Aletho News

1. Top Oncologist Raises Alarm: Every New Cancer Patient Is Under 45

By Frank Bergman | Covid Intel | September 1, 2024 

A leading oncologist is raising the alarm about the staggering surge in cancer cases among young people.

North Carolina's Duke University oncologist Dr. Nicholas DeVito is warning that "every new patient" who now comes to his clinic is under 45 years old.

Dr. DeVito says he and his colleagues have experienced a complete demographic switch in recent years.

Based on what he's seeing every day, talking to patients on the ground and analyzing the data, DeVito is now issuing a red alert to warn the public about the phenomenon.

However, the doctor is raising concerns that U.S. government officials are refusing to address or even acknowledge the dramatic surge in cancer cases.

The physician wrote for STAT News :

"The desire to protect Americans from substances that cause cancer and other diseases should transcend party affiliation and political motivation to overcome industrial lobbying efforts."

In recent years, multiple studies and oncology experts have warned that cancer cases have been skyrocketing in younger people.

The U.S. has the sixth highest rate of early-onset cancers – disease in people under 50 – with 87 cases per 100,000 people younger than 50 years old.

And studies project diagnoses of early-onset cancers will rise by 31 percent and deaths will rise by 21 percent by 2030.

Cancers increasing the fastest include throat and prostate cancers.

Early-onset cancers with the highest mortality include breast, tracheal (windpipe), lung, stomach and colon.

DeVito wrote: "I hope to have a long career in oncology and eventually practice in an era where the U.S. has turned the tide against early-onset gastrointestinal cancers and few, if any, of my patients are under age 50."

As Slay News reported earlier, a growing number of experts are demanding answers as aggressive turbo cancers continue to surge to unprecedented levels in young people.

Two shocking new reports from the American Cancer Society have revealed that various forms of the deadly disease surging among younger citizens.

In response to the reports, the corporate media is promoting several narratives to explain away the rapidly developing and spreading cancers.

However, several doctors have spoken out to warn that Covid mRNA shots are causing the recent emergence of aggressive cancers.

The disease has been found to form and spread so rapidly among vaccinated people that doctors have dubbed the phenomenon "turbo cancer."

Doctors have revealed that some "turbo cancers" spread so quickly that seemingly healthy patients can die within a week of being diagnosed.

Oncologists are also warning that these aggressive cancers don't respond to conventional treatments.

A study published in the August edition of The Lancet Public Health revealed that the incidence rates for 17 of 34 cancer types were increasing in progressively younger people in the U.S.

More recent data from the ACS's "Cancer Statistics 2024" report shows the trend of cancer rates and related mortality continuing to rise.

The data shows cancer cases spiked dramatically in 2021, shortly after the Covid shots were released for public use.

The cases have continued to surge at alarming rates since then.

2. The FBI visited my house today for free speech acts they knew were not crimes

Jeremy Kauffman • 09-16-2024

The FBI visited my house today for free speech acts they knew were not crimes.

You can see the shame on their faces.

This is the Democratic regime manifest. pic.twitter.com/RldC0JWMsx

— Jeremy Kauffman (@jeremykauffman) September 16, 2024

3. FDA Approves Vaccine for Mpox — Warns It May Cause Death in Vaccinated and People They Come in Contact With

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 17, 2024

A vaccine approved in August by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for people deemed to be at "high risk" for mpox infection may cause more harm than good, according to the FDA's own medication guide for the product.

ACAM2000 — made by Emergent BioSolutions, a company specializing in vaccines for biochemical warfare threats such as anthrax and smallpox — was approved for smallpox in 2007.

However, on Aug. 29, the FDA issued an expanded supplement approval for ACAM2000's use against mpox.

Since then, social media users have been posting clips of the FDA's ACAM2000 medication guide, which warns the vaccine may cause "serious complications" in both the vaccinated person and those with whom they come into close contact up to 6 weeks after getting the shot.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D. — senior research scientist at Children's Health Defense — told The Defender that the FDA's approval of the shot is a "public hazard, not the practice of public health."

"You can call ACAM2000 a 'vaccine,' but its impact on the United States will be as a 'disease,'" Jablonowski said.

