The White House has attacked

Is run by Benji

Are some people falling for Hamas 'fake news'?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/06/bbc-blamed-israel-aid-massacre-single-source/

Nope, but some are falling for sites that constantly peddle Israeli government propaganda B.S..

No, the BBC did not remove a report about Gaza with 'multiple headlines'.

And some should always be way more sceptical of what comes out of the white house as well with all of the lying crooks that are embedded in it these days.

Then there's this inhuman act.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued 32 evacuation orders between March 18 and May 29, forcing Gazan civilians to flee their homes. Our investigation showed that at least 78 percent of the Gaza Strip is now under at least one of these orders. More than two million Gazans are crammed into a territory that measures less than 65 km².

Meanwhile...

Hamas has had more than enough time to tire of imaginative ways of torture and to now have killed all remaining hostages... HUNDREDS of them...



There is some cruelly deadly politics at play...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Or we can have shared love and cooperation...


If only peace?...

All in our very deadly political world...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The White House has attacked

Is run by Benji

If one would assess all publicly known evidence…

WH is clearly run by Putin.

Lebanon's prime minister said he "strongly condemns" the strikes......

This man seems to suffer from amnesia. He should thank Israel a thousand times for striking and crushing Hezbollah; as IDF regained Lebanon‘s sovereignty over it‘s southern territory for this unthankful man.

If he doesn‘t like it when Israel attacks Hezbollah warmongers, why doesn‘t he and his mighty Lebanese army clean up the remaining rat nests instead? Doesn‘t he grasps that his position as PM and his countries‘ sovereignty depends on the precondition that no terrorists will attack Israel from Lebanese territory, be it with rockets or (as it seems now) drones?

The old Russian saying goes: „Russia‘s borders are only assured if Russian soldiers guard both sides. (E.g. „Cordon sanitaire“, buffer zone, „friendly“ dominions, …)

It seems, this is instead true for Israel’s borders. Warmongering Arabs demonstrated it repeatedly in past decades.

Adolf Benji and his Nazis are 1 sick mob very much like PooTin and his mob of butchers and thieves.

It was the Hamas butchers who left behind blood soaked children‘s beds in Kibbuzim, not Benji. Hamas was and is also responsible for the safety and inviolacy of Gazan civilians near locations from which they perpetrate military resp. terrorist deeds, not Benji.

...
[…] and to now have killed all remaining hostages... HUNDREDS of them...

… previous Israeli assumptions, months ago, was: 24 still alive, all male, all active or former IDF soldiers, except a Thai, and Nepali hostage.

In the meantime, one American-Israeli dual citizen was released; I believe a dual Russian-Israeli too.

In past days IDF recovered the corpses of an Israeli and a Thai hostage in Gaza. The Thai, supposedly a Buddhist; was clearly an INFIDEL!

The current (alive) hostage count is around 20…

Still building tunnels and command centres under hospitals.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-reveals-tunnel-under-gaza-hospital-says-body-sinwars-brother-found-there-2025-06-08/

In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command?

In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command?

'safe places' under civilian structures is called 'hiding behind a human shield'
The use of human shields is prohibited and defined as a war crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)
Therefore, is it fair to criticise Israel for attacking those said 'safe places', using methods which minimise Israeli losses?

Still building tunnels and command centres under hospitals.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-reveals-tunnel-under-gaza-hospital-says-body-sinwars-brother-found-there-2025-06-08/

In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command?

We're expected to believe the UN, UNRWA and all these Western aid agencies that plan, finance, and build these hospitals there, that they had no idea what lay beneath their hospitals. There are people responsible for this Hamas terror infrastructure, and they sit in comfortable offices in high-paying jobs in Western countries. This is outrageous.

In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command?

'safe places' under civilian structures is called 'hiding behind a human shield'
The use of human shields is prohibited and defined as a war crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)
Therefore, is it fair to criticise Israel for attacking those said 'safe places', using methods which minimise Israeli losses?

Again, In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command? Is there any place there that is not a civilian?

Again, In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command? Is there any place there that is not a civilian?

Civilian... non-civilian? There should never exist anything "non-civilian" in nowaday's Gaza because Israel's retreat from there in 2006 did not established the conditions to permit Gaza an armed force. (Ariel Sharon's grave political mistake to ignore that).

