of Parliament about "gender misinformation" being a "national security concern" and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.

She demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using "creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny."

On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that "we should view it as a Trump campaign product." She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast "yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post's Hunter Biden story." In another tweet, she added "not to mention that the emails don't need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop."

She even cited the author of the infamous Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted "Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen." The Steele Dossier was viewed by American intelligence as relying on a suspected Russian agent as a source. These officials warned that it was itself used as a possible Russian disinformation vehicle.

She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities."

In addition to her co-founder's past advocacy, Jankowicz assembled a board that has been challenged as showing past bias. Two of the four members have close ties to Brookings Institution that was deeply involved in the Russian collusion hoax.

The new project is expected to follow the same transparently biased judgments over what is "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation" (MDM) from the Biden Administration. The government has used this rationale to coordinate censorship in what it has called the "MDM space."

For example, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency's mandate over critical infrastructure to include "our cognitive infrastructure." The resulting censorship efforts included combating "malinformation" – described as information "based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate." I testified earlier on this effort.

Jankowicz famously sang how "You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation." Once again, when it comes to the use of disinformation to effectively silence others, Nina Jankowicz remains "practically perfect in every way."

8. TikTok Hypocrisy

By Ron Paul | April 29, 2024

President Biden's campaign will continue using the popular social media site TikTok even though the president supported a provision in the military aid bill he recently signed forcing TikTok's parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok within 270 days. If ByteDance does not sell TikTok within the required time, TikTok will be banned in the USA. Biden's continued use of TikTok to reach the approximately 150 million American TikTok users, is not the only example of hypocrisy from politicians who support the TikTok ban.

The TikTok ban was driven by claims that, because ByteDance is a Chinese company, TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government and, thus. is helping the Chinese government collect data on American citizens. However, the only tie ByteDance has to the Chinese government is via a Chinese government controlled company that owns a small amount of stock in a separate ByteDance operation. Furthermore, ByteDance stores its data in an American facility not accessible by the Chinese government.

Just days before passing the TikTok ban, the same Senate that is so concerned about TikTok's alleged violations of Americans' privacy passed the FISA reauthorization bill. This bill not only extended existing authorities for warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, it made it easier for government agencies to spy on American citizens. It did this by requiring anyone with access to a targeted individual's electronic device to cooperate with intelligence agencies.

Supporters of banning TikTok also cited concerns over the site's "content moderation" policies. These policies reportedly forbid postings embarrassing to the Chinese government such as some related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square confrontation or the Free Tibet movement.

TikTok, like most social media platforms, engages in content moderation. The TikTok ban was supported by Democrats, including President Biden, who have a history of "encouraging" social media companies to censor Americans from using social media to spread "fake news."

Fake news is defined as anything that contradicts the Democrat or "woke" agenda, including the truth about covid origins, dangers, and treatments; whether democracy was really threatened on January 6; and the full story of Hunter Biden's business dealings.

One major reason behind strong bipartisan support for the TikTok ban is the wish to engage in a cold war with China. ByteDance's Chinese connection makes it a convenient target to help foster anti-Chinese sentiment. Sadly, the anti-Chinese hysteria is a bipartisan phenomenon and has even infected some politicians who take sensible positions on US intervention in Ukraine.

Another major reason banning TikTok has strong bipartisan support is that the site is being used by many young people to share information on the Israeli government's action in Gaza. The head of the Anti-Defamation League was actually caught on tape complaining about the "TikTok problem." This use of TikTok made TikTok a target for the many politicians who think the First Amendment makes an exception for speech critical of Israel.

The silver lining in the TikTok ban is it is waking up more Americans, especially young Americans, to the threat the out-of-control welfare-warfare-surveillance state poses to their liberty and prosperity. This provides a great opportunity to spread the ideas of liberty and grow the liberty movement.

9. Ukraine Continues Assault on Human Rights as Western Sponsors Turn a Blind Eye

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 29.04.2024

President Joe Biden has touted the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine as a "battle between democracy and autocracy," overlooking Kiev's backsliding on elections (which have been canceled), and political, speech, and religious rights and freedoms (which have been curtailed). Now, observers fear that an even more severe clampdown may be on the horizon.

The Ukrainian government has updated its European colleagues on the terms of its partial suspension of Ukraine's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In a "Notification of Partial Withdrawal of Derogation" notice dated April 4, 2024 and published on the Council of Europe's website, Ukraine's permanent representation to the Council of Europe informed its colleagues about "the derogation measures" (i.e. exemptions) from its international commitments on human, civil, political, religious, and labor rights in connection with the martial law measures enforced across the country.

The notice reviewed Ukrainian authorities' February 2022 decision to partially or fully suspend a number of rights under the country's constitution, including:

• guarantees on the inviolability of the home, the rights to privacy in communications, non-interference in personal and family life, freedom of movement, freedom of choice of place of residence;
• the right to freely leave and enter Ukraine, freedom of thought and speech, the right to free expression, the right to collect, store, use, and disseminate information, the right to participate in the management of public affairs and referendums, to freely elect and be elected to state and local bodies, to receive equal access to public services;
• the right to hold meetings, rallies, marches, and demonstrations, the right to strike, the right to own, use, and dispose of property, the right to entrepreneurship and work, and the right to education.