He added:

"For instance, the drug's package insert reveals (see Table 3) that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found roughly 520 per million ACAM2000 recipients contracted myocarditis or pericarditis.

"That is about 1 in 2,000. But elsewhere in the package insert, the FDA acknowledges that — based on additional studies — the risk is actually 5.7 per 1,000 vaccinations.

"That's about 1 in every 175 people. If the 262 million adults in the U.S. received this vaccine, an estimated 1,493,000 would contract the serious adverse reaction of myopericarditis."

Myopericarditis is an umbrella term for myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart.

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert, told The Defender that the CDC also acknowledged this same figure — myopericarditis in 5.7 per 1,000 primary ACAM2000 vaccinations — during a June 23, 2022, meeting.

"It's a huge number," Nass said. "The fact that the FDA and CDC are acknowledging it means no one should get the vaccine."

She explained:

"Myopericarditis is a life-threatening condition. It lowers your life expectancy.

"Most people are never going to be exposed to mpox or smallpox. Vaccines are typically given to healthy people who are never even going to be exposed, therefore the risk posed by the vaccine needs to be low.

"That's why vaccine safety is critical — even more than drugs, because drugs are given to people who are already sick.

"This risk — 1 in 175 — is higher than all other licensed vaccines for which the CDC acknowledges side effects. This is the worst."

ACAM2000 can also cause fetal death when taken during pregnancy, the package insert states.

Additionally, the shot contains a "live vaccinia virus" that can be spread to — and possibly cause the death of — people who have close contact with the vaccinated person up to 6 weeks following vaccination, according to the medication guide.

The guide — which the FDA requires to be given to patients before they get the ACAM2000 vaccine — says, "ACAM2000 can cause serious complications in vaccinated individuals and in their close contacts to whom the vaccine virus has spread."

Jablonowski said, "The spread of vaccinia virus is an infliction and an assault, as an unsuspecting person cannot possibly consent."

"For good reasons you would not consent to this vaccine," Jablonowski said, "even if you believed your benefits outweigh your risks, as you become a potential vector of a disease that is damaging to the heart and fatal to both fetus and infant."

Risk of serious complications and death in vaccinated and those exposed to vaccinated individual

ACAM2000 is a single-dose vaccine administered using a bifurcated needle that's been dipped into the vaccine solution, according to an Emergent BioSolutions press release.

In its Aug. 30 press release, the FDA stressed that "every person" who receives ACAM2000 is "required" to be given the drug's FDA-approved medication guide.

"A Medication Guide is necessary," the FDA said, "for safe and effective use of the vaccine because it could help prevent serious adverse events and inform the vaccine recipient of serious risks relative to benefit that could affect their decisions to be vaccinated."

The guide lists serious possible complications, including: myocarditis, inflammation of the brain or spinal cord, serious skin infections, spreading the vaccine virus through the blood to other parts of the body and fetal death if taken during pregnancy.

According to the guide, "The risks for serious vaccine side effects are greater for people who:

• have heart problems or a history of heart problems
• are taking steroid eye drops or ointment
• have a weakened immune system
• have skin problems such as eczema, atopic dermatitis, burns, impetigo, contact dermatitis, chickenpox, shingles, psoriasis, or uncontrolled acne
• are less than 1 year old
• are pregnant or become pregnant within 6 weeks after vaccination."

ACAM2000's package insert warns of a longer list of possible serious complications, including:

"Myocarditis and/or pericarditis, encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, encephalopathy, progressive vaccinia (vaccinia necrosum), generalized vaccinia, severe vaccinial skin infections, erythema multiforme major (including Stevens-Johnson syndrome), eczema vaccinatum, accidental eye infection (ocular vaccinia) which can cause ocular complications including keratitis and corneal scarring that may lead to blindness, and fetal death in pregnant women."

The insert also goes into more detail about the risk of death:

"Historically, death following vaccination with live vaccinia virus is a rare event; approximately 1 death per million primary vaccinations and 1 death per 4 million revaccinations have occurred after vaccination with live vaccinia virus.

"Death is most often the result of sudden cardiac death, post-vaccinial encephalitis, progressive vaccinia, or eczema vaccinatum.

"Death has also been reported in unvaccinated contacts accidentally infected by individuals who have been vaccinated."

