An earlier version of this article was published by Global Research. The substack text was revised and expanded on May 25-26, 2024

Introduction

There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”. It’s “an ongoing genocide”, an absolute slaughter, coupled with atrocities.

It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.

The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that Palestine (despite its limited military capabilities) is “the Aggressor” and that “Israel has the right to defend itself” which since October 7, 2023 consists in the conduct of a carefully planned genocide against the People of Palestine. 

Paul Larudee begs the question: 

“Is there a point at which the genocide in Gaza becomes egregious enough to provoke other countries to directly intervene in the Gaza Strip to prevent further genocide? 

Can Israel exterminate the entire population without anyone stopping them?”

The answer to that question is provided by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the form of a despicable set of accusations directed against Palestinians who are the victims of  “An Act of Genocide” instigated by Israel with the unbending support of most Western governments. 

False Flag. “Palestine Attacks Israel” 

Below is the statement of the ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan (KC) which accuses Hamas of committing crimes against humanity as well as war crimes, while carefully ignoring the evidence pertaining to Israel’s “false flag” operation which has resulted quite “deliberately” —on the behalf of the Netanyahu government— in deaths of innocent Israeli civilians.

These are the Palestinian children who are “waging attacks against Israel”

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance.  The October 7, 2023 “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” was not a “surprise attack”.  It was a False Flag operation carried out by a “faction” (intelligence assets) within Hamas, in close liaison with Mossad and U.S. intelligence. 

According to Dr. Philip Giraldi, a renowned analyst and former CIA official:

As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.

In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case. (October 8, 2023)

According to  Efrat Fenigson, former IDF intelligence official (published on October 7, 2023)

There’s no way Israel did not know of what’s coming.

How come border crossings were wide open?

Something is VERY WRONG HERE, something is very strange, this chain of events is very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system.

To me this surprise attack seems like a planned operation. On all fronts. 

The Features of the Gaza Fence largely confirm the above statements by Giraldi and Fenigson:

According to Israel’s defence ministry “the barrier includes hundreds of cameras, radars and other sensors, it spans 65km.

The ministry said the project’s “smart fence” is more than six metres high and its maritime barrier includes means to detect infiltration by sea and a remote-controlled weapons system.

See also the following article:

Section Commander of the Gaza Fence: “The obstacle is built so that even a fox cannot pass it”. They Let It Happen. The Hamas Attack Was Allowed to Close the Book on Palestine.

By. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, General Herzl Halevi, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 9, 2023

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY - MIDDLE EAST WAR: A FALSE FLAG LEADING TO MORE FALSE FLAGS?

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uukz21"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v3rc3yp","div":"rumble_v3rc3yp"});

It should be understood that the implementation of the False Flag was carefully coordinated with Israel’s “Act of Genocide” directed against the People of Palestine.

On that same day of October 7, 2023 Netanyahu launched a military operation against the Gaza Strip entitled “State of Readiness For War”.  

Had  “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023. 

There is A Long History of Israeli False Flags

The late  Prof Tanya Reinhart confirmed the formulation in 1997 of a False Flag Agenda entitled “The Green Light to Terror” which consisted in promoting (engineering) suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, citing “the Bloodshed as a Justification” to wage war on Palestine: 

“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda… (See Chossudovsky, October 23, 2023)

There is continuity: Israel’s Military Intelligence remains in charge of implementing false flag operations coupled with “Acts of Genocide” directed against Palestine.

For details and analysis on False Flags, See:

Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let It Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?

By Philip Giraldi and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2024

“Israel is the Victim of Palestinian Aggression”. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Accuses Palestine

In a bitter irony, the ICC Prosecutor’s accusations against Hamas (representing the People of Gaza) which include alleged acts of “Extermination”, “Murder” and “Torture” suggest that the State of Israel rather than Palestine is the victim of Genocide. 

According to the ICC Statement, Palestine’s alleged “Act of Aggression” against Israel consists in:

• Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.

What  these insidious legal statements imply is that the ICC has de facto given “its stamp of approval” to Israel’s “Justified Vengeance” against the People of Palestine, which is currently ongoing.

Inasmuch as the issue of the False Flag (despite extensive evidence) has been casually dismissed by the ICC, as well as by Western governments and the media, the accusations against Hamas are meaningless.

The ICC has also denied “Palestine’s Right to Resist Israeli Occupation” under the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Convention.

International law is unambiguous in its endorsement of “armed struggle” for peoples who seek self-determination under “colonial and foreign domination.”

United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.” Palestine Chronicle (emphasis added)

The Endgame is the Exclusion of Palestinians from their Homeland. 

The Lie has become the Truth

Amply documented Israel is involved in acts of “Extermination” against Palestinians.

Yet it is Israel which is described by the ICC as the “Victim of Palestinian Aggression.” 

Genocide and False Flags

While the ICC fails to acknowledge the conduct of a “False Flag”, numerous documents, witnesses and statements, confirm Israel’s False Flag initiative.

In a bitter irony, the False Flag Attack Strategy had been acknowledged by Netanyahu in consultation with the Likud Party. It comes from the Horse’s Mouth:

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu]told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Moreover, “Transferring Money by the Netanyahu government to Hamas intelligence assets” was confirmed in a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report: 

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State.

Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)

The False Flag operation was used to justify the conduct of a carefully planned “Genocide”.

The Evidence

There are numerous government documents that describe in detail the planning and conduct of the genocide.

What we have on record (which is the object of our analysis) is:

 An official  memorandum –released and declassified (made public) on October 13, 2023– by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence, which confirms Israel’s planning of a Genocide against the People of Palestine.

This intelligence memorandum was prepared well in advance of October 7, 2023.

It was available to the ICC Team.

The thrust of the document describes what is currently unfolding, namely the Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland.

This is Israel’s Plan (Before our Very Eyes)

“The forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”.

It’s a longstanding and carefully prepared initiative by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence, which was declassified on October 13, 2023, namely one week after the commencement of the invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Concurrently, Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence was responsible for the implementation of the False Flag.

---

Option. C. The Evacuation of the Civilian Population from Gaza to the Sinai

click here or below to access complete document (10 pages)

The Option C Blueprint: A Criminal Endeavour

The Option C document is the Blueprint of Israel’s War against Palestine, the underlying intent of which is to:

Destroy Palestine as a Nation State and Exclude Palestinians from their Homeland.

The Overthrow of Hamas is contemplated, which if carried out would no doubt result in the implementation of the three ICC Hamas Arrest Warrants.

Option C. calls for:

“The Evacuation of the civilian population from Gaza to Sinai”

See details below (emphasis added)

Israel is to act to evacuate the civilian population to Sinai. In the first stage, tent cities will be established in the area of Sinai.

The next stage includes the establishment of a humanitarian zone to assist the civilian population of Gaza and the construction of cities in a resettled area in northern Sinai.

A sterile zone of several kilometers should be created within Egypt, and the return of the population to activities/residences near the border with Israel should not be allowed.

In addition, a security perimeter should be established in our [Israel’s] territory near the border with Egypt. (Option C)

There are various military and operational dimensions which are currently being implemented. The killings and the famine are ongoing.

With regard to propaganda, lobbying and public relations, the focus is on:

“harnessing the support of the United States and additional pro-Israeli countries for the endeavor”.

The role of Egypt in Option C is of course crucial:

Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the  population.

Israel must act to promote a broad diplomatic initiative aimed at countries that will support assisting the displaced population and agree to absorb them as refugees.

Solidarity with Palestine

It is important as part of the Palestine solidarity movement that Option C be fully understood. It is a criminal endeavor. It is part of Israel’s “Act of Genocide”.

The State of Israel is in blatant violation of the Genocide Convention.

For further details and analysis: click here to access complete document (10 pages).

See also:  “Wiping Gaza Off the Map”: Israel’s “Secret” Intelligence Memorandum “Option C” by Michel Chossudovsky

The ICC Prosecutor is a “Double Speak”. 

We are dealing with an absurd “upside down rhetoric” “Mundus inversus” on the part of the ICC Prosecutor. 

While the ICC Prosecutor accuses Palestine, he rightfully acknowledges the crimes committed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, specifically with regard to the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. 

This issue is fundamental. Starvation in the Gaza Strip is ongoing. It’s a crime against humanity. It’s Genocide.

For nearly 8 months, Israel still chokes off nearly all food and other vital supplies to Gaza. 

Gaza needs 500 trucks of supply every day, and near-nothing is coming through.

The US pier supplies 25-50 trucks per day, and everything else is closed.

With irregular intervals, reports have come the past months, but never about more than some 100 or 150 trucks on a few days. 

Reports about starvation are made public, and this is obviously getting worse. (Karsten Riise, communication to the author)

ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan’s presentation is cautious. He essentially contends that “crimes have been committed by both sides” while intimating that “The Fourth Military Power” on the Planet, “Has a Right to Defend Itself” (in words of Joe Biden on October 7).

The False Flag which constitutes a crime against humanity, is not addressed by the ICC, nor is the issue of the Genocide against the People of Palestine.

Netanyahu and Gallant are “The Fall Guys”

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan KC issued a statement [on May 20] proposing that arrest warrants are issued for Mr Netanyahu, Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed al-Masri, Hamas’s military chief, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader. (Independent)

The allegations directed against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant which are fully corroborated, coupled with arrest warrants, are intent to:

—reach out and mislead the anti-Zionist peace movement,

—provide a sense of (fake) “legitimacy” to the ICC’s far-reaching accusations against Palestine (“extermination and murder”).

—provide a “human face” to Karim Khan KC

Nowhere in the ICC Prosecutor’s report is the issue of “Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine” mentioned.

In this regard, the Arrest Warrants directed by the ICC against the three Hamas leaders serve to:

1. “Side Track” the Strategic Role of the “False Flag Operation“

2. Refute the very existence of a Genocide,

3. Endorse Israel’s Act of Self Defense against Palestine.

---

In regards to the arrest warrants directed against Netanyahu and Gallant, it is highly unlikely that they will be carried out.

(Netanyahu already has a criminal record. In November 2019, he was officially “indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud”)

Of relevance, the CIA has been operating in the background in collaboration with Israeli intelligence.

There are unspoken strategic objectives.

In mid-May 2024, CIA Director Bill Burns was in Cairo for negotiations behind closed doors with both Israeli and Hamas officials, regarding a possible ceasefire.

The three arrest warrants directed against the leaders of Hamas are intended to confirm that the alleged October 7, 2023 Act of “Aggression” against Israel was NOT (despite evidence) part of a “False Flag” (i.e. inside intelligence op. carefully coordinated by Israeli and U.S. intelligence). 

The ICC Arrest Warrants directed against Netanyahu and Gallant (which will never be carried out), serve the useful purpose of placing the blame while at the same time deflecting our understanding as to who from a strategic standpoint is behind the conduct of the Genocide directed against the People of Palestine. 

What this does is to distract public opinion. It misleads the peace movement. It creates divisions within the solidarity movement with Palestine. 

Economic Interests

Bear in mind there are powerful economic interests which are supportive of the Genocide. They have their eyes on Gaza’s Multibillion Offshore Maritime Gas Reserves.

---

Video: “Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uukz21"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v3pgaua","div":"rumble_v3pgaua"});

By Felicity Arbuthnot and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 23, 2024

Anglo-America Controls the ICC and the IJC 

I should mention that the False Flag issue –which constitutes a crime against humanity on the part of Israel and the U.S.– has been casually ignored both by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Chief Justice Donahue, former adviser to Hillary Clinton). (January 2024)

---

And now by the International Criminal Court (ICC). On behalf of His Majesty: Prosecutor, Karim Khan, K.C. (King’s Counsel). 

---

The U.N based judicial system is composed of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), both of which have deliberately ignored the issue of Genocide against Palestine.  

What is at stake is the outright criminalization of the UN judicial system.

The Mandate of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Click to access the ICC Website

Visibly the stated mandate of “Trying Individuals for Genocide” on the ICC’s top banner does not apply to “individuals” including government officials of the State of Israel.

The ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, KC Makes No Reference to “Genocide” in His Statement

Despite the evidence, the ICC Prosecutor fails to acknowledge that Israel is conducting a Genocide, with the endorsement of Western governments.

Below are the results of my search:

The word “Genocide” is NOT mentioned in his statement with the exception of the title banner.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is not mentioned. 

His statements point to the “Criminalization of the ICC”

What is the Truth, What is the Lie? 

All These Babies are facing Death due to the absence of Fuel and Medicine.

WHY?

The underlying cause of these atrocities is “Genocide” which is upheld by the UN Judicial System. ICJ and ICC.

“Extermination” and “Murder” are being conducted by Israel, specifically targeting children (click here to access a series of videos, requires Facebook)

—Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 24, 2024

Forward this article. Crosspost. Spread the Word. In Solidarity with Palestine, Consider becoming a Subscriber.

 

ANNEX

Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC:

Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine

link to the ICC

20 May 2024

Today I am filing applications for warrants of arrest before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court in the Situation in the State of Palestine.

Today I am filing applications for warrants of arrest before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court in the Situation in the State of Palestine.

(link to the ICC)

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI, more commonly known as DEIF (Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 7 October 2023: 

• Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.

My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

It is the view of my Office that these individuals planned and instigated the commission of crimes on 7 October 2023, and have through their own actions, including personal visits to hostages shortly after their kidnapping, acknowledged their responsibility for those crimes. We submit that these crimes could not have been committed without their actions. They are charged both as co-perpetrators and as superiors pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute.

During my own visit to Kibbutz Be’eri and Kibbutz Kfar Aza, as well as to the site of Supernova Music Festival in Re’im, I saw the devastating scenes of these attacks and the profound impact of the unconscionable crimes charged in the applications filed today. Speaking with survivors, I heard how the love within a family, the deepest bonds between a parent and a child, were contorted to inflict unfathomable pain through calculated cruelty and extreme callousness. These acts demand accountability.

My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October.

I wish to express my gratitude to the survivors, and the families of victims of the 7 October attacks, for their courage in coming forward to provide their accounts to my Office. We remain focused on further deepening our investigations of all crimes committed as part of these attacks and will continue to work with all partners to ensure that justice is delivered.

I again reiterate my call for the immediate release of all hostages taken from Israel and for their safe return to their families. This is a fundamental requirement of international humanitarian law.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for  the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:

• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel.

We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

Click here to read the full text.

We must act decisively in support and in solidarity with Julian Assange. 

In this regard, we must understand the history: On how Assange was betrayed and misled by those who allegedly supported him. 

In October 2021, the U.S. government began a legal challenge to extradite Julian Assange from the U.K. “to face charges of violating the Espionage Act”.

The U.K.  Supreme Court turned down Assange’s appeal to “prevent his extradition to the United States”.

On April 20, 2022, a U.K magistrates court formally approved the extradition of Julian Assange to the US “on espionage charges”.

…  it will be revealed whether Julian Assange’s appeal in the British courts against being extradited to the US succeeds or not during a two-day hearing, which is scheduled to take place in London on Tuesday and Wednesday [February 20, 21, 2024], The Guardian reported.

In a meeting organized by the Foreign Press Association, his wife, Stella, warned that he could be put on a plane to the US within days if the appeal fails, fearing his death if he is extradited. This is the final chance for Assange to challenge then-former Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision in June 2022 for an extradition.” (Al Mayadeen)

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) have confirmed that “the prosecution of Assange represents a global threat to media freedom.”

“The ongoing prosecution of Julian Assange jeopardizes media freedom everywhere in the world,” the IFJ and EFJ said in a joint statement.

Video

---

Julian Assange’s Relation with the Mainstream Media

Julian Assange was initially lauded and supported by the mainstream media.  In 2008  The Economist, which is partly owned by the Rothschild family granted Assange The New Media Award.  

---

Was this a genuine endorsement of  Assange’s commitment to “freedom of the press”? Or was it a public relations ploy? 

Assange was  framed by those who supported him:

The Guardian, The New York Times, The Economist, Vaughan Smith, George Soros, the Rothschilds, the Council on Foreign Relations, et al.

Assange has been accused by the same corporate media which praised his achievements.

In retrospect, it was a carefully planned operation. The Wiki “Leaks” were selectively “overseen”.  

Here are details regarding some of the key players:

Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith

Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former British Grenadier Guards captain came to his rescue.  Assange was provided refuge at his house in Norfolk. They had a close friendship. 

Vaughn Lockhart Smith was the founder of the London based Frontline Club (which is supported by George Soros’ Open Society Institute).

In 2010, the Frontline Club served as the de facto U.K “headquarters” for Julian Assange. 

Vaughan Smith is not an “independent journalist”, He actively collaborated with NATO, as an embedded reporter and cameraman in several US-NATO war theaters including Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, and Kosovo 

 In 1998 –prior to the onslaught of NATO’s war on Yugoslavia– he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo in a production entitled The Valley, which consisted in “documenting” alleged Serbian atrocities against Kosovar Albanians on behalf of US-NATO which invaded Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999. 

The video production was carried out with the support of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose leader Hashim Thaci became president of Kosovo. In 1998, Thaci was on the Interpol list. Twenty years later, Thaci was indicted by the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity including “murder, enforced disappearances, persecution and torture”.

David E. Sanger, New York Times

The New York Times was complicit: David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT was involved in the redacting of Wikileaks in consultation with the US State Department:

PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

David  E. Sanger is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)  and the Aspen Group. The NYT also has links with  U.S. intelligence.

It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations had interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker’s Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

The Insidious Role of the U.S. State Department

The New York Times redaction of classified material was carried out in close consultation with the U.S. State Department (See David Sanger’s statement above).

It’s a bombshell: The State Department was collaborating with the NYT in facilitating the release of classified documents. This in itself raises  legal issues.

In a February 21, 2024 report: 

“The United States’ bid to prosecute Julian Assange is “state retaliation”, the High Court has heard in his final bid to escape extradition.

The Wikileaks founder faces extradition to the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.”

From a legal standpoint, it is not “State Retaliation”, quite the opposite, it’s “State Collusion”:

The U.S. State Department is on record: It provided a green light to the NYT for the release of redacted classified documents.

And now the US government is intent on extraditing Julian Assange from the U.K. “to face charges of violating the Espionage Act”.

Is there not a conflict of interest somewhere?

From a legal standpoint, is the U.S. State Department in violation of the Espionage Act?

The Open Letter by the NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais 

The five major news media which were instrumental in the release and “redacting” of the WikiLeaks   documents issued in 2019 a somewhat contradictory joint statement (Open letter) requesting the release of Julian Assange.

They accuse Assange for releasing classified documents on corruption and US government fraud, while acknowledging their role in releasing redacted texts of classified documents. Are they not also in violation of the Espionage Act.

Below is the text of the letter.

An open letter from editors and publishers: Publishing is not a Crime

“Twelve years ago, on 28 November 2010, our five international media outlets – The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El País and DER SPIEGEL – published a series of revelations in cooperation with Wikileaks that made the headlines around the globe.

“Cable gate”, a set of 251,000 confidential cables from the US State Department disclosed corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale.

In the words of The New York Times, the documents told “the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money”. Even now in 2022, journalists and historians continue to publish new revelations, using the unique trove of documents.

For Julian Assange, publisher of Wikileaks, the publication of “Cable gate” and several other related leaks had the most severe consequences. On 11 April 2019, Assange was arrested in London on a US arrest warrant, and has now been held for three and a half years in a high security British prison usually used for terrorists and members of organised crime groups. He faces extradition to the US and a sentence of up to 175 years in an American maximum security prison.

This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticise his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.

The Obama-Biden Administration, in office during the Wikileaks publication in 2010, refrained from indicting Assange, explaining that they would have had to indict journalists from major news outlets too. Their position placed a premium on press freedom, despite its uncomfortable consequences. Under Donald Trump however, the position changed. The DOJ relied on an old law, the Espionage Act of 1917 (designed to prosecute potential spies during World War 1), which has never been used to prosecute a publisher or broadcaster.

This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press.

Holding governments accountable is part of the core mission of a free press in a democracy.

Obtaining and disclosing sensitive information when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists. If that work is criminalised, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.

Twelve years after the publication of “Cable gate”, it is time for the U.S. government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.”

Publishing is not a crime.

The editors and publishers of: 

The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, DER SPIEGEL, El País

Who are the criminals?

Those who leak secret government documents which provide irrefutable evidence of extensive crimes against humanity or the politicians in high office who order the killings and atrocities?

What is unfolding is not only “the criminalization of the State”, the judicial system is also criminalized with  a view to upholding the legitimacy of the war criminals in high office.

And the corporate media through omission, half-truths and outright lies uphold war as a peace-making endeavor.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no moving backwards

We stand in solidarity with Julian Assange.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 3, 2022, February 21, 2024

***

Below is the text of my article first published in April 2019

***

Wiki-Gate: Julian Assange Was Framed by the People Who Supported Him

by Michel Chossudovsky

April 2019

 

Julian Assange’s arrest (after almost seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy) constitutes a hideous and illegal act. He is imprisoned in Britain’s Belmarsh maximum security prison, pending his extradition to the United States. 

Statements by US prosecutors suggest that Assange would not be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act. What is contemplated are accusations of conspiring “to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on his alleged agreement to try to help Ms. Manning break an encoded portion of passcode that would have permitted her to log on to a classified military network under another user’s identity.” (NYT, April 11, 2019).

The charges can of course be changed and shifted around. Bolton-Pompeo will no doubt play a role. In a 2017 statement when he was CIA Director Mike Pompeo “referred to WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” which needed to be eradicated.”  

Assange is relentlessly accused by the corporate media of treason, acting on behalf of the Kremlin. An indictment invoking the 1917 Espionage Act remains a distinct possibility with a view to overriding The First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees Freedom of Expression.

Assange constitutes a new Russia-Gate media narrative? His arrest coincides with the release of the redacted version of the Mueller report.

Prepare for Wiki-Gate: a long and drawn-out legal procedure which will be the object of extensive media coverage with a view to ultimately misleading the public.  

The unspoken objective of Assange’s indictment is to  create a legal precedent which will enable Washington and its allies to arrest independent and anti-war journalists indiscriminately.

What is at stake, –revealed by Wikileaks– is that politicians in high office are the architects of war crimes. To protect them and sustain their legitimacy, they require the suppression of  freedom of expression, which in turn requires “the criminalization of justice”.

Ironically, from the very outset (over a period of more than 12 years) there has never been a concerted effort on the part of Washington (and its national security intelligence apparatus) to suppress the release of classified US government information or to close down the Wikileaks project. In fact, quite the opposite.

Why?

Because the carefully selected and redacted Wikileaks quotes by the mainstream media have been used to provide legitimacy to US “foreign policy” as well as obfuscate (through omission) many of the crimes committed by US intelligence and the Pentagon.

Wikileaks and the Mainstream Media

It is important to note that Julian Assange from the outset was supported by the mainstream media, which was involved in releasing selected and redacted versions of the leaks. And despite Assange’s arrest and imprisonment, Wikileaks continues to release compromising US diplomatic cables, the latest of which (reported by McClatchy, April 17, 2019) pertains to “evidence that US troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians” including a 5-month-old infant. 

At the outset of the Wikileaks project, the mainstream media including the New York Times, The Guardian and the Economist praised Julian Assange. The British elites supported him. Assange became a personality. It was a vast Public Relations campaign. It was a money-making undertaking for the corporate media.

In 2008  The Economist (which is partly owned by the Rothschild family) granted Assange The New Media Award.

About-turn?  Shift in the Mainstream Media Narrative.

Today, ironically  these same corporate media which praised Assange are now accusing him (without a shred of evidence) of being involved in acts of conspiracy on behalf of  the Kremlin. According to John Pilger:

“The Guardian has since published a series of falsehoods about Assange, not least a discredited claim that a group of Russians and Trump’s man, Paul Manafort, had visited Assange in the [Ecuadorian] embassy. The meetings never happened; it was fake.”

Assange has been the object of an all out smear campaign by those who supported him.

According to Pilger:

A plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008 [by] the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department… Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media.”

The Economist which granted Assange the New Media Award in 2008 now intimates that he is an enemy agent responsible for “information anarchy … culminating in the destabilization of American democracy”.

Others think it a long-overdue reckoning with justice for a man who had unleashed information anarchy upon the West, culminating in the destabilisation of American democracy. Is Mr Assange a heroic journalist, reckless activist or even an enemy agent? (The Economist, April 12,2019, emphasis added)

The smear operation is ongoing:

Screenshot Economist headline, April 17, 2019

Starting in early 2017, coinciding with RussiaGate, Assange is depicted as a  “Putin Stooge” working for the Kremlin, Why?

And then The Guardian, (April 20) with which Assange actively collaborated goes into a high-gear smear operation and  character assassination: “cheap journalism” by the Guardian (read excerpt below):

Was Julian Assange Framed by the People Who Supported Him? 

The latest from the New York Times April 15, 2019, which previously collaborated with Assange, describes him as a threat to National Security, working on behalf of the Russians.

Flashback to 2010:

The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010).

These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provided “further evidence of the Pentagon’s role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime.” (Ibid).

The Role of the Frontline Club. Assange’s Social Entourage

While Assange was committed (through the release of leaked government documents) to revealing the “unspoken truth” of corruption and war crimes, many of the people (and journalists) who “supported him” are largely “Establishment”: Upon his release from bail in December 2010 (Swedish extradition order over allegations of sexual offenses) Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a friend of Assange, a former British Grenadier Guards captain and a member of the British aristocracy came to his rescue.  Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith’s Ellingham Manor in Norfolk.

Vaughn Lockhart Smith is the founder of the London based Frontline Club (which is supported by George Soros’ Open Society Institute). In 2010, the Frontline Club served as the de facto U.K “headquarters” for Julian Assange.

Vaughan Smith is a journalist aligned with the mainstream media. He had collaborated with NATO, acted as an embedded reporter and cameraman in various US-NATO war theaters including Afghanistan and Kosovo. In 1998 he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo in a production entitled The Valley, which consisted in “documenting” alleged Serbian atrocities against Kosovar Albanians. The video production was carried out with the support of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

Upon Assange’s arrest on April 10, 2019 Vaughn Smith, while acknowledging his disagreements with Assange, nonetheless expressed his unbending support and concern for Assange:

Smith said that while he didn’t agree that everything Assange released should have been released, he did think the Wikileaks founder “triggered a discussion about transparency that is incredibly important.”

“I support Julian because I think his rights as an individual reflect on us, his fellow citizens,” he told Tremonti.

“I think how we treat somebody who we may not agree with, that tells us truths that we may not wish to know … is a great comment on us.” (CBC, April 10, 2019)

The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

The New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and El Pais (Spain) were directly involved in the editing, redacting and selection of leaked documents.

In the case of the New York Times, coordinated by Washington Bureau Chief David Sanger, the redacted versions were undertaken in consultation with the US State Department.

Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. The “professional media”, to use Julian Assange’s words in an interview with The Economist, had been collaborating with the Wikileaks project from the outset.

Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.

In a bitter irony, The New York Times, which has consistently promoted media disinformation was accused in 2010 of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department – NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

This “redacting” role of The New York Times was candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:

“[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest.” (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

Yet Sanger also said later in the interview:

 “It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government.” (ibid, emphasis added)

“Do it independently of the government” while at the same time “asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest”?

David  E. Sanger is not a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute’s Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, among other prominent establishment figures.

It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations had interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker’s Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media.

Concluding Remarks 

Who are the criminals?

Those who leak secret  government documents which provide irrefutable evidence of extensive crimes against humanity or the politicians in high office who order the killings and atrocities.

What is unfolding is not only “the criminalization of the State”, the judicial system is also criminalized with  a view to upholding the legitimacy of the war criminals in high office.

And the corporate media through omission, half truths and outright lies upholds war as a peace-making endeavor (see below)