Speir

  •  ·  Administrator
  • T

    P

    23 members
  • T

    P

    B

    25 followers
  • 3047 views
  • 2 votes
  • More
Promoted
July 14—As he was addressing a campaign rally last night at the fairgrounds in Butler, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump narrowly escaped assassination when a gunman was given a clear shot at his head from a building about 130 yards away. The presumptive Republican Presidential nominee was hit in the right ear by one of the would-be assassin’s five to eight automatic rifle shots hurled at Trump, who upon being hit, turned his head, went to the floor, and was covered by Secret Service agents, who later ushered him off the makeshift stage to safety.The alleged gunman, first identified by the New York Post from law enforcement sources as Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, from nearby Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, was shot dead by Secret Service snipers positioned on a building behind Trump. The FBI and Secret Service have offered no motive for the shooting, which claimed the life of one rally-goer, and the wounding of two others. At first, the FBI, the lead agency in the investigation, refused to confirm identity of the shooter, but have since named Crooks. They have yet to state that the gunman was operating alone. At an early morning press conference, law enforcement officials would only say that they are pursuing all leads and that the investigation was in its early stages. Law enforcement sources say that the investigation and the search for motives has been slowed by explosive booby traps that were placed in Crooks' car parked near the shooting site and at his Bethel Park home, which he shared with his father, who is reported to have purchased the gun used in the assassination attempt.Sources contacted said Trump was lucky to be alive. They said that the quick turn of his head after the initial shot, which caused the grazing wound, likely prevented one of the shots that followed from being a kill shot, as did his quick drop to floor, which is a trained response to shots being fired; in some cases, the bunting that drapes the podium is shielded to resist gunfire. They said that they were surprised that the alleged young gunman was able to get off so many shots, before being taken out by a team trained to react instantly to such gunfire and to take out shooters at even greater distances than the 400 feet involved here.These sources said, in preliminary evaluation, that there appeared to be a “massive security lapse" which they blamed on the Secret Service. Despite the building being beyond the security perimeter for the rally, since it was within range of a high-powered rifle with sniper scope with a clear headshot at the speaker’s podium, at around only 400 feet, its roof should have been secured and patrolled. There were also several reports of rally-goers frantically telling local police and security that they could see the shooter on the roof, pointing to him, yet no one responded until after the shots were fired.Initial reports of the incident carried by major new outlets spoke of two shooters with rifles. After the lone gunman was killed, there were no explanations of where those reports came from, which had been attributed to security sources who were  not identified.It is far too early to make a full evaluation of the incident, but if these source reports are accurate, the assassination attempt had all the characteristics of a “professional” job, with possible inside assistance: The quality of the shots at the distance attempted, and the rapidity of fire, as well as the choice shooting perch, from a suspiciously unsecure roof. While the FBI and local authorities would not comment on motive, they also immediately claimed that the gun recovered,  an AR-type weapon,  was the weapon and likely fired by Crooks. The sources cautioned that such statements do not constitute proof of their veracity. And, since Crooks was shot dead, he’s not talking.These same sources had warned over the last three months that a NATO-linked faction in the U.S. Establishment believed that Trump had to be stopped from regaining the Oval Office, at any cost. They said that his opposition to NATO and NATO policy represented a threat to the existence of the alliance. Trump has, on the campaign trail and in several interviews, questioned whether the United States needs to defend Europe, and has asked that Europe defend itself from threats which it seems to conjure up and provoke, including the current war against Russia in Ukraine. He has questioned Article 5 of the NATO Charter that would have the U.S. go to war, were a NATO member attacked, and has stated his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO.Trump has also repeatedly demanded that Ukraine negotiate with the Russians and stated that, had he been returned to office in 2021, the war would never have started, and that between the time he is elected in November this year and when he assumes