U.S. stockpile contains more than 100 million doses

The FDA's approval of ACAM2000 for use against mox followed just days after Emergent BioSolutions pledged to donate 50,000 doses to address the mpox outbreak in Africa.

On July 2, the U.S. Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the HHS signed a $99.9 million deal with the drugmaker to obtain more ACAM2000 doses this year. Although the exact number of doses was not disclosed, Forbes on Sept. 8 reported that the U.S. currently has over 100 million doses.

HHS did not respond when The Defender asked if these doses are reserved for an emergency smallpox outbreak or are being made available as an mpox vaccine.

The Defender reached out to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) with the same question but was told by a CDC spokesperson, "We defer to the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) where the National Stockpile is housed."

The CDC website on mpox vaccination states that ACAM2000 "has not been used in the ongoing clade II mpox outbreak that started in 2022″ but "has been made available for use against mpox in the clade II outbreak under an Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol, which requires informed consent along with completing additional forms."

When The Defender asked the CDC to clarify if the agency currently recommends ACAM2000 for mpox, an agency spokesperson said:

"It has not been used for U.S. civilians affected by the clade II global outbreak that began in 2022, and there are no plans to use it broadly during Mpox outbreaks.

"This is because JYNNEOS, the alternate to ACAM2000 in the United States, has fewer side effects."

The Defender asked Emergent BioSolutions what it wants to tell members of the public who may be concerned about risks associated with ACAM2000 but did not receive a response by our deadline.

This article has been updated to clarify that both the FDA and CDC acknowledge that the myopericarditis risk for ACAM2000 is estimated at 5.7 per 1,000 primary vaccinations.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children's Health Defense's News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children's Health Defense.

4. Oracle Founder Larry Ellison Imagines a Dystopian Future of Constant AI-Powered Surveillance to Enforce “Best Behavior”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2024

Larry Ellison, co-founder, chairman of the board, and chief technical officer of Oracle, has revealed where he sees the world going in one particular aspect – continuous, real-time control of people.

It is a dark place of "AI" (machine learning, ML) mass surveillance, which Ellison wants to make sure is served by his company by way of providing the fundamental infrastructure. It isn't irrelevant to this story that Oracle's portfolio also includes multi-decade contacts with the US government.

Oracle is not often mentioned when Big Tech is talked about, but it is one of the biggest in the industry. The reason for staying out of the limelight is that, unlike its peers with big stakes in the social media space, Oracle's business is database software and cloud computing.

This is the reason Ellison sees the opportunity to place his company, already involved in building AI models, at the center of producing the tools to make this nightmarish scenario of real-time ML-powered surveillance a reality.

Ellison spoke during the Oracle financial analyst gathering to suggest that the company's databases will become indispensable for the AI infrastructure, and that proof for that is in companies like X and Microsoft having already picked Oracle to provide this service.

"Maximizing AI's public security capabilities" is what's on Ellison's mind, and he decided to sell this by giving police accountability as an example.

The system would prevent police abuse, he said – but the way "AI" combined with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure arrives there is perplexing, to say the least. It involves police body cameras that are always recording (including in bathrooms, and during meals), always transmitting back to Oracle – and with no option to stop this feed.

"Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times" – that's another way of putting it, and Ellison did.

But who would build such an expensive and elaborate surveillance system just to use it in law enforcement? Not Ellison.

The cops will be on their best behavior, but so will (the rest) of the citizens, he promised. "Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting," Ellison added.

5. The real reason US wants to silence RT

By Fyodor Lukyanov | RT | September 18, 2024

In late 1986 Yegor Ligachev, the secretary of the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee, and Viktor Chebrikov, then-head of the KGB, proposed that the country end the practice of jamming foreign radio stations. 'Enemy voices' was the popular term used at the time to describe these broadcasts from abroad.

Of course, the two prominent officials were not imbued with bourgeois ideas when seeking to end radio jamming. They were actually taking a businesslike approach. The pair explained to the Central Committee that blocking was expensive but not very effective, given the size of the country. So, it was suggested that signal-jamming be abandoned and that funds be diverted to counter-propaganda measures. This meant more active work with foreign audiences to communicate the Soviet Union's own views on world events.