In connection with the introduction of martial law, the state granted itself the right:

• "to compulsorily alienate privately or communally owned property for the needs of the state";
• "to introduce curfew (a ban on staying on the streets and in other public places during certain periods of time without specially issued passes and certificates)";
• "to establish a special regime of entry and exit in accordance with a certain procedure, to restrict the freedom of movement of citizens, foreigners and stateless persons, as well as the movement of vehicles";
• "to inspect the belongings, vehicles, baggage and cargo, office premises and homes of citizens";
• "to prohibit peaceful assemblies, rallies, marches, demonstrations and other mass events";
• "to establish in accordance with a certain procedure, a ban or restriction on the choice of place of stay or place of residence in the territory where martial law is in force";
• "to prohibit citizens registered with the military or special registry to change their place of residence (place of stay) without proper permission";
• and other measures.

The notification to the Council of Europe was accompanied by an extract from "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law" legislation of May 12, 2015 (one year into the conflict in Donbass), which established the "temporary restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen" outlined above, as well as additional measures, including:

• forcible "labor duty for able-bodied persons not involved in defense and critical infrastructure protection and not reserved for enterprises, institutions and organizations for the period of martial law in order to perform defense-related work and to eliminate the consequences of emergencies that occurred during the period of martial law";
• the right of the state "to use the capacities and labor resources of enterprises, institutions and organizations of all forms of ownership for defense purposes, change their working hours, and make other changes to production activities and working conditions in accordance with labor legislation";
• the power "to compulsorily alienate privately or municipally owned property, seize property of state-owned enterprises and state economic associations for the needs of the state under martial law";
• the authority "to raise the issue of banning the activities of political parties and public associations in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, if they are aimed at eliminating the independence of Ukraine";
• the right of authorities "to set restrictions on electronic communications, print media, publishing houses, broadcasters, and other cultural and media institutions, and enable their use "for military needs and for conducting explanatory work among the military and the population";
• the power "to establish a special regime in the field of the production and sale of medicinal products containing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors, other potent substances, the list of which is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine";
• the right of the state to "intern (forcibly settle) citizens of a foreign state that threaten to attack or carries out aggression against Ukraine";
• and other measures.

In practice, the extensive suspension of civil, political, religious, property, and other rights means that the Ukrainian government has granted itself virtually unlimited authority to seize property, listen in on private conversations with loved ones, restrict freedom of movement (particularly for males aged 18-60), detain people indefinitely without charge, and interfere with people's rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and even worship.

Kiev submitted its initial derogation to European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions in March of 2022 – about a month after the escalation of the crisis in Donbass into a full-fledged NATO-Russia proxy war across the whole of Ukraine.

The update submitted in April formally repeals the derogation on articles related to forced labor, arbitrary detention, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the freedom of peaceful assembly, but the others remain in place.

Russian and international observers, human rights organizations, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have pointed to an alarming uptick in human, civil, and political rights violations in Ukraine over the past two years – from the banning of political parties deemed disloyal to the Zelensky regime, to the cancellation of elections, the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, torture, and other abuses.

In March, a US State Department report outlined "significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials," ranging from "enforced disappearance, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrest or detention," and more.

The report highlighted "serious problems with the independence of [Ukraine's] judiciary, restrictions on freedom of expression, including for members of the media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship, serious restrictions on internet freedom, substantial interference with the freedoms of peaceful assembly and associated, restrictions on freedom of movement, serious government corruption, extensive gender-based violence, systematic restrictions on workers' freedom of associated, and the existence of the worst forms of child labor."

"Some of these human rights issues stemmed from martial law," the State Department report indicated, adding that "the government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed abuses."

Threat to Itself and Neighbors

"Gross violation of human rights" are being committed at the hands of Ukraine's authorities and its military affecting not only the country itself, but its neighbors as well, says Vladimir Yevseyev, a Russian military analyst from the Moscow-based Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States.

"The latest vivid example of this is the murder of civilians in Avdeyevka. During demining operations, the bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs with tape. They were all killed. This example shows the true state of the observance of human rights in Ukraine, their military's crimes. Therefore, there isn't even anything to discuss here," Yevseyev told Sputnik.

More interesting than the violations themselves is the reaction of Kiev's Western curators, the observer argues.

Pointing to the State Department report on "significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials," Yevseyev suggested that it may indicate "some kind of internal political struggle" within the Washington establishment "against the backdrop of the election campaign," and perhaps part of a general "internal political interdepartmental struggle" as the extent of Kiev's violations becomes increasingly difficult to conceal.

Accordingly, Yevseyev doesn't rule out that Kiev may have decided to update its exemptions from European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions to counter this criticism, citing the excuse of the ongoing war effort.

In any case, the observer has no doubt that the Ukrainian state and military will continue to do what they have been doing, and that Kiev's sponsors "will continue to turn a blind eye to all the violations that took place, at least before the presidential election" in the US, which will play the decisive role.

The decision to update the list of derogation measures is also likely connected to the extensive factual basis presented to international organizations on the violations taking place in Ukraine.

"Everyone knows," for example, "how many people are in prison on politically motivated charges," Yevseyev noted, saying this is "getting harder and hider to hide." Accordingly, the partial derogation allows Ukraine to avoid legal reproach.

As for the implications of Kiev's moves, and whether they will lead to a further deterioration of human, civil and political rights in Kiev, Yevseyev believes it will make little difference so long as Ukraine's European and American sponsors continue to cover for them, and continue to prop up the Zelensky regime.

"The situation can be radically changed only through a change of regime. [The Zelensky] regime is totalitarian. Violations of human rights are the norm of behavior, rather than something provocative. The West, naturally, cannot admit that the regime is totalitarian. Therefore, they are forced to turn a blind eye to the massive violations of human rights that are taking place," Yevseyev said.

The observer expects the situation to continue to deteriorate along with the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in Ukraine, and doesn't rule out growing violence as ordinary Ukrainians fight back against the state – for example by killing officials from recruitment offices after the expansion of forcible mobilization measures.

10. Alleged Chinese spy working for AfD MEP Krah was an informant for German intelligence for years

'Remarkable turn of events!'

By John Cody | Remix News | April 29, 2024

The news about Alternative for Germany (AfD) MEP Maximilian Krah's assistant and his arrest for suspected espionage on behalf of China continues to make national headlines, but as more information comes out, the more German intelligence and the political establishment continue to look worse and worse.

Now, news reports have revealed that Krah's employee, Chinese-German national Jian G., worked for the German domestic intelligence service for years before joining the AfD politician.

Krah has since commented on the new bombshell information, writing on X: "Remarkable turn of events!"

Much is at stake, as Krah is the top candidate for the AfD in the run-up to the EU parliamentary elections in June. The latest report shows that the powerful Office for the Protection of Constitution (BfV) not only recruited Jian G. as a spy, but also dropped him as an informant because there were concerns he was a double agent for China.

However, despite these suspicions, Jian G. gained German citizenship, became a member of the Social Democrats (SPD), and even passed the EU parliament's security clearance.

Former minister Mathias Brodkorb questioned the story on X, writing:

They are really funny. Let's assume the story is true:

1. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution is working with the man.

2. Then, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution ends the collaboration because the man could be a double agent.

3. Then the German state naturalizes this agent.

Intermediate question: Where was the Office for the Protection of the Constitution at that time?

4. Then, Krah wants to hire the man as an employee of the EU parliament. That cannot be done without a security check. So the EU parliament should actually have asked the German security authorities whether there was anything against the man. But apparently they didn't. Otherwise, the man would not have been cleared and could not have been hired.

Intermediate question: Where was the Office for the Protection of the Constitution at that time? And you are now seriously asking what the problem is? Seriously?

One of the main questions is why the Office for the Protection of the Constitution never informed Krah or the AfD about their suspicions, which is standard operating procedure, and one designed to protect the country's parties from foreign infiltration. Notably, allowing Jian G. to work for Krah created a favorable political scenario for the establishment to later arrest him in order to smear the AfD. Notably, Jian G. was arrested right before EU parliamentary elections.

The question now is whether the BfV purposefully kept the AfD in the dark for years about the information it knew in order to damage the party.

Working for the BfV all the way back in 2007

According to Bild newspaper, Jian G. was an informant for the Saxon Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) since 2007 at the earliest. Previously, he had unsuccessfully offered to work for the federal branch of the BfV, but he was rejected, and referred back to the Saxon branch of the BfV.

Jian G. reportedly worked with the intelligence service on his own initiative, including supplying information that dealt with Chinese state actors taking action against Chinese exiles in Germany. Eight years after joining the Saxon BfV as an informant, the Saxon branch was informed by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution that G. could be a double spy.

In 2015 and 2016, G. was then directly observed by the counterintelligence department of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Officers also questioned him about their suspicions but were unable to prove that he was a spy for China. He was therefore listed as a "suspected case" during that period.

In 2018, G. was finally removed as an informant by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

However, by that time, Jian G. had already made contact with Krah and then went on to work as his employee in the EU parliament beginning in 2019. He was then intensively monitored by the domestic intelligence service from 2020 and finally arrested in April 2024.

As noted above, despite the suspicion of espionage, the Chinese national was granted a German passport, was also a member of the SPD for a time, and was able to pass the security check for the EU parliament.

In addition, the BfV under Thomas Haldenwang (CDU), who is notoriously anti-AfD and publicly working against the party, failed to inform Krah or the AfD about the suspicion of espionage against Jian G.

As Remix News has documented, Haldenwang has made numerous remarks against the AfD, including on state-funded television, all in violation of neutrality. Haldenwang belongs to the CDU party.

Notably, this is standard procedure in such cases, which means the Office for the Protection of the Constitution withheld this information from the AfD in violation of past precedent and procedure.