So continued occupation of Gaza would have been better than unilateral retreat? NO! It's 'pestilence' vs. 'cholera'; both to be avoided.

A territory is either:

1. non-sovereign: NO executive power, e.g. policing is done by a sovereign entity that also protects its external borders (air, sea, land)
   
2. sovereign: rightful executive power; rightful control of its borders, a government; if you prefer: "command center", BUT responsible for peaceful relations to its neighbors.
   

The grave mistake (by UN & Israel) was to accept a "command center" in (1) and armed forces (terrorists) without a treaty that define their duties; resp. rules of engagement (compare with Palestinian Autonomies' (PA) security guards in West Bank, East Jerusalem; or atop Temple Mount (alias "Al-Aqsa") in accordance with the PLO-Israeli treaty (Oslo Accords 1993/1995).

Solution: Not even the tiniest goblin should be allowed to establish a "command center" in (1). If they do so nonetheless, occupy or destroy it ASAP.

The transition from (1) to (2) demands an international treaty that assures sovereignty; but typically imposes obligations (among others: peace!).
The alternative is occupation or/and anexation of the non-sovereign territory that terminates its existence as an independent territory.

If this territory; rather its inhabitants refuse sovereignty, while sovereign neighbours refrain from anexation; they can continue their 'way of life' undisturbed, provided that they don't harm anybody abroad (e.g. North Korea, Myanmar, Taliban, IS, ...)

Again, In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command? Is there any place there that is not a civilian?

Civilian... non-civilian? There should never exist anything "non-civilian" in nowaday's Gaza because Israel's retreat from there in 2006 did not established the conditions to permit Gaza an armed force

So in 2006 Israel stole all of Gaza, violating the sovereignty that existed and still exists.

As to this false belief that a treaty has to be signed to establish a sovereign, can you please explain the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Seminole Nation, the Apache Nation, ... because they sure didn't run to Europe to sign a piece of paper.

In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command?

'safe places' under civilian structures is called 'hiding behind a human shield'
The use of human shields is prohibited and defined as a war crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)
Therefore, is it fair to criticise Israel for attacking those said 'safe places', using methods which minimise Israeli losses?

Again, In that micro enclave, where would you build safe places for your command? Is there any place there that is not a civilian?

Why do they need command centres?
In every period of conflict since WW2 the Muslim Arabs have been the instigators. I'm sure if they stopped attacking Israel then the region would be peaceful.

So the question is, "Why do they need Command Centres?".

So in 2006 Israel stole all of Gaza, violating the sovereignty that existed and still exists.

Not true. Gaza never in its modern history (recent centuries) was a sovereign entity; instead just a couple of majority Arab villages and towns (with thriving Jewish minority since ancient times) within the Osman Empire. There still is no Gazan sovereignty nor a Palestinian one, independent of what uninformed journalists, or a couple of ill-advised governments (e.g. Ireland, Norway, ...) claim; including some UN officials, e.g. Francesca Albanese (UN special rapporteur on occupied Palestine).

In 2006, Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. They forcefully expelled all Jewish inhabitants and ceded all Jewish properties to Gaza. Israel occupied Gaza during the 1967 Six-Days War to stop Egypt's aggression from the strip. Egypt occupied Gaza in ~1957 without justification, except supporting its 'compatriot' Arab neighbours (to destroy Israel and repatriate the Arab refugees of 1948).

As it made the news in recent days: Israel and Egypt maintained a naval blockade against Gaza since 2006 which was found legitimate according to International law (maritime laws; halt arms trafficking), as concluded in a 2011 UN report (Palmer commitee) following the deadly 2010 Gaza flotilla incident. A sea or air blockade clearly restricts rights of (sovereign countries as well as of) non-sovereign ones like Gaza. But its up to them to address the reasons which led to the blockade.

As to this false belief that a treaty has to be signed to establish a sovereign, can you please explain the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Seminole Nation, the Apache Nation, ... because they sure didn't run to Europe to sign a piece of paper.