A few weeks later, at a meeting with US President Ronald Reagan in Iceland, USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev raised the issue. He said "your radio station Voice of America broadcasts around the clock in many languages from stations you have in different countries in Europe and Asia, and we can't present our point of view to the American people. So, for the sake of equality, we have to jam the Voice of America broadcasts." Gorbachev offered to stop blocking 'VOA' if his counterpart agreed to let Moscow have a frequency to do the same in the US. Reagan evasively promised to consult when he returned home. In the end, the Soviets stopped jamming foreign radio stations unilaterally, without any deal.

The events of the last few days have echoes of this old story. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken devoted an entire speech to RT, which is subject to 'full-blocking' (that's a new formula!) sanctions for its supposedly destructive and subversive work around the world. According to Blinken and the American intelligence agencies he references, the threat posed by the Russian company is of the highest order and requires the most decisive measures from all of Washington's allies.

Without irony or exaggeration, it can be said that RT could only dream of the global recognition that Blinken's appeal has facilitated. The effectiveness of the media group was not so much confirmed as it was certified, and by prominent representatives of its rivals.

We could deplore infringements on freedom of expression and restrictions on pluralism of opinion, but there is little point in doing so. Such notions should only be promoted in relation to the internal information space of individual countries; at a national level, they are an indispensable prerequisite for normal development. As for foreign sources of information, people generally perceive them as instruments of influence. And it hardly depends on the type of socio-political system that exists in a given state. The more comprehensive the information and communication environment, the greater its impact on people's behavior, and the more acute the desire of governments to tighten control over the flow of ideas and analysis. The international media sphere is deliberately ideological, electrified and conflictual. Hence Blinken's, shall we say, uncharacteristic remarks that RT should be treated "like an intelligence agency."

How effective are the tactics of restricting alternative views and jamming radio waves? Comrades Ligachev and Chebrikov rightly pointed out that the costly efforts to jam hostile broadcasters were, to put it mildly, not particularly effective. Worse, as the author well remembers, the very fact that the authorities were fighting foreign radio voices had the opposite effect to that desired – if they were silencing voices, it meant that they were afraid of the truth. And, by the end of the Soviet era this opinion was not only widespread among the frontline intelligentsia, many 'ordinary people' also didn't give a damn about the official channels.

At their meeting in Iceland, Reagan countered Gorbachev's appeal by saying that, unlike the Soviets, "we recognize freedom of the press and the right of people to listen to any point of view." The US president had no doubts about the superiority of the American system in all respects. Accordingly, the demands for information pluralism, then and later, reflected the confidence of Washington that it would emerge victorious from any competition. And so, a few years later, the US achieved a de-facto monopoly on the interpretation of everything.

Washington's current extreme reaction is due to the feeling that it's losing this monopoly. Alternative interpretations of events now arouse public interest. In fact, the total resources of the Western, mainly English-language media are incomparably greater than what all the carriers of alternative points of view can offer, at this moment. But internal insecurity is growing all by itself, fueling the desire to fence off the information space. From the same playbook comes the US' attempts to explain its internal strife and accumulated contradictions by pointing to a pernicious external influence. This was also the Soviet experience. However, the USSR didn't solve its own issues by blaming them on external causes. In fact, as its problems grew, those same outside factors actually began to exacerbate them.

Targeted punitive actions can create obstacles for any organization, there is no doubt about that. Especially when they come from what is still the most powerful country on the planet. But American history teaches us that monopolies do not last forever. Sooner or later, a cartel becomes a brake on development, then it becomes the subject of measures to break it up.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

6. Russia Slams NATO’s ‘Reckless’ Rejection of Putin’s Red Line on Ukraine Attacks

Sputnik – 18.09.2024

MOSCOW – Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Wednesday that dismissing Russian President Vladimir Putin's warnings about the dangers of Ukraine using Western weapons to attack Russian territory is both provocative and perilous.

"Such a ostentatious desire not to take seriously the statements of the Russian president is an absolutely short-sighted and unprofessional step," Peskov told reporters.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg denied in an interview out on Tuesday that allowing Ukraine to use long-range Western weapons to strike deep into Russia would cross country's "red line" despite warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"There have been many red lines declared by him [Putin] before, and he has not escalated, meaning also involving Nato allies directly in the conflict," Stoltenberg told The Times newspaper.

