Palestina, erresilientzia (65)

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1807069131247673526

Hasiera:

Gogoratu ondoko hau: Pascal Lottaz eta ICJ delakoa

Segida:

oooooo

S.L. Kanthan@Kanthan2030

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1822378876581847190

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1822221587229094283

oooooo

ooo

The three big NATO myths

(https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/the-three-big-nato-myths)

A new book by German MP Sevim Dağdelen shatters NATO’s biggest myths: why the Alliance has nothing to do with defence, democracy or human rights

Thomas Fazi

Aug 10, 2024

I’m reading a very interesting book that’s just been published. It’s called NATO: A Reckoning with the Atlantic Alliance, and it’s written by Sevim Dağdelen (@SevimDagdelen), who has been a member of the German parliament, the Bundestag, since 2005. She is member in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and foreign policy spokesperson for the party Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance — Reason and Justice (BSW) in the German Bundestag. Dagdelen is member of the German-Chinese, the German-Indian and the German-US Parliamentary Friendship Groups. She is a leading expert in Germany on security and foreign policy, and a long-standing member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

What follows is an excerpt from the introduction:

In 2024, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) celebrates its 75th birthday, seemingly at the pinnacle of its power. More than ever before, NATO is bent on expansion. In Ukraine, NATO has been waging a proxy war against Russia in reaction to Russia’s illegal war of aggression. It participates in the war by training Ukrainian soldiers in the handling of NATO weapons, by massive arms deliveries, by sharing intelligence, by supplying target data, and by sending soldiers who fight on site. There have been discussions about the delivery to Ukraine of German Taurus cruise missiles, which have a range of 500 kilometres and the ability to reach Moscow and St. Petersburg, and about the deployment of NATO troops on a large scale. There is a storm brewing. 

Moreover, NATO is expanding its presence in Asia. By integrating new partner states such as Japan and South Korea, the military alliance is moving forward into the Indo-Pacific Region and seeking a confrontation with China. The military expenditures of the United States and the other NATO member states are reaching record heights. While the big defence contractors are popping champagne bottles, the enormous costs of the military buildup are being foisted on the general population. The drawback of this expansionist power policy is that it leads to overexpansion, rising social tensions, and increasing danger of escalation, challenging the alliance in an unprecedented way. 

All the more so, NATO now has to rely on certain falsifications of history. From NATO’s founding to the present, three big myths have accompanied the brutal history of this military pact, which I will now explore. 

MYTH 1: IT’S ALL ABOUT DEFENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

NATO is a defensive alliance. That is the narrative which we are supposed to believe and which is repeated ad infinitum. But a look back into the history of the military pact tells a very different story. Neither was mutual defence the main motivation when NATO was founded, nor can one possibly call NATO’s behaviour over the course of the past decades defensive. 

Just as in the case of the Inter-American Treaty, the signatory states of the North Atlantic pact are completely unequal in terms of power and military prowess. It is thus quite obvious that in the founding of NATO, the US was not seeking the assistance of the other alliance partners should it become necessary for the US to defend itself. Actually, Washington has from the start pursued the goal to create a “Pax Americana”, an exclusive area of influence that gives the United States, as the unchallenged leading power, control over the foreign and security issues of the other allies. 

Within the military pact, the other NATO members would then become mere client states like the ones that once used to serve as military buffer zones in the eastern areas of the Roman Empire to strengthen the empire’s grip on power.

Any domestic political change that could have challenged the foreign-policy orientation of these client states was prohibited and punished by crushing them. During the Cold War, NATO organised its own putschist organisations to prevent any such development. These were the so-called “stay behind groups”.  

Among other activities, these groups employed terrorist means to prevent political forces that called into question the membership of their states in NATO from gaining political influence or power. 

The end of the systemic competition with the Soviet Union incisively changes NATO’s previous primary purpose which consisted in creating a “Pax Americana”. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has increasingly seen itself as the world’s policeman. 

With the attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, which at that time still consisted of Serbia and Montenegro, the military pact waged its first war. This was a clear violation of international law. Even the German Federal Chancellor at the time, Gerhard Schröder, acknowledges this 15 years later: “We sent our airplanes […] to Serbia, and, together with NATO, they bombed a sovereign state — without there having been any Security Council decision on the matter”.  

After this original sin, NATO develops into a pact to wage war, which is moreover prepared to violate international law. This development clearly contradicts its own Charter, in which the NATO states commit themselves according to Article 1 “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. The defence of the alliance area has now become only one part of NATO’s claim to function as a worldwide force of order. 

In 2003, the NATO members United States and Great Britain attacked Iraq in an illegal war of aggression. … Even though the war against Iraq was officially not a NATO war, there are serious reasons to regard this assault as an operation of the military pact. NATO members such as Germany did not deny the use of NATO military bases on their territory to the US nor did they refuse flyover rights to the US forces. 

Against this background, the war policy of the most important members of the alliance must therefore be attributed to the military pact itself — a least if we are supposed to take NATO’s self-definition seriously. The United States with its illegal wars thus stands as pars pro toto, as part for the whole. 

In Afghanistan, NATO had waged a disastrous war for 20 years, a war that cost the lives of more than 200,000 civilians. For the first — and as of yet only — time, in this military operation following the attacks of 11 September 2001, the alliance invoked Chapter 5 of the NATO Treaty. It tried to mislead world opinion into believing that the freedom and security of the West are now defended at the Hindu Kush. 

Apart from Belgrade, Baghdad, and Kabul, NATO’s bloody trail also leads to Libya. In 2011, NATO bombed the country to pieces, violating international law and misusing a resolution of the UN Security Council in the process. Thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands were forced to flee. 

This catastrophe brought about by NATO must also be attributed to its individual member states. Totum pro parte; here, the whole stands for each of its parts. This is true even for those of the member states which do not directly participate in the attacks. 

MYTH 2: DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF THE LAW 

According to the legitimising myth laid down in the preamble of the founding charter of NATO, its members are determined “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law”. But already in 1949, this is a flat-out lie. Not only did the US align itself with dictatorships and fascist regimes in Latin America, but its NATO allies in Europe were also by no means all pure democracies. The decisive criterion for membership was the readiness to join a front against the Soviet Union. 

As a matter of fact, NATO is simply not about democracy and the rule of law, but solely about geopolitical fealty to the United States. Just as in other cases of empires built on lies, NATO thrives on fairy tales like this. In the schools and universities, these lies are part of NATO’s educational program. 

MYTH 3: COMMUNITY OF VALUES AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

“We are bound together by common values: individual liberty, human rights, democracy and the rule of law”. This is how NATO presents itself as a community of values in its 2022 Strategic Concept. But according to a balance sheet coming from the renowned Brown University in Rhode Island, US, in the past twenty years alone more than four and a half million people have died because of the wars waged by the United States and its allies. 

This picture is not compatible with the widely circulated self-image of NATO. NATO is no community which protects human rights. On the contrary, NATO serves as a protective umbrella for the human rights violations of its members. And this applies by no means only to the violation of social human rights under the dictatorship of a massive arms buildup. Rather, NATO pursues a policy of total impunity for any war crime by its member states.

In the Global South, this Western double standard is met with increasing criticism. The NATO states’ human rights rhetoric is seen as purely instrumental, as a tool to both hide and support these countries’ own geopolitical interests. To the countries of the Global South, NATO appears as the guardian organisation of a deeply unjust world order with neocolonial tendencies. 

This is demonstrated by the fact that in their economic war against Russia, the most powerful NATO states are trying to use secondary sanctions to impose their own policy on “third states” such as China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, violating the sovereignty of these states in the process.  

The NATO myths romanticise people’s view of reality. If we want to find ways out of the current crisis, we need to unmask them. This is what the present book does. Today, 75 years after the founding of NATO, this military pact, its global expansion, and its confrontational policies are driving the world to the brink of World War Three more than ever before. 

oooooo

Middle East Eye@MiddleEastEye

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1822292071048171967

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1821833786427916656

oooooo

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

oooooo

Ben Norton@BenjaminNorton

oooooo

oooooo

COMBATE |Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.@upholdreality

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1823054732606185493

oooooo

abu. 13

oooooo

Ryan RozbianiImage may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.@RyanRozbiani

Howard Beckett@BeckettUnite

oooooo

Mohamad Safa@mhdksafa

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil@ivan_8848

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1823048801810043288

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1823401529170358723

oooooo

MintPress News@MintPressNews

oooooo

Glenn Diesen@Glenn_Diesen

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

The Scam of Pragmatism: An Origin Story of ‘Just the Way It Is’

(https://realprogressives.substack.com/p/the-scam-of-pragmatism-an-origin?triedRedirect=true)

History teaches us that there is nothing inevitable about “the way it is,” and there is nothing “pragmatic” about accepting the inevitability of the statu quo.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Real Progressives

and

Jonathan Kadmon

Aug 08, 2024

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The past never truly stays where it belongs. Even when the truth is carefully scrubbed from our understanding of history, its spores disperse through time to seep into the firmament like a persistent black mold poisoning the air we breathe. We are familiar with its effects, but none the wiser as to its causes. It is in the assumptions of media figures and pundits as to which policies are “practical” and which candidates are “electable.” It is in all of the trite and shallow excuse-making by the powerful as to why better things aren’t possible, and why straightforward solutions to basic problems of governance are out of the question. It is in the refusal of elected progressives to use the very tools of power and leverage that their corporatist and right-wing rivals wield with impunity. It is in the insistence that making demands is impertinent, and that the solution is to continue doing the things that didn’t work before, but with more feeling. Be civil, be congenial, play by the rules, vote harder. These patterns are not new; they were old when Ralph Nader complained of them in the 1960s. They are not mere accidents of fate, nor are they some natural evolutionary outcome of rigorous public debate and discourse. As with all social constructs, the heavy hand of intention is evident for those who know where to look for it. There is a story of how it got there, and that story’s erasure from the public discourse is a critical part of it. The true details were omitted from accounts of our history to promote a false consciousness among the public as to what this country is and how it got to be this way.  

While the full story may never be entirely uncovered, we now have access to enough of it to establish the pattern thanks to the resourceful original research conducted by University of Iowa history professor Landon Storrs in her book The Second Red Scare and the Unmaking of the New Deal Left. Storrs profiles dozens of cases of the best and the brightest young professionals who responded to the call to public service in the darkest hours of the Great Depression. These people were non-communist leftists who reflected the popular consensus of the time that unfettered capitalism and “free enterprise” had led the world to the brink of ruination, and that the future would necessarily include some form of democratic socialism. They understood that, as FDR framed it in his 1944 State of the Union address, “necessitous men are not free men,” and that true democracy required economic security for all. These were the architects of the greatest of the New Deal programs that saved the country from economic collapse in the 30s, achieved unthinkable levels of productivity during World War II, instituted modern labor laws, and brought underdeveloped portions of the country into the modern world. These heroes and heroines were rewarded for their service with a 20^th century version of the Spanish Inquisition, a cynically manufactured pretext weaponized by the right-wing forces of the existing capital order to thwart economic democracy and purge the very idea from the public consciousness. Many were hounded out of government and pursued in private life by federal agents who sabotaged their employment prospects using the stigma of the allegations. Still others survived the purges by abandoning their visionary policy agendas and social priorities, forced instead to live a lie. The work of people like Isidore Falk on national single payer healthcare, Arthur “Tex” Goldschmidt on public power utilities, and Catherine Bauer Wurster on Austrian style public housing was derailed and purged from the discourse by toxic associations with “subversive” tendencies. Many others were persecuted for their work on the right’s most hated policies including Social Security, consumer rights, labor rights, minimum wage, and the Marshall Plan in post-war Europe. Their legacy, and that of their oppressors, echoes through time to the present day like an invisible assassin of hope and possibility.  

In a period dominated by the circus-like antics of Martin Dies’s House Un-American Activities Committee, which had a travelling roadshow and numerous state-level spinoffs, it is easy for the far less public Federal Employee Loyalty Boards to slip under the narrative radar. These secretive closed-door proceedings were more action-oriented and less performative than the better-known red scare institutions of the period. Storrs describes a heavy-handed process that, once begun, never truly ended. There were no due process rights or protections against double jeopardy; a closed case could be reopened at any time and for any reason. Rumor and innuendo were sufficient; there were neither rules of evidence nor a right to face one’s accuser. As a condition of employment, subjects were required to submit to exhaustive investigations of their personal lives by investigators who had little training and an excess of zeal in the hunt for subversive tendencies and “thought crimes.” Short of the dreaded “full field investigation” by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, they could be forced to submit extensive written answers to “interrogatories” at any time and for any reason. They could expect to be interrogated as to friendships, affiliations, and social interactions going back decades, as well as those of their spouses and other relatives. Even the defense attorneys retained by these civil servants faced ostracism and intimidation. These incredibly invasive procedures were weaponized by the right-wing coalition behind the established order to de-rail the New Deal agenda and to punish its champions.  

The stakes were high, and the consequences of failing a Federal Employee Loyalty Board investigation were dire. A federal employee did not merely face dismissal from their job and a ban on government employment. They also faced a broader unofficial employment blacklist, a social and economic ostracism that would follow them wherever they went. With that in mind, the attorneys for these civil servants advised them to burnish and exaggerate their anti-communist bona fides. They urged them to denounce and distance themselves from friends and family members who were seen as liabilities, whether they had affiliations with the Communist Party or merely causes that could be labeled as “subversive” or “communistic.” Their legal counsel advised them to construct a false identity and repudiate many of their core beliefs. Because of the never-ending nature of these loyalty proceedings, any perceived inconsistency could trigger a renewed cycle of career jeopardy and harassment. These defendants thus were forced to live the lie of those false identities, and to abandon their ambitious and visionary agendas. They were forced to either reinvent themselves as fiercely anti-communist cold war liberals, or to leave the government and policy arena entirely. 

In an era when the mere accusation of disloyalty could ruin lives, those who survived this inquisitorial gauntlet took great pains to hide their trauma and keep their past a secret. They acquired reputations as forceful reactionaries who repudiated those of younger generations who strayed too far to the left in their politics. In many of the cases examined by Storrs, the defendants’ own children were unaware of what happened to them until after their deaths. Between the trauma-conditioned desperation of loyalty defendants to keep their secrets, and the destruction of many of the records on the government end, Storrs was forced to engage in an odyssey of creative detective work to uncover the details of the cases discussed in the book. As a credentialed academic historian, Storrs acknowledges that she cannot prove the Loyalty Board persecutions were the reason for these drastic political transformations, but readers are free to use their intuition and draw the obvious conclusion. The real problem, as Storrs points out, is that neither their contemporaries nor the historians who chronicled the life and times of these people are aware that this happened at all. The terror of these survivors became quietly institutionalized. It became part of the political culture of the Beltway, instilled in subsequent generations of civil servants and elected officials with no explanations as to why. Soon enough, people stopped asking and started assuming. Thus, this new consensus became “just the way it is,” with no acknowledgement of the way it was before these dystopian inquisitorial purges took place. 

Antonio Gramsci, in the notebooks he penned from a prison cell in Mussolini’s fascist Italy, refers to this consensus as the “common sense.” He describes it as working in service of “cultural hegemony,” the process by which the consensus view of the powerful becomes accepted as the inevitable statu quo, or “just the way it is.” With the use of this draconian process, in tandem with many other persecutorial institutions of the period, the power elite in the US reasserted their hegemony by purging the old common sense and replacing it with a new one. They secured its acceptance as cultural norm by suppressing knowledge of how it got there, and by silencing discussion of what came before until it was largely forgotten.   

Modern progressives periodically rediscover the old writings of these legends of the New Deal era, with no knowledge of what happened to them. They engage in a naïve kind of solutionism, believing that if they just adopt this forgotten bit of wisdom from the past, the current system will work the way it was always meant to. They fail to realize that the system is working the way it was meant to; that the fate of those Institutionalists like Leon and Mary Keyserling, Katherine Bauer Wurster, Tex Goldschmidt, Elizabeth Wickenden and many others who espoused those views was persecution and repudiation. Missing from their understanding is the knowledge of the kind of brutal countermeasures that the powerful can mobilize should advocates of such policies get too close to success.  

Generations of politicians, pundits, and regular people raised in the milieu of this new cultural hegemony regurgitate the inane assumptions of this ossified “common sense” from every major media platform like a catechism or statement of religious faith. In a recent interview, former MSNBC host Chris Matthews recited the pedestrian understandings of his time, things “everyone knows” that just aren’t so. Particularly illustrative is his discussion of the 1972 candidacy of George McGovern as proof that the Democratic Party will suffer ignominious defeat if they go “too far left.” This conventional wisdom, so ubiquitous amongst Matthews’s generation, is ridiculous on its face. McGovern was a milquetoast moderate with a pragmatic stance against the war in Vietnam. His crime was to win the nomination with grassroots support against DNC favorites like Edmund Muskie. Deriving Matthews’s conclusion requires ignoring the degree of treachery from within the establishment of the DNC leadership, many of whom openly campaigned for Republican Richard Nixon. The terror of “drifting too far to the left,” a product of this cultural hegemony, is conditioned into his generational cohort to the degree that he readily accepts this flimsy narrative without evidence and without question. In doing so he misses the real lesson of the 1972 campaign: the savagery with which the forces of the power elite will respond to perceived threats to their cultural hegemony.  

In his ignorance, Matthews became an agent of that agenda. Like many others in the so-called “liberal” media space, he was determined to police the left boundaries of acceptable discourse with no insight into why. In his career ending move, his comically exaggerated alarm at seeing those boundaries breached led him to compare the Sanders primary win in Nevada to Germany’s invasion of France in 1940, on the heels of his ludicrous speculation that a Sanders victory would lead to guillotine executions in Central Park. In that irrational panic we see echoes of Leon Keyserling and thousands of other victims of the Federal Employee Loyalty Boards, whose learned phobia associated with that perceived red line was institutionalized while its origins were hushed up. That fear and the new common sense built around it are the legacy of the second red scare. 

The lessons of this history and its ripple effects through time reveal broader truths. The boundaries of establishment consensus discourse and what Gramsci calls the “common sense” were not handed down from the heavens etched on stone tablets. They were put there by people, usually in service of an elite agenda to defend and maintain the arrangements that suit them. The things we assume without question can obscure important truths with the potential to alter everything we think we know. They can also be used to manipulate people who perceive some benefit from the statu quo arrangement into acting as agents of its perpetuation. Awareness of what they are doing is not necessary or even particularly common. The distinction makes little difference in practice. Lawmakers are responding to institutional imperatives that have far more power over their policy decisions than majority opinion or democracy. This is maintained by the soft power of elite cultural hegemony, which is reinforced every time a pundit or politician gaslights the public about what’s practical, possible, or realistic. Less often explicitly articulated is a conditioned existential dread of the ill-defined consequences of challenging these norms from the left, and only from the left. Whether it is cynical dissembling or is legitimately believed, this primal fear is the justification for progressive lawmakers’ refusal to wield the same tools of power their right-wing counterparts exercise so freely. By failing to interrogate the legitimacy of those boundaries and how they got there in the first place, they help to perpetuate the scam of “pragmatism” and the demoralization of their base. As psychologist Stephanie Preston pointed out in a recent Macro N Cheese episode, those who seek to manipulate public opinion understand one thing very well: without access to contravening facts, people can be induced to accept all manner of transparently false assumptions that benefit the existing order. 

History teaches us that there is nothing inevitable about “the way it is,” and there is nothing “pragmatic” about accepting the inevitability of the statu quo. Like any social construct, it was put there by interested parties and could be taken down. Questioning the legitimacy of such assumptions and how they got there is a fine place to start. But the more important inquiry is cui bono – who benefits from this arrangement. When the façade finally falls, we can expect those beneficiaries to be waiting on the other side with knives out. Like those who came before them, the heirs of the legacy of the red scare are not known for accepting defeat with equanimity. Breaking free of false consciousness is the beginning of the fight for a better future, not the end. 

oooooo

ooo

Putin Meet Palestinian President Abbas : Strategic Talks on Israel-Palestine Conflict Unfold!

(Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/live/MQKo-MtIAaY)

On Tuesday, August 13, Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The two leaders will discuss the current situation in the Middle East and explore key aspects of Russian-Palestinian cooperation.

President Abbas is in Russia for an official visit from August 12-14, marking his first trip to the country since 2018.

Transkripzioa:

0:01

Mr President

0:05

friends first of all I would like to

0:07

courage you wel to Moscow we have not

0:11

met for two years even though we are in

0:13

constant contact with each other and I’m

0:16

very glad to see you and your delegation

0:20

everyone is well aware that Russia today

0:25

unfortunately has to defend its interest

0:29

to protect

0:30

people with weapons in arms but what is

0:35

happening in the Middle East in

0:37

Palestine

0:39

obviously draws our attention as well we

0:43

have a longstanding deed ties with the

0:46

aort with Palestine in particular and we

0:49

cherish this ties very much and of

0:52

course it causes us great

0:55

concern the humanitarian catastrophe

0:58

that is occurring in

1:03

Palestine we do everything we can to

1:06

support the Palestinian people as you

1:08

know we have already sent some

1:12

700,000 tons of humanitarian Rel we do

1:16

everything to support to help Palestine

1:20

and the Palestinian people first of

1:28

all concern regarding

1:31

the civilian loss of Civilian

1:35

casualties women

1:37

children that suffer and I’m very glad

1:40

to meet you here Moscow today to discuss

1:43

about the

1:46

entire array of our relationship about

1:49

the sitation currently and about the

1:51

prospects you know that we always stand

1:53

for the peaceful resolution of all

1:55

conflicts and we understand we share the

1:57

same stance in this regard and

2:00

this problem is rooted deep in the past

2:04

first of all it has to do with

2:09

ignoring resolutions adopted by

2:12

International organizations first of all

2:15

the resolutions the establishment of

2:17

independent Palestinian State we adhere

2:21

to this

2:23

position it does not

2:26

change Chang political enir to establish

2:30

the C long standing peace in the region

2:33

all the resolutions of the United

2:34

Nations must be implemented first of all

2:37

full

2:38

fles must established I’m very glad to

2:41

see you and your team welcome to Russia

2:44

welcome to Moscow Mr

2:51

President very much Putin I’m very glad

2:55

to be here in Moscow

3:00

is a friendly country

3:02

forian people

3:04

indeed the ties of friendship connect us

3:07

has been connecting us for

3:11

decades the friendship between the

3:13

Palestinian people the Soviet Union and

3:16

the Russian Federation and throughout

3:18

this years throughout these decades we

3:20

have always felt the support that Russia

3:24

both at the governmental level at the

3:26

popular level stands with uh the

3:30

Palestinian people and Russia always

3:33

stands on the side of Justice on the

3:36

side of Truth and when I speak when I

3:39

talk to President Putin about

3:41

international law about the resolution

3:44

that were adopted this is true it all

3:47

start 1947 and since then more than

3:51

1,000 resolutions were adopted by the

3:54

general assembly by the UN Security

3:56

Council but nevertheless

4:02

due to the

4:04

pressure from the United

4:07

States this mission was

4:11

failed only one resolution if

4:14

implemented could have helped the

4:18

Palestinian people to ensure their

4:20

rights I know that you follow with great

4:22

concern what is happening and we always

4:24

consult with you we always stay in

4:27

contact at the level of the minister

4:29

foreign ministers at the level of the

4:32

ambassadors we’re always in touch we

4:34

always fell the worm of our relations

4:37

with the Russian Federation and we

4:44

feel these great attention and

4:47

significance that is attached to our

4:50

issues to our problems by our friends

4:52

and brothers in Russia attention that

4:55

they pay to the suffering that we

4:58

experience in the context of this

5:00

humanitarian situation or the situation

5:02

with Safety and

5:04

Security and on our behalf we also

5:09

undoubtedly stand with the Russian

5:12

Federation and there is also one more

5:14

issue that I would like to speak about

5:18

Mr President recommendations of the

5:22

international court that were published

5:24

recently and they clearly culate

5:27

[Music]

5:32

Israeli should not be

5:35

allowed the settlement Israel must not

5:38

be

5:42

allowed the Jal assembly all the

5:45

countries in the world must make effort

5:47

to stop these actions this activities

5:51

perpetrated by

5:57

Israel and those resolutions that were

6:00

adopted by

6:03

International they believe that

6:08

Israel stop from making steps that do

6:13

not

6:14

correspond that not the international

6:17

law Mr President for me it’s always a

6:19

great pleasure to talk to you consult

6:21

with you we trust you we believe in you

6:25

and we feel your support and on our side

6:29

we also stand with you and we hope that

6:33

that’s how it’s going to be forever we

6:36

feel that Russia is one of the greatest

6:40

friends of the Palestinian people and as

6:42

you said in your opening

6:46

remarks we hope that the Palestinian

6:48

people will help their

6:52

estate more than 40,000 casualties after

6:57

October 7th until now as you mentioned

7:00

some 80,000 injured people and more than

7:06

15,000 people who are missing that’s

7:10

what’s happening in

7:13

Gaza and all that’s happening in

7:16

Jerusalem on the West Bank we continue

7:18

our struggle we have

7:24

patience and we hope that there will be

7:27

humanitarian support for the pis Ians

7:30

that the extion policies will be stopped

7:33

we will not accept this we will not

7:36

accept the repatriation of the

7:38

Palestinians from the Gaza street from

7:41

the West Bank

7:43

Jerusalem as it happened before on many

7:46

occasions in the 20th

7:49

century in 1940s 1967 and we believe

7:54

that with your support we will reach our

7:57

goals we will accomplish our goals thank

7:59

you very much Mr President I’m glad to

8:01

be with you to continue our discussions

8:05

today thank

8:28

you

oooooo

MMT: Modern Monetary Theory