The 'First Nations' you cited lost their sovereignty more than a century ago. They today enjoy some autonomy rights under U.S. sovereignty because they renounced futile violence against the superior U.S. (or rather surrendered their sovereignty) in a couple of treaties with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

You are right, in general, treaties are not needed to claim sovereignty; it's the historically inherited property of ancient kingdoms; but then they must control the territories they claim sovereignty over.

So, of course Gazans controlled the strip because Egypt and Israel let them. They could have declare independence resp. claim sovereignty. But they didn't do what U.S did in 1776, Israel in 1948, etc. Their longed sovereign and unified Palestinian State comprising Gaza Strip AND Samaria (alias "West Bank") requires a treaty to end Israel's occupation first, thus replacing Israel's factual control with Palestinian security obligations (as Egypt had to warrant in the 1978 Camp David Accords to regain Sinai). The modern understanding of sovereignty is based on mutual international recognition. There still is none for a Palestinian State, for reasons...

A very conflicted answer. The First Nations were sovereign before any European ever set foot in the Americas. Then you talk about conquest. But then you talk about treaties, which were all violated by the current US government. If it is violated, do any provisions remain? You add in violence being necessary for sovereign status. None of the nations of the First people's ever stopped fighting. Just now they don't do so with violence but do with words. They are far more sovereign that you realize. Police can not enter their lands absent permission. I remember recently one police force attempted it only to be met by lethal gunfire and the realization that is was no more acceptable that if they were to enter Mexico.

A very conflicted answer. The First Nations were sovereign before any European ever set foot in the Americas. Then you talk about conquest. But then you talk about treaties, which were all violated by the current US government. If it is violated, do any provisions remain?

Depends on the judge, isn't it? So, supposedly they remain. The more powerful... was it different anytime? We try different since founding of UN in 1949 with mixed results.

You add in violence being necessary for sovereign status.

You can claim sovereignty with mutual consent among neighbors OR by controlling the territory you claim sovereignty for and defend against resistance of others whose sovereignty you thereby harmed (e.g. occupation, anexation) or against resistance of your superior sovereign (secession). Violence is the more frequent course of history than mutual consent when it comes to changes to anybodies sovereign status.

None of the nations of the First people's ever stopped fighting. Just now they don't do so with violence but do with words.

Imagine Palestinians had followed their example... Gandhi's approach. Israel would be in a far worse position that it's now: Since Jordan (resp. Iraq) no longer represents a threat, there would be no argument left to legitimate occupation of West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

They are far more sovereign that you realize. [...]

Probably a matter of definition. For Gaza that would include control of a harbor and intl. airport. First Nations don't have that. I also don't think a First Nation in e.g. southern Arizona could have the "sovereignty" to control a border crossing with Mexico.

The aforementioned exclusive self government rights; own police; of First Nations are based on treaties with U.S. Fed government and Fed laws. There aren't any for Gaza strip. That's the reason for this mess.

It should've of happened much sooner and to more of these Nazi butchers.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway UK sanction Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

Australia has issued sanctions against two of the most controversial members of Israel's government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, accusing the men of inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

In a joint action by the Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand and Norwegian governments, which has drawn condemnation from the governments of the US and Israel, the pair will face travel bans and have their assets frozen.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the men had "incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights".

"Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous," she said in a joint statement with her foreign colleagues.

"These actions are not acceptable.

"We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity."

Mr Ben-Gvir serves as national security minister in Israeli Prime Minister's Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, while Mr Smotrich is the finance minister......

Instead of gas chambers it's food aid sites these days.

Israeli tanks kill 59 people at Khan Younis aid site in Gaza, local medics say.

Israeli tanks fired into a crowd trying to get aid from trucks in Gaza on Tuesday, killing at least 59 people, according to medics, in one of the bloodiest incidents yet in mounting violence as desperate residents struggle for food.

The Israeli military, which has been at war with Hamas-led Palestinian militants in Gaza since October 2023, acknowledged firing in the area and said it was looking into the incident.

It is one of the deadliest incidents yet in mounting violence as desperate residents in the Palestinian enclave struggle to get food.

Video shared on social media showed around a dozen mangled bodies lying in a street in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip......

If they can't bomb or starve them to death in their shelters they'll get them as they come out for food.