Stoltenberg said that he supported the United Kingdom and France in their decision to lift restrictions on Kiev's use of long-range weapons against Russia. He argued that their use by Ukraine would not draw the alliance into conflict with Russia.

Putin said that NATO countries were essentially deciding whether to get directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict. He warned that direct participation of Western countries in the conflict would change its nature, forcing Russia to respond to emerging threats.

Meanwhile, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto stated on Wednesday that Hungary is concerned about the potential use of long-range arms to strike Russia, as this would contradict Europe's security interests and heighten the risk of escalation. He emphasized that "Hungary is interested in peace, and every step that threatens escalation makes us concerned," adding that the use of long-range missiles against targets deep in Russia would "increase the threat of escalation," which runs counter to European security interests.

7. UN overwhelmingly demands Israel end occupation of Palestinian territories

Press TV – September 18, 2024

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution that demands Israel end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within a year.

A total of 124 countries voted in favor, while 14, including the US, opposed the resolution. Britain, Switzerland, Ukraine, India and Germany were among the 43 countries to abstain.

The resolution welcomes a July advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice that said Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements is illegal and should be withdrawn.

The advisory opinion – by the highest United Nations court said this should be done "as rapidly as possible."

The measure calls for Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians "for the damage caused to all the natural and legal persons concerned in the occupied Palestinian territory".

The resolution also demands sanctions and an arms embargo against Israel.

The 193-member Assembly also calls on states to "take steps towards ceasing the importation of any products originating in the Israeli settlements, as well as the provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment to Israel … where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

Riyad Mansour, Palestine's UN ambassador, who opened the assembly meeting on Tuesday, said that no occupying power can have a veto right over the inalienable rights of the people under its occupation.

"Those who think the Palestinian people will accept a life of servitude, a life of apartheid, are the ones who are not being realistic," Mansour said.

"Those who imagine the Palestinian people will disappear or surrender are the ones who are not being realistic. Those who claim that peace is possible in our region without a just resolution for the question of Palestine are the ones who are not being realistic.

"Each country has a vote, and the world is watching us," Mansour said. "Please stand on the right side of history. With international law. With freedom. With peace."

US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield urged countries to vote no on Wednesday. Washington, an arms supplier to and ally of Israel, has long opposed any resolution at the world body in favor of Palestine.

Unlike in the Security Council, no country in the General Assembly has veto power.

The action isolates Israel days before world leaders travel to New York for their annual UN gathering.

In May, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of reconsidering Palestine's full membership. It is now recognized by 145 of 193 UN member states.

Several countries, including Spain, Norway, and Ireland, recognized Palestine as a state in late May amid mounting criticism of Israel's genocidal campaign in the besieged Gaza Strip.

While the 15-member council is largely paralyzed on the ongoing Israeli genocidal campaign in Gaza, with the United States repeatedly vetoing censures of its ally Israel, the General Assembly has adopted several texts in support of Palestinian civilians.

8. The US has allowed Israel’s attack on Lebanon, and now war may follow

By Robert Inlakesh | RT | September 18, 2024

On Tuesday, Israel was accused of detonating hundreds of wireless communication devices that were primarily being used in a civilian capacity, injuring upwards of 4,000 people. Although the details are still being ironed out, this attack will now force Hezbollah to make major decisions in retaliation.

Less than a day after the Israeli security cabinet officially adopted a new war goal of returning their displaced residents to areas close to the Lebanese border, an indiscriminate attack was carried out throughout Lebanon. This indicates that the war in Gaza has now expanded in the eyes of the Israeli political and military leadership to include Lebanon. However, there are question marks surrounding how such an escalation will take shape.

The US role

Commenting on the issue to reporters, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said that "the US was not involved in it, the US was not aware of this incident in advance and, at this point, we're gathering information." He then even went as far as suggesting that the US government was gathering information just as journalists around the world are.

While this was Washington distancing itself from the incident, it is almost comical for an American official to inform the media that the Biden administration has no special information from its ally on the incident. Taking this at face value, it is an embarrassing admission that the ally to which the US has provided tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons and aid over the past 11 months does not even have channels of dialogue to discuss an attack which could lead to a regional war.

