Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Israel and its global lobbies have had an extraordinary run of success.

In the US and Canada, the passage of laws against the BDS movement; US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the shifting of the embassy there; the appointment of an ambassador who is no more than Israel's point man in Washington; the Kushner plan and US acceptance of Israeli annexation of the West Bank; and in the UK, the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn, partly if not largely based on a slanderous campaign launched against the Labor Party generally and Corbyn personally.

This was the most malicious political assassination in British history, with the corporate media and the zionist lobby driving in the knives day after day. The main Jewish newspapers had already maligned Corbyn in the same front page editorial when the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, used the Corbyn-hating Times to attack Corbyn as "mendacious" and to plant fear amongst British Jews: "What will become of Jews and Judaism in Britain if the Labor Party forms the next government?" Nothing would happen, of course, not to British Jews, but there would be significant changes affecting Britain's relations with the racist settler enterprise it established in Palestine more than a century ago.

Craig Murray, a former UK diplomat turned anti-war activist, has been charged with contempt of court for writing blog posts. He faces a possible two years in jail, with no jury and no freedom of speech defense permitted.

The suspicious indictment represents a heavily politicized, Kafkaesque case in which Murray has virtually none of his rights guaranteed. It also appears to be a part of the British government's aggressive crackdown on the Scottish independence movement.

In comments to The Grayzone, Murray described the case against him as a thoroughly undemocratic attack on free speech, and warned it may be punishment for his dissident journalism and activism exposing the UK's crimes and lies.

Murray said he faces the possibility of "no jury, no 'beyond reasonable doubt' test, no public interest defence allowed, no freedom of speech defence allowed, and up to two years in jail and an 'unlimited' fine."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ruled to prolong non-working days introduced due to coronavirus till May 11 nationwide at a video conference on ways of resistance to the spread of the coronavirus in regions.

The coronavirus situation in Russia remains very tense and the country has not passed its peak yet, Vladimir Putin said.

"The daily number of new cases of the disease has relatively stabilized. But this should not 'soothe' us since the situation remains very tense. Specialists and scientists say that the peak has not passed yet," the Russian president stressed.

The risks of catching infection of the novel coronavirus in Russia are 'reaching their climax,' he elaborated. "We are now probably faced with the most rigorous stage of the fight against this epidemiology," Putin went on. "Risks of catching the infection are reaching their climax. The danger and the lethal threat of the virus persist and it goes for everyone."

The positive thing is that Russia has managed to slow down the pace of the novel coronavirus spread in the country, Vladimir Putin commented. "The most important issue that I would like to point out summing up the results of the recent weeks is that we have managed to slow down the spread of the epidemic," Putin said. "This is the result of our common work, the responsibility of millions of citizens of our country, who have followed recommendations of doctors and experts, taking care of their own health and of the health of others."

But still strict preventive measures must be observed, the president underscored.

Libya's renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar has dismissed a 2015 United Nations-brokered unity accord for the war-ravaged country as "a thing of the past," vowing to establish a new government under his rule.


"The General Command of the Armed Forces accepts the will of the people despite the burden of that trust, multiplicity of obligations, and the magnitude of responsibilities before God, our people, and conscience, and history," Haftar declared in a televised address on Monday, pledging that his Libyan National Army (LNA) rebel forces will take over control of the divided country.

"The political agreement destroyed the country. We will work to create the conditions for building permanent civic institutions," he said, referring to the UN-sponsored pact that recognized the Government of National Accord (GNA) in the capital, Tripoli.

Haftar did not clarify whether an elected parliament based in the country's eastern city of Tobruk — which has until now been protected by his LNA militants — supported the new effort, or what its future role would be.

The United States has had two sedition laws in its history. Both were repealed within three years. Britain repealed its 17th Century sedition law in 2009. Though this crime is no longer on the books, the crime of sedition is really what both governments are accusing Julian Assange of. The campaign of smears, the weakness of the case and the language of his indictment proves it.

The imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher has been indicted on 17 counts of espionage under the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act on a technicality: the unauthorized possession and dissemination of classified material — something that has been performed by countless journalists and publishers over the decades. It conflicts head on with the First Amendment.

But espionage isn't really what the government is after. Assange did not pass state secrets to an enemy of the United States, as in a classic espionage case, but rather to the public, which the government might well consider the enemy.

Editor's note: On April 8, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons released a report by its newly formed Investigation and Identification Team, a unit ostensibly established to identify alleged perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks in Syria. The IIT investigation examined three alleged incidents in the Syrian town of Ltamenah in March 2017. It concluded "that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that the Syrian army committed a sarin attack in two of the incidents, and a chlorine attack in the third.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the IIT probe, calling it "the latest in a large and growing body of evidence that the Assad regime uses chemical weapons attacks in Syria as part of a deliberate campaign of violence against the Syrian people. The United States shares the OPCW's conclusions."

But missing from Pompeo's remarks and the ensuing U.S. media coverage across the spectrum is the crisis of credibility consuming the OPCW and its senior leadership. The IIT report's tenuous conclusion "that there are reasonable grounds to believe" the official version of events closely resembles the conclusion of an earlier OPCW report that is now the subject of major controversy and derision. A series of leaks show that OPCW leaders suppressed the findings of inspectors who probed another much more consequential alleged Syrian chemical attack, in the city of Douma in April 2018, which triggered US airstrikes.

The evidence collected in Douma undermined allegations of Syrian government guilt and strongly suggested a staged event by the armed opposition. Leaked internal OPCW emails and documents show that the Douma investigators protested the censorship of their findings, setting off an unfolding cover-up scandal that has called the OPCW's impartiality into question.

The Grayzone has published a series of leaks from the OPCW's Douma scandal, and plans to reveal new material that further undermines the official story. The article below reveals how the dissension within the OPCW ranks extends well beyond the Douma investigation.

Here, OPCW insiders offer a withering critique of the IIT report, blasting it as another hyper-politicized piece of bunk. The Grayzone can verify that the authors represent the view of, at minimum, a small group of current and former OPCW officials who took part in its drafting and review.

- Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté, The Grayzone

As if the recent revelations about the World Health Organisations (WHO) relationship with the Chinese Communist Party regarding the cover-up of COVID-19 were not enough, along comes this. Family Watch International has published an explosive expose regarding the role of WHO in actively promoting abortion, transgenderism, legalised prostitution and sexuality among children.

The content of the newsletter outlines, "8 Ways the World Health Organization Advances Harmful Agendas". Namely, that the:

1. WHO leadership has a history of promoting abortion.

2. WHO Director-General Tedros also has pushed controversial sexual rights at the expense of sexual health.

3. WHO has continued to aggressively pushing abortion worldwide under its current leadership.

4. WHO supports radical comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) for children that promotes abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, transgenderism and more.

5. WHO partners with the discredited IPPF. (one of the largest abortion providers in the world)

6. WHO is promoting the legalization — and destigmatization — of prostitution under the guise of preventing HIV.

Former Biden staffer Tara Reade says the Democratic presidential nominee sexually assaulted her in 1993. Reade's former neighbor tells Insider that Reade confided in her about the allegations at the time.

In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade's claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade's — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that "normal" is a "long way off" for all Canadians — and that some differences implemented as a result of lessons learned during this pandemic will last for "years."

"If we want life to get back to the way it was exactly before, it won't," Trudeau said, speaking to reporters from the front steps of Rideau Cottage on Monday.

"There will be differences, even a few years from now, that we will have learned from dealing with this global pandemic that I think will be important lessons."

A new ruling by three Dutch judges in the trial of Russia for having shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 will allow the Ukrainian secret service, the SBU, to present fabricated witness evidence without investigation or cross-examination by defence lawyers representing one of the four military officers accused of launching a BUK anti-aircraft missile at MH17. On July 17, 2014, the aircraft was destroyed above eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 people on board.

The two Dutch defence lawyers, Sabine ten Doesschate (lead image, centre) and Boudewijn van Eijck (right), have attempted to keep the court proceeding secret since mid-March when they were asked to clarify if they had filed a challenge to the use of secret witness statements in the trial, which began hearings in public on March 9.

A secret hearing followed on April 6 when ten Doesschate appeared in person. Two weeks later, a 16-page judgement was signed by three judges of the District Court of The Hague, Alexander Boogers, B.W. Mulder, and Mariette Renckens; an official translation into English was then prepared. Ten Doesschate and van Eijck were asked last Thursday morning, April 23, to confirm that the judgement had been issued.

"Should you fail to respond," ten Dosschate and van Eijck were told, "you will be reported as conducting yourselves in a manner that is inconsistent with the duties of a lawyer in defence of a client in a serious criminal case, with the intention on your parts, individually and collectively, to dissemble, mislead, falsify, and prejudice the defence you claim to represent and for which you are receiving money in payment." Ten Doesschate and van Eijck have refused to answer.