office Jan. 20, 2025, he will end it. He has also expressed his support for the peace initiative of his friend, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who earlier this month travelled to Kyiv, then Moscow, and then Beijing, after assuming the Presidency of the European Union Council. Three days ago, Orbán left the NATO summit in Washington to brief and confer with his friend Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida; he had made a similar trip to Florida in March to speak with Trump. Orbán met with Donald Trump, Jr. June 12 in Budapest.The sources pointed out that during the recent period there had been an intensification of hate directed at Trump in the establishment media, as well as in social media posts. Such voluminous hate provides credibility to launder a hit coming with direction from NATO and its assets, with approval of factions of the Western  global financial and military establishment, as a politically motivated "hate crime" by a "lone assassin."“Trump is the biggest threat to the existence of NATO to come down the pike in years,” said a source today. “He was barely constrained from pulling the U.S. out of the Alliance during his last administration. Now, he sees that Sleepy Joe Biden has thrown hundreds of billions into a losing war against Russia in Ukraine, with no end in sight. His opposition to continuing the war puts him in NATO’s cross-hairs, just as it did for Slovakia Prime Minister Robert Fico, who has also spoken out against continuing the war and for a negotiated peace. Fico found himself narrowly surviving assassination  when he was shot at close range May 15. Fico, like Trump, has been labelled as 'divisive,' and the media tried to say that the shooter had operated alone. But an investigation conducted by Fico's allies has found a vast potential conspiracy, with possible links to the NATO-controlled Ukrainian secret services and its Nazi assets.“With Sleepy Joe in office in ego only and after the credibility of his candidacy was shattered by the thrashing Trump gave him in the June 27 debate and his bumbling performance since,” said the source, “the NATO warhawks and their assets in the U.S. see little hope in stopping Trump, especially after it appears that all the legal persecutions and prosecutions will fail to do the job. NATO and the dirty elements of the U.S. intelligence maintain a worldwide assassination bureau for such purposes. If you want to look for who is behind the bullets hurled at Trump, start looking there. And, although luckily those bullets failed to accomplish the mission this time, who is to say there won’t be other attempts?“I had warned Trump to say that he was under threat from NATO and its assets, but he said nothing" the source stated. "Now, he may speak up.”This and other sources pointed to one person with knowledge on this subject who might speak up: Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “He knows who could be behind this,” said a source: "The same people who killed his father and uncle.”“Their motive goes beyond the elimination of particular political figures. It is an assault on the American Presidency itself. It is not about Trump, per se. If they take out Trump, these same forces might seek to provoke what amounts to a civil war in this country, hurling the various left and right counter-gangs they control against each other. With Biden weak and not running his own government, with the Republican Party shattered were Trump to be removed, they could use the ensuing chaos and violence to create some sort of government of national unity, with a severely weakened President."Maybe, we don’t even have elections this fall!" the sourced warned. "We need to stop this in its tracks, and right now. No more NATO, period! Let's get this assassination attempt properly investigated, something not likely to happen under the FBI's direction."
July 4—Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, one day after Hungary assumed the European Council presidency, made a surprise visit to Kiev today to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Afterwards he stated that he had proposed to Zelenskyy that an immediate ceasefire tied to a deadline would kick real negotiations forward.Sources report that Orban diplomacy is very much coordinated with Russian President Vladinir Putin's current "all hands on deck" push for a negotiated end to the NATO provoked and directed conflict in the Ukraine and to create new Eurasian peace and security architecture that would bring peace, stability and economic development to the region. These sources noted that Putin had in his June 14 speech offered a cease-fire and to start negotiations with Kiyv without and preconditions. The gut of his offer involves recognizing that parts of the Ukraine such as the Crimea and the eastern areas known as the Donbass, have already become part of the Russian Federation, although in the latter case, their actual borders might be the subject of negotiation.While Zelenskyy has rejected such ideas and demands something that will never happen—to return all lands to the Ukraine--the days where his opinion might mean anything appear to be numbered. It is well known that sections of the Armed Forces of the Ukraine, which as a whole has suffered more than 600,000 dead, know that the war is lost and that continued fighting will only kill more Ukrainians, are quietly moving with their Russian counterparts to negotiate the terms of peace. Sources, with knowledge of this, say that Zelenskyy, who is governing under an illegal marshal law decree since his Presidential term expired May 20, will either accept negotiations with Russia, or "he will be kicked to the curb." This will take place regardless of his role as a NATO/U.S. Puppet, as oner source stated, "They can't protect his ass. Nor can the Nazi militias who he let run free and wild, as they might seek to go into hiding or even get out of Ukraine. And who can count on support from a U.S. President, "Sleepy Joe" Biden, who is himself being driven out of office. So, while no one would have thought he would accept a visit from Orban, let alone hold a friendly press conference in Kyiv, where Orban pushed for the ceasefire and negotiations, he obviously felt he had to do it, in order not only to stay in office—and perhaps, even stay alive,Since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation on Feb 24, 2022, Prime Minister Orbán has steadfastly refused to permit Hungary to fund or send military weapons to Ukraine, despite significant EU and NATO pressure on him to do so. On May 3, on a morning talk show on Kossuth Radio, Orbán warned: “Europe is playing with fire. I am not saying that European leaders are marching toward a war, but, every day, they are taking more steps in that direction.” This, despite “the majority of people favoring peace.” He continued, “We did not want to take part in either World War I or World War II. And we will not allow the Hungarians to be drawn into a third world war…. We are balancing on the brink of war and peace.”On July 1, on the day that Orbán and Hungary assumed the six-month presidency of the European Council, he said, in an interview that was broadcast on Hirado.hu, Hungarian public television, that the greatest opportunity in Hungary’s EU Council presidency will be a chance “to take Europe closer to peace,” and that this would the focus of Hungary’s work. Europe must be prepared, he said, for a situation where “sooner or later the Americans and the Russians hold talks.”At the July 2 joint press conference, Orbán declared that “peace is important not only for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe,” the July 2 Budapest Times reports. “The ways of international diplomacy are slow and complicated…. I put to the President [of Ukraine] that we should consider whether the order may be reversed by speeding up peace talks with a quick ceasefire. A ceasefire tied to the deadline, which could offer the opportunity to accelerate peace talks; I have assessed the options for that scenario.”On July 2, Ireland’s RTE public service wrote that Orbán said he had asked Zelenskyy “to think about whether it would be possible to take a break … to reach a ceasefire and start negotiations, since a quick ceasefire could speed up these negotiations.” Without describing Zelenskyy’s response, Orbán said that he was “very grateful to Zelenskyy for his honest answer in this regard.” However, according to the Budapest Times today, he also said that he would prepare a report for the European Council “that could be a baseline for the necessary European decisions.”Today’s European Pravda indicated that Orbán’s proposal took Zelenskyy’s recurrent discussion of the “Ukraine Peace Plan” in a different direction. It reported that Orbán explained that he was not opposed to Ukrainian measures to stop the war, but that they were taking too long. “I informed Mr. President that his plans require a significant amount of time due to international diplomatic rules. So I advised Mr. President to consider doing something a bit differently: halt the fire, and then engage with Russia, because a ceasefire would speed the pace of these negotiations.”Just last month, Orbán had turned down attending the Switzerland meeting on the “Ukraine Peace Plan” due to its exclusion of Russia. European Pravda reported that Zelenskyy, at the press conference, looked the other way. Instead, he said, “Hungary took part in the first Peace Summit and supported the communiqué of the summit, and this indicates Hungary’s readiness to be effective for the return of real long-term security.”European Pravda went on to note, that Zelenskyy made no mention of Orbán’s “quick ceasefire” proposal. Regardless, it is of note that he agreed to Orbán’s visit and was civil, while being perfectly aware that there are those in Kiev who view Orbán as an enemy. (Orbán has been on the hit list of the infamous Myrotvorets gang and the blacklist of Kiev’s Center for Countering Disinformation.) 
July 1—Russian Ambassador to Italy Alexey Paramonov gave an interview to Prof. Franco Battaglia for the June 27 issue of Nicola Porro’s online newspaper nicolaporro.it, in which he explained the nature of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 14 peace proposal. Together with the proposal for a security architecture for Eurasia, it follows previous initiatives which, however, were sabotaged by the West: the Minsk Agreements, the December 15-17, 2021 security proposals to the U.S. and NATO, and the peace negotiations with Ukraine in March-April 2022. The questions and answers are translations from the original Italian.“Well today, as then, we have a real opportunity to stop the escalation and to achieve peace. Refusal to conduct negotiations with Moscow will only aggravate a situation that is only destined to get worse for Kiev,” said Paramonov.Q: Shall we recall the key points of President Putin’s proposal?Paramonov: The key-points are: The withdrawal of Ukrainian military formations from the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, the status of Ukraine as a neutral, non-aligned and denuclearized country, demilitarization and denazification of the country, full guarantee of respect for the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens residing in Ukraine, and recognition of the new territorial realities.Q: What about the inhabitants of these regions? In the West we are convinced of the illegitimacy of the referendums held in Ukraine.Paramonov: The inhabitants of these regions, who in most cases are Russian-speaking, have experienced in their skin all the wonders of the policy implemented by the new nationalist regime, which has declared war on everything Russian: on language, religion, culture. In 2019, Ukrainian authorities banned by law the use of the Russian language in the country’s public life. For the purposes of what the Kiev regime says is a fight against disinformation, a system has been put in place to keep the entry of books from Russia into the country under control. Works of literature considered inconvenient by the regime have been removed. Acts of persecution against people of the Orthodox faith also arouse horror.However, as tragic as the situation related to the Ukrainian crisis is, and especially precisely for the sister peoples of Russia and Ukraine, international relations certainly do not end there. Russia, as a world power aware of its responsibilities, does not shy away from its leading role in global affairs. On the contrary, against a backdrop of the worsening situation on the international stage, Russia is looking to the future and proposing its own solutions to the most pressing issues, primarily those concerning the security sphere. And it is precisely in this key that the initiative recently put forward by the President of the Russian Federation concerning the creation of a continental security architecture operating for the entire Eurasian territory should be considered.Q: Does this mean that Russia is shifting its focus to Asia? Are you saying goodbye to Europe?Paramonov: President Putin’s initiative is unprecedented in its nature, as it is the only one that proposes an integration between the various regional dynamics. It is necessitated by the collapse of the pre-existing security model, and the huge security vacuum that has been created in the Euro-Atlantic space as a result of the irresponsible conduct implemented by the West. Russia has proposed to make such an architecture for security in Eurasia a system open to all interested Eurasian countries, which is not intended as a threatening element to any country’s interests. This model is based on the principle of “regional solutions for regional problems” applied to the Eurasian region and reflects the current objective trend associated with the process of regionalization of international relations; a trend that, in itself, constitutes a kind of insurance against geopolitical turmoil induced by the crisis of the globalization process as it was conceived by the West. The purpose of such an initiative, in the first place, is to give birth to a Eurasian space that is free of conflict and open to cooperation, but also to free the ongoing processes in Eurasia from the destabilizing impact that actors outside the region have on them.
·
Added a news
June 25—Speaking in the second panel session of the Schiller Institute’s June 15-16 international video conference, “The World on the Brink: for a New Peace of Westphalia!”His Excellency Ambassador Prof. Manuel Hassassian, ambassador of the Palestinian Authority to Denmark, gave fulsome praise and endorsement of the Oasis Plan for Peace Through Development in the Mideast, being circulated by the Schiller Institute and its chairwoman and founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche.The Plan, first put forward by Zepp-LaRouche’s late husband, the American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche nearly 50 years ago, was originally developed by Mr. LaRouche and his associates at the request of forces in Israel seeking a pathway to peace. It has been revived again in the present crisis, where it has found support among those in the region, including in Israel, desperate to again walk down a pathway toward peace and mutually beneficial development and prosperity, who seek to turn the “weapons of war into plowshares” and who share the vision for peace of such a great leader as former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin.The Plan stands in sharp contrast to the genocidal policies of the current Israeli Prime Minister, the butcher of Gaza, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who had incited Rabin’s assassination in 1995. While the Plan is thought to enjoy widespread support within Palestinian circles, the remarks by H.E. Ambassador Hassassian, who has spoken at another Schiller sponsored event, is the first public endorsement of the Oasis Plan by a ranking PLA official.Below, is a slightly edited transcript of Ambassador Hassassian’s remarks, which also offer his assessment of the situation in Gaza. Subheads and one footnote have been added.AMBASSADOR PROF. MANUEL HASSASSIAN: I would like to start my address by thanking the Schiller Institute for this opportunity to address your esteemed conference. I’m sorry. I’m not going to be with you [for the full time of the panel] because I’ll be traveling.The Oasis PlanI would like to start my speech by giving a brief synopsis about the Oasis Plan, because later my discussion or deliberation will be about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and how that will be [resolved] in the context of a plan that will really bring peace, security, and justice through economic development and through ties between North and South. Allow me to start by shedding a brief light on the Oasis Plan, sponsored by the Schiller Institute under the title “LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development between Israel and Palestine and for all Southwest Asia.” Peace through economic development is the only successful basis for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East region.There is no purely military basis for peace or security; a military solution has never been a solution. So, there is no purely military basis for peace or security; only development is essential, and the greatest impediment to development in our region, which is the Middle East region and Southwest Asia, is the shortage of fresh water, as everybody knows. If we don’t solve this problem, the next war in the Middle East is going to be over water resources. Through the construction of a network of desalination plants, ideally nuclear powered, that could turn the seawater into fresh water [as the Oasis Plan proposes], this problem can be resolved.These plants could connect the Red Sea with the Dead Sea and the Dead Sea with the Mediterranean as outlined in the Plan. But it will only come about by rejecting power politics, rejecting geopolitics, and building a new paradigm of international relations that is based on a new concept of economic development, [such that] security and development will prevail as a Great Design. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche once said—and I’m quoting—“You have to have hope and give the youth a decent future to have a normal life of doing useful things.” This Plan should be applicable to the Palestine-Israel conflict, for its finality and for its duration, or longevity, for peace and security.”The Situation in PalestineNow let me shed light on the current situation in Palestine. I think it is important to know the enormity of this great conflict that has been affecting the entire world. As you can see, it has swept all over the world, with public opinion that is becoming more and more aware of what the Palestinians are going through in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Israel’s ongoing apocalyptic military campaign against Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem comes on top of 76 years of persecution, displacement, and genocide. It has resulted in mass destruction. It has resulted in displacement of over 90% of the Gazan population, and the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent civilians—most [of whom], as you know, are women and children.All this amounts to alert observers as war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Palestinians have been killed in the thousands when [their] homes, schools, hospitals, shelters, mosques, churches, refugee camps have been mercilessly bombed in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology in continuation of decades of purging. In a nutshell, this is a textbook case of genocide.For the past 250 days, Israel has conducted a sustained campaign of airstrikes targeting civilians in Gaza. In the latest escalation, around 300 Palestinians have been massacred, with over 800 wounded at Al-Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza. [This occurred in the June 8 “rescue” of four Israeli hostages held by Hamas—ed.]The total death toll in Gaza stands at approximately more than 37,000 to date, with half of the victims being children. Tragically, [the bodies of] over 10,000 martyrs are believed to be trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings. This dire situation is exacerbated by the loss of 147 UN personnel and the destruction of 32 hospitals, leaving only a few operational facilities with limited resources. Furthermore, all educational institutions, including schools and universities, have been decimated, and numerous religious sites such as churches and mosques, have been completely destroyed. [Israeli] Control of the Rafah border crossing further restricts access to essential [humanitarian] supplies, including fuel, preventing the functioning of vital services. As a result, approximately 70% of Gaza’s infrastructure lies in ruins, intensifying thus the humanitarian crisis in the region.What label best describes this conflict? Is it a defensive war, with Israel protecting itself? Or is it a campaign to suppress a people striving for independence? Sometimes, I find it ironic when I discuss with European or American officials, as I’ve done countless times in my diplomatic career, and they continuously advocate for a two-state solution while Palestine faces increasing destruction. Despite this reality, the rhetoric persists. If they truly support a two-state solution, why do they wield veto power—i.e., the United States—in the United Nations, especially when nearly 140 countries have recognized Palestine? Europe often follows the lead of the United States in this matter, raising questions about balance in their approach to the two-state solution.Today, Palestinians are advocating for the fundamental human principle of self-determination. The question arises as to why the global community universally supports self-determination, as articulated in [former U.S. President] Woodrow Wilson’s 14th Point[1]; yet this principle is often disregarded in the context of Palestine. This prompts reflection on whether Palestinians are perceived as deserving less consideration in their quest for recognition as an independent nation-state within the international community.The conflict is not simply a matter of competing claims over shared land; it is perceived [by we Palestinians] as an incursion by Israel. The Zionist endeavor received backing from the international community, which bears the brunt of responsibility to reverse the consequences of these actions.The discourse on the practices associated with this contentious occupation could extend for hours, yet the crux of the matter is clear: how can we bring about an end to this conflict? Who are the primary stakeholders endeavoring to forge a resolution? It’s frustrating that despite positioning itself as the gavel-holder of the peace process for the last three decades, the United States has faltered, resorting more to crisis management than conflict resolution. It’s evident that the U.S. has failed dismally in its role as an honest broker for peace, as it has disproportionately supported, inequitably, Israel, the dominant party, over Palestine, the marginalized counterpart.Misplaced Faith in AmericaRegrettably, our faith in the Americans has been misplaced. I feel sorry for the American citizens who are governed by such ineffective leadership in the United States, with a myopic vision of fostering global security and peace. A President advocating for humanitarian access is paradoxically sending thousands of bombs, resulting in the deaths of innocent children and [adult] Palestinians in Gaza. How can we tolerate such senile statements from a President who seems out of touch with reality? Sadly, the alternative isn’t any more promising.In the current global landscape, the notion of using individuals or countries as mere pawns in international conflicts is increasingly deemed untenable. While such conflicts have the potential to escalate into regional or even global wars, the root causes often trace back to fundamental issues like extreme hunger, abject poverty, lack of economic development, and national interests.Therefore, a question arises: What implications would the recognition of Palestine as a state hold for the international community? Notably, Palestine has previously demonstrated willingness to compromise, as evidenced by its acceptance of only 22% of historic Palestine for statehood in 1988. This territory encompasses the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, while the remaining 78% was accorded to the Zionist project. Despite this heavy compromise, the quest for further territorial expansion, particularly in the West Bank, persists among the Israelis. That said, it is important to note that Israel’s interest in Gaza primarily revolves around security considerations, and access to oil, rather than territorial ambitions.Over the past two decades, there’s been a notable absence of effective and charismatic global leadership, contributing to a sense of stagnation or decline amidst ongoing conflicts, hunger, and injustice. This raises questions about the quality of democratic representation and the influence of political parties in shaping leadership choices. Despite the abundance of intellectual and institutional resources in the United States, exemplified by renowned think tanks and academic institutions like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc., the Presidential candidacy of figures like [Joe] Biden and [Donald] Trump is viewed by some as impotence and ineffective. This highlights concerns about the dominance of political elites over the electoral process, rather than genuine grassroots leadership.The effectiveness of the United States as a third party mediator to bridge the gap and inequity between two sides that are not on equal footing is called into question. In negotiations between Israel and Palestine, the imbalance in power dynamics is evident. The United States, holding a dominant position, [has] often drafted resolutions favoring Israel, leaving the Palestinians with little choice but to comply. This lack of parity undermines the essence of genuine negotiations, which ideally involve symmetric negotiations between two contending powers striving to resolve their differences. However, in this context, negotiations were dictated more by power politics than by sincere dialogue. The Palestinians, as the underdog party, consistently have born the brunt of these imbalances.The Situation in IsraelThe current state of demonstrations in Israel may appear misleading; it’s crucial to understand the broader public sentiment. There has been a significant shift in Israeli public opinion since the first Intifada of 1987, with a predominant support for right-wing leadership. The influence of left-progressive elements has diminished, leading to their marginalization within the political landscape. The emergence of figures like [the Minister of National Security, Itamar] Ben-Gvir, [the Minister of Finance Bezalel] Smotrich, and [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in positions of power reflects this right-wing trend. Consequently, the potential for a more liberal government advocating for peace has been hindered by the current perceived prevailing right-wing sentiment in Israeli society.There’s a risk of instigating wider conflicts, with Egypt probably, with Lebanon for sure, and Iran. Despite the situation being contained thus far, the failure of the U.S. to bring a ceasefire has compromised its total credibility.The current situation in Israel is very volatile, with escalating tensions suggesting a perilous path. Observers are expressing the belief that the destruction of Israel is underway, highlighted by recent events such as student protests in America. These protests unveil a broader critique of the Biden administration’s handling of international conflicts, including the Gaza crisis and the Ukraine war. Pundits view this as indicative of a larger pattern of failure in asserting American dominance on the global stage.ConclusionToday, the impetus for conflict is often rooted in national and economic interests rather than pure ideology. However, the zealous commitment of individuals driven by religion remains a concern to us. It is important to prevent any potential escalation into a religious conflict, particularly between Muslims and Jews. Our focus is on the pursuit of a national struggle, guided by the secular ideology of establishing a democratic entity in Palestine, which aligns with the beliefs of our leadership. Yet, this vision necessitates collective efforts, including presidential and legislative elections in Palestine, as well as comprehensive reform in our political infrastructure. I say the above as self-criticism, because I have to be honest as an academic in order to outline the major steps required to realistically attain sustainable and lasting peace.Finally, embracing the LaRouche concept of economic development, as espoused by the Schiller Institute, could play a pivotal role in creating global security, through regional security, through resolving long-standing conflicts such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. By prioritizing economic ties over military solutions, nations from the north to the south can embrace a win-win approach that promotes global stability and prosperity.I wish the conferees all the good luck in their endeavors, and I hope my message is loud and clear. Let’s work all together for peace, stability, through economic stability and through what we call the LaRouche concept, which is the Oasis Plan. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [1] On Jan. 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress, proposing 14 Points, his ideas for a post World War I settlement. Point 14: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”
July 20—“The Bronx is burning”—remember that phrase from the 1970s? The Bronx is burning once again, but this time, the smoke is coming from the behind of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).The horrific butchery of tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children in Gaza in the last several months shocked the world and the United States, so much, that students, young people, and even strong supporters of Israel, including Israeli citizens, have called for the war to stop, and for American funding of Israel to stop, until the war stops. In response, according to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, “The pro-Israel lobby group reportedly plans to spend as much as $25 million to defeat (Jamaal) Bowman (D-NY 16th CD), who was one of the first lawmakers to call for a permanent ceasefire after October 7th.”If AIPAC is prepared to spend $25 million in only one Congressional district, the 16th CD, which neighbors my district, what is it prepared to spend nationally? And before you assume this is only against “progressive Democrats,” consider what they just tried—but failed—to do against Kentucky Republican conservative Congressman Thomas Massie.Massie stated: “I’m not against Israel. I’ve never voted to sanction Israel. I’ve never said anything particularly, you know, critical of Israel, other than that, for instance, right now … they’ve killed 1% of the civilian population in Gaza…. I vote my conscience, which they won’t tolerate.”Massie just beat AIPAC’s attempt to prevent him from returning to Congress by throwing a wall of money up against him. AIPAC is an equal-opportunity manipulator of elections. But what will happen in the Bronx? Is the Bronx, is New York City, is the nation, being sold on the auction block of the military-monetary complex, because war is the only industry that the bloodthirsty policies of the uni-party will allow to grow and flourish?Did you know that the House of Representatives just passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that includes a provision that, if passed by the Senate, will automatically enroll all males from the ages of 18 to 26 for military service? While discussed as “simply a routine streamlining measure,” the other, unspoken effect would be removing young men’s choice to engage in civil disobedience, according to Reason.com.And moves of the same nature are now happening in France, Great Britain and other nations, as Ukraine runs out of soldiers, and a new war is planned with Iran, with China, and who knows where else? Instead of war, the world needs a new security and development architecture, an Oasis Plan for Gaza, and its appropriate equivalent for the Bronx, what I call the Space Civilian Construction Corps (SCCC).I, Jose Vega, suggest to you that AIPAC is not only doing this for Israel. How many tens of millions, how many hundreds of millions are being spent by AIPAC and other lobbies to promote the cause of war, to turn a blind eye to present and future campaigns of genocide, or if you prefer, deliberate, intentional mass murder of children, and women of child-bearing age for depopulation purposes, as opposed to any military objectives whatsoever?As an independent Congressional candidate for the Bronx (NY-15), I am directly opposed to the idea that certain financial forces believe they can simply buy a Congressional district. My opponent, Ritchie Torres, represents such a bought district right now. Is AIPAC doing its “Congress shopping” with the approval of the people in Bowman’s district? How many of them know that their vote doesn’t actually matter in the face of “big money” lobbyists acting for foreign interests?Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe voters, or non-voters, like you are actually okay with having your Congressional district purchased by the same people that take your money to fight mass-murderous wars, and that, soon, will take your sons—and probably daughters—to fight. Is that what you support?Are you for sale to AIPAC, or to some other would-be political slave-owner? I’m not. Let’s not be political prostitutes. Let’s not be for sale. Let’s be independent. Let’s be un-bought, and un-bossed, like Brooklyn’s late Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm.Let’s form a Committee for an Un-Bought and Un-Bossed Bronx. Reject AIPAC, and Reject War! 
June 20—Newsweek  June 18  presented Russia’s peace proposal, as explained by Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov. It began with quoting Antonov as stating: “There is a path to peace, even if it is thorny.”Asked about Ukraine’s “peace” conference in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, Antonov replied that “the goal of such an advertising campaign is not to stop, but to prolong the bloody ‘project’ that the West has been implementing for more than 10 years.” The Bürgenstock show was “purely opportunistic: to create an illusion of widespread support for the ‘peace formula’ in various capitals, but in reality, to hush up any doubts about the legitimacy of the Kiev regime, which has already been bankrupt for a long time, both politically and economically. This fact was, actually, confirmed by the Swiss organizers, who at the end of the event could only state differences in views on the situation in the East of Europe. While the key thesis was conveyed by representatives of developing nations, those few who had been persuaded to participate and came to the Alpine resort asked directly into the microphone: ‘What was the point of inviting us to a hall where Russia is not present?’”Newsweek reported Antonov’s contention that Russia’s military operation was not unprovoked, citing his argument that the West had pushed for a war “by pursuing the eastward expansion of the NATO military alliance and supporting the popular protests that overthrew Ukraine’s government in favor of a pro-West administration in 2014.” That has caused the eight years of conflict.Antonov turned to Putin’s peace proposal: “Direct statements by President Vladimir Putin on the possibility to end hostilities as quickly as possible under clear and well-calibrated conditions contrast sharply with the Western capitals’ idle talk and failed conferences.” Moscow’s “proposals include withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from four regions of Russia; confirmation of the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, [Donetsk People’s Republic] D.P.R., [Lugansk People’s Republic] L.P.R., Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions as subjects of the Russian Federation; Kiev’s refusal to join NATO; Ukraine’s status as a neutral, nonaligned, and nuclear-free state; its demilitarization and denazification; lifting of Western sanctions; ensuring the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens of the republic. Conversation on the above-mentioned issues should be conducted without ‘imperial’ dictates and orders from the White House. It is high time the United States recognized the futility of constant pursuit to enforce its will on all countries. Realize that it will no longer be possible to deter the growing shift towards multipolarity.”Antonov also dismissed Western warnings that Russia is seeking to expand into Eastern Europe. He stated: "The notorious ‘Russian threat’ and undisguised crazy ‘scary stories’ about our alleged readiness to attack NATO if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine are nothing but an embodiment of the United States’ intentions to keep a tight rein on its satellites, primarily in Europe. The aim is to finally turn the continent into the U.S. ‘backyard’, which is not entitled to its own opinions nor its own history. Here in D.C., they apparently prefer not to notice that by pursuing such policy the Administration is undermining ‘American leadership.’…“Russia pursues dialogue and peace, the parameters of which should not be discussed in a hurry, just for the sake of it, as well as pretty propaganda photos. We remain ready for a serious, thoughtful conversation. We don’t set any deadlines.” Newsweek said: “Such a conversation, Antonov argued, would also involve a broader discussion regarding the regional security architecture, one in which Russian and U.S. officials have long accused one another of promoting aggressive agendas.”Then the magazine quoted Antonov again: “We invite all interested capitals to begin large-scale work to build truly equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, based on mutual respect for one and all. The new system could become the foundation of a new architecture reflecting transition to multipolarity. There will be no place for aggressive political and economic dominance of individual nations, as well as fragmentation into separate blocs. This is the only way to prevent the outbreak of major international conflicts.”However, if the West ignores Russia’s call for such a discussion, Antonov went on to warn: “If in response we continue to hear only Russophobic barking and calls to use more Western weapons and economic sanctions against us, global risks will only increase. I am sure this is not in the best interests of the citizens of the United States.”