Even if we are to assume that the US had no idea about the attack, which is doubtful, the mere fact that American bipartisan support for Israel throughout the course of its war on Gaza has not buckled under immense international condemnation is telling. Every single organ of the United Nations has been ringing the alarm bells, accusing Israel of committing war crimes, and even the United Kingdom has decided to cancel 30 of some 350 weapons-licensing contracts over violations of international law.

While the US has continually stated that it seeks to de-escalate tensions and that it disapproves of an Israel-Lebanon war, at best it is doing nothing to stop it. If the US government were truly so out of the loop with Israel's escalatory steps and really wanted to stop a regional war, the wake-up call should have come at the end of July.

When Israel bombed a civilian apartment building in Beirut's southern suburb of Dahiyeh, killing Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr, then only hours later assassinated the leader of Hamas, Ismail Hanniyeh, in Tehran, this would have been the time when the Americans put pressure on the Israelis to stop. Instead, the US government decided to do the very opposite. At the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) session called to discuss the issue, they condemned Iran. On top of this, just under two weeks later, the US decided to approve a $20-billion weapons package for Israel.

Israeli terrorism 

There can be no doubt that the act of sabotage carried out on Tuesday was done using terrorist tactics and its intended goals are important to analyze. While all the precise details remain hidden as to how Israel managed to detonate hundreds of pagers, the impacts are crystal clear and we have enough information to render a judgment.

Firstly, the fact that this occurred across Lebanon and its victims were not just confined to those in the rank-and-file of Hezbollah has now left a lingering feeling of anxiety among the general public. The question cannot help but be posed: If the Israelis can blow up pagers, can they also detonate phones, laptops and other devices, and how many other plots of this nature do they have up their sleeves? This also impacts Hezbollah itself, because there has been a clear breach in the group's security on one level or another, which directly caused a temporary issue with the means of communication used by the group's military personnel.

According to the information we have so far, it appears that Israeli intelligence operatives managed to rig a batch of pagers with small amounts of highly explosive material. While the scale is unique in history, this tactic is nothing new. In fact, in 1996, Mossad assassinated a leader of Hamas' al-Qassam Brigades named Yahya Ayyash, by planting explosive material inside his phone and detonating it remotely. In the 1980s the Israelis even operated a group called the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners (FLLF) to carry out acts of terrorism while posing as a Christian fascist organization, one of its operations attempted to assassinate the US former ambassador to Lebanon, John Gunther Dean.  

If this action was carried out as a means of impacting Hezbollah's communications, prior to Israel launching a larger-scale military operation, then it would have made sense as a tactic that would on some level degrade the capabilities of the group and force them to find alternative means of issuing orders to certain cadres. Yet, this is not what happened, they gave the Lebanese group the time to recover from this blow and so it must be seen within a different context, one of point scoring.

It now puts Lebanese Hezbollah in a tough position. The group must mount some kind of response to this attack, one that is designed to deter the Israelis from carrying out similar attacks in the future. However, the secretary general of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, has made clear that, while his party is prepared for war, it is only interested in continuing to maintain a support front for the Palestinian groups fighting Israel from Gaza. 

Since October 8, Hezbollah has carried out thousands of targeted attacks against Israeli military facilities, primarily targeting surveillance, air defense and espionage equipment, but also striking army personnel too. On top of this, the Lebanese armed group has also been targeting specific populated areas that are located along the border region, with rocket barrages, forcing around 100,000 Israelis to flee.

On the other hand, roughly 110,000 Lebanese have been forced to flee their homes in southern Lebanon due to Israeli bombing attacks that have been much more devastating on the nation's civilian infrastructure than Hezbollah's has been on Israel's. In fact, while Hezbollah attacks have only resulted in a handful of Israeli civilian deaths, nearly 200 civilians have been killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon. This being said, there can be no denying the success of Hezbollah's operations in conducting a war of attrition that is burdening Israel psychologically, militarily, and economically.

What comes next

Israel has carried out this operation in an attempt to score points against Hezbollah, primarily in the propaganda war, and the alternative goal is to drag the group into opening up a shooting war. The Israelis do not want to be seen as starting the war against Lebanon, both because they seek the support of the collective West and know that the conflict will result in a stalemate at best.

If Hezbollah does not mount a considerable defensive counter operation, it will signal weakness to the Israelis and likely encourage them to continue carrying out similar offensive operations throughout Lebanon. While, on the other hand, if the Hezbollah response is too severe, it may give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the perfect excuse to launch the war that he has been threatening to wage for months now.

This moment requires Hezbollah to step up and take risks militarily, at a time when they now have a popular mandate inside Lebanon to respond in self defense. It is clear that the strategy of the Lebanese group has been to continue its daily operations in support of the Gaza Strip, and Israel is determined to end this, which is why it is now attempting to transform the nature of the war and expand it outwards. Unfortunately, due to the US providing full and unconditional support to the Israeli government as it expands the war, we are no longer looking at a war which is isolated to Gaza. Unless there is a ceasefire deal signed with Hamas soon, it appears inevitable that we are heading towards a Lebanon-Israel war that will drag in the entire region.

Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of 'Steal of the Century: Trump's Palestine-Israel Catastrophe'.

9. Lebanon pager attack ‘a monstrous act of terrorism’ – Moscow

RT | September 18, 2024

The mass detonation of pagers which killed several people and left thousands of others injured in Lebanon on Tuesday was an act of "monstrous terrorism," Russian officials have said.

Beirut and the militant group Hezbollah, which was the apparent target of the attack, have blamed Israel for the incident. The Jewish state has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility. Media reports have claimed that the Israeli secret service, Mossad, rigged thousands of pager devices with small explosive charges, which were simultaneously triggered via a remote signal.

"This was a monstrous act of terrorism, monstrous in its cynicism and its scale, considering the large number of victims," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

A separate statement by the ministry said that Moscow considers the mass detonations to be "the latest act of hybrid warfare against Lebanon," adding that "the masterminds of this high-tech attack were seeking to ignite large-scale armed confrontation with the goal of triggering a major war in the Middle East."

The ministry did not assign blame to any particular party, but called for a thorough investigation. "All people responsible… must be held accountable, so that this new act of terrorism is not 'swept under the rug' the way the Western nations want to steer the investigation of the explosions at the Nord Stream gas pipelines," it added.

The ministry was referring to the sabotage in September 2022 of undersea routes built to deliver Russian natural gas to Germany. The perpetrators have yet to be formally identified, although leaks to the media have suggested the attack was a privately-funded Ukrainian operation.

Commenting on the Lebanon incident, the Kremlin expressed concern about its consequences.

"The region is already in an explosive state. Certainly, incidents like this one – any such incident – can trigger events that would spin the situation out of control," spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the media.

10. Israel Orders Demolition of 37 Homes, Commercial Structures in Silwan

IMEMC | September 17, 2024

On Monday, Israeli soldiers and City Council personnel invaded Silwan town, south of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied capital, Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and handed out demolition orders for 37 homes and commercial structures.

Media sources reported that the soldiers notified the town's citizens of the demolition orders, and added that the demolitions are part of the municipality's plans to remove Palestinian buildings to pave a road, dubbed the "American Road," and infrastructure for the illegal colonizers.

The number of demolitions in the Jerusalem Governorate from the first of September until the eighth has now reached 307.

The Israeli occupation authorities generally justify the demolition of homes on the pretext of building without permits, despite the rarity of granting the necessary permits for building homes for Jerusalemites.

The "American Road" project, constructed over the ruins of Palestinian homes, demolished residences, and confiscated lands, stretches about 12 kilometers, devouring everything in its path to facilitate the lives of illegal colonizers and create segregated roads between the colonies.

While Israel continues to build and expand its illegal colonies, Palestinian communities and towns in occupied Jerusalem and various areas in the occupied West Bank continue to be denied the right to build homes and property under various allegations meant to prevent the expansion of Palestinian towns and neighborhoods.

All of Israel's colonies in the occupied West Bank, including those in and around occupied East Jerusalem, are illegal under International Law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, in addition to various United Nations and Security Council resolutions. They also constitute war crimes under International Law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." It also prohibits the "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory."