A dark tradition of left-wing extremism is resurfacing – with deadly consequences for conservative leaders and activists
On September 10, 2025, the shocking murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University marked a new low in America’s season of political violence. Once seen as an outspoken but untouchable figure of the right, Kirk was gunned down in front of a student audience – a killing that rattled the country and sent a grim message to others on his side of the political spectrum.
Kirk’s assassination did not come in isolation. In the past year, right-wing politicians and activists across the West have been repeatedly targeted – from two attempts on Donald Trump’s life in Pennsylvania and Florida, to the near-fatal shooting of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, to attacks on lesser-known but symbolically important figures in Brussels and Illinois. Even Minnesota’s Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman was killed in June, underscoring that the spiral of violence is consuming the political system itself. But the pattern is unmistakable: the most frequent targets are those on the right.
The trend is alarming not only for its brutality, but for what it reveals about the depth of polarization in Western societies. Violence has become a political language – and, increasingly, the language is being spoken against conservatives. RT examines how and why the far left, historically prone to radical action, has once again turned to violence as a tool of political struggle.
A wave of attacks against the right
The murder of Charlie Kirk was only the latest and most shocking in a string of high-profile assaults on right-wing figures.
Charlie Kirk speaks at the Palm Beach Convention Center on July 26, 2024 in West Palm Beach, Florida.
On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump narrowly escaped death at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman opened fire from a rooftop, grazing the candidate’s ear and killing one supporter in the crowd. Just weeks later, on September 15, another attempt followed when an armed man was discovered hiding near Trump’s golf club in Florida, equipped with rifles, body armor, and surveillance gear. In both cases, the attacks electrified Trump’s base and raised urgent questions about political security in the United States.
Europe, too, has witnessed violence against conservatives. On May 15, 2024, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot multiple times in an assassination attempt that left him hospitalized for weeks.
In Brussels, on September 15, 2025, Polish Member of the European Parliament Waldemar Buda reported that his car had been sprayed with pellets from an air gun – a minor incident by comparison, but one that underscored the atmosphere of hostility directed at right-wing politicians.
In the United States, the violence has claimed other victims as well. On June 14, 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in their own home – a shocking reminder that political bloodshed is not confined to one side. That same year, right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes reported that an armed intruder appeared outside his Illinois residence while he was live-streaming; the suspect was later killed in a police chase.
Together, these incidents suggest a disturbing pattern: right-wing leaders and activists, whether presidents, prime ministers, or grassroots influencers, have become the most frequent targets of political violence across the Western world.
“Each of these attacks only strengthens the political camp they were meant to destroy,”
Konstantin Blokhin, senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RT. “The shot fired at Trump became one of the factors contributing to his victory. Now, Kirk’s murder has consolidated his core voters. Political violence in the West does not weaken conservatives – it mobilizes them.”
Why the right becomes the target
Why have conservatives become the primary victims of this wave of political violence? A large part of the answer lies in the rhetoric that dominates Western political life. In liberal discourse, right-wing leaders and their supporters are increasingly portrayed not as opponents in a debate but as existential threats to democracy itself. Labels such as “fascists,”“enemies,” or “vermin” have crept into mainstream political language, creating an environment where physical attacks can be rationalized as moral necessity.
Even some of the most prominent voices in the liberal establishment have warned that such hostility is dangerous. Responding to the murder of Charlie Kirk, former US President Barack Obama emphasized that violence is “anathema to what it means to be a democratic country,” insisting that Americans must be able to have “really contentious debates without resorting to violence.”
Flowers and candles are seen at a makeshift memorial for murdered American conservative activist Charlie Kirk outside the US embassy as its flag hangs at half-staff on September 14, 2025 in Berlin, Germany.
At the same time, Obama suggested that Republicans had deepened divides by rushing to frame enemies after the killing. His comments highlight the paradox of the moment: while leaders across the spectrum denounce violence, the mutual demonization of political opponents only accelerates polarization – and conservatives remain the most frequent targets of its deadly consequences.
The tradition of left-wing violence
Political violence against conservatives is not an invention of the 21st century. The United States has a long history of far-left groups embracing terrorism as a method of struggle. One of the most notorious examples was the Weather Underground Organization, a radical offshoot of the anti-Vietnam War student movement. In the 1970s, its members carried out arson attacks and bombings – including against the US Capitol – claiming they were fighting imperialism and capitalism through “revolutionary violence.”
Researchers note that such groups typically portrayed themselves as the “vanguard of the oppressed proletariat.” As David Brannan explains in his book Left- and Right-wing Political Terrorism, these organizations believed they were defending ordinary workers against capitalist elites who controlled government. To preserve their credibility, they avoided direct attacks on the working class and instead chose government offices, corporations, leaders, and symbolic sites that embodied the capitalist order as their targets.
Demonstrators stand in protest against the Sons of the Confederate Veterans annual Memorial Day at Stone Mountain Park on April 19, 2025 in Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Today, this tradition has found a new ideological language. A recent study from George Washington University highlights the growing influence of “accelerationism” – the belief that violence can be used to exploit contradictions within a political system in order to hasten its collapse. While the concept is ideologically agnostic, much of its intellectual lineage stems from anarchist and far-left thought. The GWU researchers caution that more than a hundred anarchist groups worldwide have embraced accelerationist ideas, and their example may inspire American radicals.
Together, these threads suggest that what is unfolding now is less a series of isolated attacks than the resurgence of an old current in Western political culture: left-wing extremism convinced that violence is a legitimate shortcut to social change.
Violence that deepens the divide
Every major act of political violence now lands like a shockwave, not only claiming lives but reshaping the political landscape. Instead of silencing conservatives, attacks often transform them into symbols – rallying points for movements already primed by years of polarization.
After the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, images of a bloodied Donald Trump spread instantly across the world, turning him into a near-martyr figure for his base. Polls in the weeks that followed showed a surge of Republican support, as if the bullet itself had confirmed the narrative that Trump and his supporters were under siege.
Secret Service tend to US President Donald Trump onstage at a rally on July 13, 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The murder of Charlie Kirk has carried the same emotional charge, uniting conservative activists around the sense that they are being physically targeted for their beliefs.
Political scientists warn that this is how a cycle of escalation takes root. Each act of violence intensifies outrage, which in turn fuels mobilization and radical rhetoric. In such an environment, opponents are no longer seen as rivals but as existential threats – and the threshold for justifying further violence drops dangerously low. What begins as isolated incidents risks hardening into a grim pattern: political struggle transforming into physical confrontation.
The pattern is clear: political violence in the West has moved from the margins to the center. Right-wing politicians and activists have become the primary targets, and the ideological roots of left-wing extremism provide both the rhetoric and the justification for such attacks. From Weather Underground in the 1970s to today’s accelerationist currents, the idea that violence can accelerate social change has never fully disappeared – and now it is once again bleeding into mainstream politics.
Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, told RT that this reflects a deeper degeneration of Western liberalism itself.
“Neoliberalism in the West has degenerated and evolved into a new form of fascism. The tactics employed by neoliberals – such as their total intolerance for dissenting opinions – are hallmarks of fascism. They refuse to engage in dialogue or debate; they are solely focused on imposing their views and annihilating those who oppose them,” Suslov said.
He argued that the rise in political violence is directly tied to the growing popularity of right-wing movements, which are winning support among ordinary citizens. “Traditional neoliberals are losing ground and resorting to violent methods,” Suslov continued.
“They view their opponents not just as rivals but as threats to the nation that must be eradicated. This divide will only deepen.”
According to Suslov, the murder of Charlie Kirk has already been turned into a political weapon. “Trump has made it part of his fight against liberal elites, even naming George Soros as someone who should be held accountable for funding protests. This will incite retaliatory violence and a growing confrontation. Consequently, the social and political divide will only grow.”
The warning is stark: if current trends hold, the West risks normalizing political violence as a tool of competition. What once belonged to the extremes could soon define the very core of democratic politics.
The US president will try to bring both sides together to negotiate a settlement to the conflict, US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has said
US President Donald Trump will not force any conditions on either Moscow or Kiev to resume peace negotiations, Washington’s ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has stated.
Appearing on Fox Business on Friday, the envoy said that the US president will, nevertheless, continue to push for a settlement in the Ukraine conflict.
”President Trump is going to continue to find the leverage and to find the conditions where he can bring both sides and mediate a resolution… [but] he’s not going to set the conditions,” Whitaker said.
“Both sides are going to have to agree to a peace deal,” he added.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Trump stated that, while possible, a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky would be hard to arrange because “they hate each other” intensely.
The US president also predicted that if the two met, he would “have to do all the talking.”
In an interview to TASS on Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov described the US’ position on the Ukraine conflict under the Trump administration as one coming “from common sense.”
He also accused European NATO nations of attempting to obstruct Washington’s peace efforts.
In stark contrast to his predecessor, Joe Biden, Trump has actively engaged in dialogue with Russia ever since he assumed office in January. Last month, he held a summit with Putin in Alaska. The US president subsequently pledged to arrange negotiations between Putin and Zelensky.
Earlier this month, the Russian president said he was willing to sit down with Zelensky, suggesting Moscow as a potential venue.
Zelensky stated that he was also ready for such a meeting “without any kind of conditions,” however, he rejected the idea of holding talks in the Russian capital.
Last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, of which there have been three rounds to date, had been “paused” for now.
Only vetted individual Russian and Belarusian athletes under a neutral flag will be allowed to participate, the committee has said
Russian and Belarusian teams will remain barred from the 2026 Winter Games in Italy, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has declared. The ruling extends existing sanctions, with only vetted athletes allowed to compete individually under a neutral flag.
Both Russia and Belarus were barred from the Olympics after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, which also led to their exclusion from other major sporting events. The IOC later made exceptions, allowing some athletes to participate in the Games as individuals under neutral flags, including at the Paris Olympics in 2024, while national teams have been banned.
”Teams of athletes with a Russian or Belarusian passport will not be considered,” the IOC said on Friday.
Instead, only vetted competitors from the two countries may take part as individuals under a neutral flag. As in Paris, a commission will assess each case, barring those who “actively support” the conflict or serve under contract with the Russian or Belarusian military or security services.
IOC President Kirsty Coventry told reporters: “The Executive Board will take the exact same approach that was done in Paris [2024 Olympics]. Nothing has changed.”
Coventry, who was elected earlier this year, has said she opposes banning nations from the Olympics due to armed conflicts.
Russian officials have repeatedly accused Western nations of politicizing sport and exerting pressure on sports federations to exclude Russian athletes for political reasons.
Despite restrictions, Russian athletes have continued winning in events. Last month, Russian swimmers took home 18 medals, including six golds, from the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, their first chance to compete since 2016 under IOC rules. The team, competing as neutrals, finished fourth overall.
Moscow has branded the IOC sanctions a perversion of the Olympic Charter, under which the Games are supposed to remain free of politics.
The 2026 Winter Olympics will be held in February in the cities of Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo.
Israel’s ground offensive is pushing Hamas to the wall, but also isolating the country abroad and tearing its society apart
Israel has moved into a new phase of the war. Just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had signaled, the IDF has launched a full-scale ground operation aimed at taking control of Gaza City. Netanyahu promised a “powerful and decisive” push; early reports from the ground bear that out.
IDF spokesperson Avichay Adraee said on X that Israeli forces have begun destroying Hamas infrastructure inside the city. Civilians have been urged to leave the combat zone. According to the military, roughly 320,000 residents have already fled, while an estimated 650,000 civilians remain.
Eyewitness accounts indicate a sharp uptick in airstrikes over the past 48 hours – likely the preparatory stage for the ground advance. Until now, Israeli units focused on the outskirts, methodically degrading Hamas defensive positions.
The operation began just hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Israel. As several Western outlets reported, Rubio conveyed Washington’s support for a ground phase but pressed for a short, tightly limited timeline – an effort to minimize reputational costs while maintaining allied solidarity with Israel.
At this stage, Gaza City is effectively the last major stronghold of resistance in the Strip. By military estimates, Israel controls about 75% of the enclave, which heightens the city’s strategic and symbolic weight as the sector’s political and organizational center.
Conditions inside Gaza City are dire. Airstrikes and artillery fire have leveled large parts of the city, hitting schools, refugee camps, and makeshift shelters. A stark example came in late May, when Israeli forces struck the Fahmi al-Jarjawi school, which had been sheltering displaced families. According to Gaza’s civil defense, 33 people were killed – including children – and dozens more were wounded. Israel, for its part, insisted the target was Hamas fighters hiding in the building. The conflicting narratives underscore the depth of the political and information war surrounding the battle.
The city’s infrastructure has been devastated. As of April 2024, damages in Gaza’s municipality alone were estimated at $7.29 billion. Schools and hospitals lie in ruins, while access to water, electricity, and sanitation has collapsed – producing a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe.
For Hamas, the battle for Gaza City is existential. With no strategic reserves left, the group sees the city’s defense as its last chance to maintain a military and political foothold – raising the likelihood of grinding, attritional fighting.
Inside Israel, political tensions are mounting. The Hostages’ Families Forum condemned the launch of the operation, warning that “after 710 nights in terrorist hands, tonight could be the hostages’ last.” Street protests against Netanyahu’s policy have become a fixture. Just a week ago, thousands rallied outside his Jerusalem residence, calling for a deal with Hamas to free the captives and halt the fighting.
Polling shows the divide is widening. According to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), about two-thirds of the public supports a deal that would free all hostages in exchange for a ceasefire and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. In short, the campaign carries a double risk for Israel: heavy losses in urban combat and a deepening political crisis at home that erodes confidence in the government.
The international fallout has only sharpened the crisis. At the Arab and Muslim summit in Doha on September 15, leaders leveled some of the harshest charges yet. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, accused Israel of “genocide,” while Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi went further, declaring Israel an enemy despite their 1979 peace treaty. The summit’s final statement urged the global community to “take all possible measures” to halt the operation and reconsider ties with West Jerusalem. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed the same uncompromising line.
The escalation has also dented US credibility. Strikes on Qatar raised questions about Washington’s reliability as a security guarantor. American bases there were supposed to serve as a deterrent, yet the US proved unable to prevent the attacks – or even step in as mediator – undermining trust among its regional partners.
Europe has emerged as an unexpected challenge. Seeking to assert independence from Washington and to boost its standing with the Global South, Brussels has taken an increasingly tough stance toward Israel. Domestic politics also weigh heavily: large communities of Middle Eastern origin in Europe tend to hold strongly anti-Israel views, amplifying public pressure on governments.
Netanyahu, on the defensive, has stressed Israel’s military self-reliance and spoken of “several good conversations” with President Donald Trump. Yet according to The Wall Street Journal, Trump privately voiced disappointment, criticizing Netanyahu for relying too heavily on force when Washington would prefer a negotiated settlement.
Israel thus finds itself squeezed on three fronts: regional pressure from Arab and Muslim states, transregional pushback from the European Union, and alliance strains with the United States.
On the map, the Gaza Strip looks insignificant – a sliver of land just 140 square miles. Yet today it has become the focal point of contradictions that could reshape the entire Middle East and reverberate far beyond.
First, the outcome of this battle will weigh heavily on Israel’s internal stability. Holding Gaza – or failing to – has become not just a military question but a test of political legitimacy, unfolding against a backdrop of mass protests and eroding public trust.
Second, the conflict has spilled past the region. Gaza has become a litmus test for the West. Not long ago, it seemed unthinkable that the Israeli question could drive a wedge between the United States and Europe. Now, Washington prioritizes allied solidarity and containing Iran, while Brussels increasingly asserts itself as an independent pole of power, guided by domestic politics and its positioning in the Global South.
Third, Gaza carries immense symbolic weight. For much of the Arab and Muslim world, it embodies resistance. The way this operation ends will shape the degree of anti-Israeli consolidation in the region and the prospects for Israel’s relations with key neighbors such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf monarchies.
In short, Gaza has become a geopolitical fault line – where the future of the Middle East is at stake, and with it the balance of the global political order.
Somali-born Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar had previously called Republicans “full of sh*t” for lionizing the late Charlie Kirk
US President Donald Trump has slammed Democratic lawmaker Ilhan Omar as “scum” after she narrowly escaped a censure vote in the House of Representatives for making disparaging remarks about slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Trump also brought up unsubstantiated rumors of her marrying her brother in order to become a US citizen.
Omar, who emigrated from Somalia, is the first naturalized US citizen from Africa to serve in Congress. She represents Minnesota’s 5th District and is part of the so-called ‘squad’ of progressive left-wing Democrats that frequently clash with Republicans.
After Kirk’s assassination, she accused Republicans of being “full of sh*t” for praising him as a civil debater and suggested his “hateful rhetoric” was what got him killed. Omar called it “effed up” to claim that Kirk “just wanted to have a civil debate.”
Her remarks drew swift condemnation from conservatives, who accused Omar of inciting more division and pointing out that Kirk had built his platform on engaging in discussions with students across the country about politics, religion, and social issues.
In a Truth Social post on Friday, Trump stated that Omar “tells us how to run America”, while her country of birth Somalia is “plagued by lack of central Government control, persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence.”
Trump also revived unconfirmed allegations that Omar had “married her brother in order to gain Citizenship,” adding, “What SCUM we have in our Country, telling us what to do, and how to do it.”
Following Omar’s comments, Republican Representative Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to censure the progressive lawmaker and strip her of committee assignments for “smearing” Kirk and implying he was to blame for his own murder. On Wednesday, Omar survived the motion by a single vote, 214–213, after four Republicans sided with Democrats to defeat it.
Omar has rejected the accusations, saying she was among the first to condemn Kirk’s killing. A spokesperson said she had “explicitly expressed her sympathies and prayers” to his family and condemned the assassination.
The UAVs could have been disabled and were falling “all over the place,” the US president has said
The drones that violated Poland’s airspace could have been “disabled” and lost control, US President Donald Trump has suggested.
Warsaw has claimed that 19 drones entered the country’s airspace on September 10, accusing Moscow of staging a provocation in order to test NATO’s response. Multiple EU officials, including top diplomat Kaja Kallas, have called the incident a “deliberate violation.”
Trump was asked about the affair in an interview with Fox News on Thursday. The US president refused to say whether the drone incursion was deliberate or not, suggesting the drones could have simply strayed after being subjected to electronic interference.
“You know, I can’t comment on whether it was a mistake or not. They shouldn’t have been there, let’s face it. Supposedly, they were disabled. You know, they disabled drones today. The great attack on a drone is disabling it, and they fall all over the place,” Trump stated, adding that he was very “disappointed” by the incident.
The latest of Trump’s remarks on the incident differed from the statements he’d made earlier this week, when the US president suggested it “could have been a mistake.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk doubled down on his accusations against Russia shortly after, insisting the incident wasn’t a mistake. On Friday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that anyone who doubts Warsaw’s narrative is “either the author or an accomplice of Russian propaganda.”
Russian officials have pointed out that drones used during strikes on military installations in Ukraine do not have sufficient range to reach deep into Poland, suggesting the incident could have been a false flag staged by Kiev in a bid to bring NATO into a direct confrontation with Moscow.
Warsaw has refused to cooperate in investigating the drone incident and has dismissed facts provided by the Russian military, Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday. Such behavior proves that Poland is not interested in knowing the truth, she said.
“This is clearly yet another element in a large-scale information campaign aimed at demonizing Russia and mobilizing additional support for the Kiev regime, as well as an attempt to undermine a political settlement of the Ukraine conflict,” Zakharova stated.
If nothing is done, we all deserve to live in a world where genocide is the norm
Those with eyes to see and ears to hear – including this author, as it happens – have known it for a very long time already.
Yet the findings of the United Nation’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (hereafter: the UN Commission) that have just been published and detailed in a long report are still of great importance: Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinians.
To any unbiased, intellectually honest and morally normal reader – no matter his or her politics – the report, the product of two years of “painstaking” fact-gathering and legal analysis, leaves no doubt that Israel’s actions in Gaza have matched four of the five ways of committing genocide listed in the foundational and binding 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as well as the 1998 Rome Statute: Killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Under international law, even one of these actions is sufficient to be charged with genocide.
The UN Commission report, of course, converges with what AP has called a “rising chorus” of belated yet direly needed acknowledgements of the single greatest crime yet committed in our century, including from: the International Association of Genocide Scholars (the “world’s leading” such association according to the BBC), the Israeli NGO’s B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (Israel), and now even US Senator Bernie Sanders, who used to struggle tooth and nail to unforgivably deny this genocide as long as he could.
More generally, by now 43 percent even of Americans see that Israel is committing genocide – and are ready to say so when asked by pollsters. 53 percent simply don’t like Israel. Both figures are nothing short of sensational in the US context, especially if you consider that it is the young who have had enough of Zionism. Moreover, traditionally staunchly pro-Israel-come-what-may constituencies are cracking: The Right and MAGA in particular now feature leaders and influencers openly critical of Israel, such as Marjorie Taylor Green and Tucker Carlson. Even American evangelicals are rapidly deserting the Zionist color. The Economist has just acknowledged the collapse, with dread, under the headline “How Israel is losing America.”
There is nothing to discuss about facts: Water is wet, blood is red, and Israel is committing genocide. Whoever is still denying this crime or trying to smear those reporting it as “Hamas proxies” and “antisemites” – as Israel is, as expected – is only delivering more evidence of their limitless dishonesty. As Chris Sidoti, member of the UN Commission, noted at the press conference presenting its report, “no one takes” such Israeli propaganda “seriously” anymore. At least, no one with a working brain and a decent conscience.
The questions that matter are different. They will shape the common – or not so much – human future. It is horrible to have to state it, but even if it is not yet history, the Gaza Genocide has already happened: if it were stopped today – it will not – humanity has long missed its chance to prevent it. For that, the Israeli perpetrators, who have never made a secret out of their crime, would have had to be confronted with force, at the very latest in November 2023. Now, many future Palestinian victims could still be saved – and probably won’t.
But the genocide is a fact we cannot reverse. What is still at stake – apart from many more lives – is whether we will let this crime become a new normal, a “Gaza Method,” which is the de facto aim of Israel, the US, and the EU. Our world is terrible as it is and getting worse by the day, but some of us at least still know that war and genocide are not and must not be the same thing. If the promoters of the “Gaza Method” prevail, then war will be genocide. Especially when waged by the West and its monstrous creation, Israel.
Let’s focus on four questions that will matter: First, what are – or should be – the consequences of Israel’s genocide? Second, what about the many in governments, media, and the public sphere, most of all but not only in the West, who are complicit in this crime or even so deeply involved that they are really co-perpetrators? And what about the larger group of those – again states, organizations, businesses, academia, think tanks, you name it – who have done nothing? And, finally, last but by no means least, what about the victims and those who have been resisting – including by armed struggle – on their behalf?
Regarding consequences, it is easy to understand what must happen as a minimum: the surviving victims must finally be protected, the perpetrators brought to justice. In particular now, as Israel is launching its final assault on Gaza city itself – an attempt at a final solution by even more murder and the full ethnic cleansing of Gaza – that protection could still make a difference.
As international law expert Craig Mokhiber has pointed out, the UN General Assembly could use the Uniting for Peace procedure to bypass the American veto in the Security Council and mandate an international protection force for Gaza.
Of course, Israel, supported by the US and other genocide co-perpetrating states, such as the UK and Germany, would resist such an intervention. That is no reason not to take the necessary first steps. But it is a reason to be realistic. Ultimately, saving what is left of Gaza and its people will take a more robust approach. Israel is an extremely criminal state under an entirely insane regime. Like Nazi Germany, it will have to be defeated militarily by a pro-active coalition waging a determined war.
Here as well, realists will point out many obstacles. Yet it is the only way to stop not only the Gaza genocide but Israel’s endless violence and destabilization in not only Western Asia but, in reality, the world as a whole. Israel’s entirely illegal and rogue nuclear arsenal, with which it has threatened not only its neighbors but, again, the whole world is not a reason not to finally intervene militarily. On the contrary, it is yet another compelling reason to do so in order to disarm it.
Regarding the Israeli perpetrators, they need to be punished, in large numbers, high and low. First because their victims and their surviving families have a right to justice. And second, because Israel’s outrageous impunity is one of the key causes of the current genocide. If it is not finally and demonstratively broken, things will only get even worse. And not only in Israel.
Short of military intervention, which is what is really needed, economic boycott is the other inevitable consequence. All trade and all other relationships with this monster of a state must cease. This concerns by no means only the West, for instance, the despicable US, UK, Germany, and EU.
Critics of the global non-West and the aspiring leaders of a new multipolar order are right in this regard: If Beijing and Moscow, for instance, do not want to lose credibility, they cannot remain de facto neutral. The very least they must do is lead a global movement to completely isolate Israel, economically, politically, and in every other sphere of human activity.
A first step is to finally shift the debate from the non-issue of whether to “recognize” Palestine. Obviously, it must be recognized, and about 150 states have done so already. What we really need to talk about is de-recognizing Israel: whatever it is, it is not an ordinary state, and other states need to stop pretending it is.
If the potential leaders of a better international order fail to, at the very least, isolate Israel, they will have only themselves to blame. Yet if they take the initiative to lead the majority of humanity that has had enough of Israel’s crimes and impunity, they will benefit not only morally but politically as well (and mightily). In addition, short of sending troops themselves, they must at least help Israel’s victims, from Gaza to Yemen to Iran, to arm themselves and resist.
In the West, it is time to build systematic registers of those who need to be charged with complicity. To include thousands of government representatives and bureaucrats, at central and local levels (for instance, in Berlin) as well as academic, think tank, media and social media figures who have supported the genocide by broadcasting, sharing, and amplifying Israel’s genocidal propaganda, from the “mass rape” hoax to silencing the fact that many of the victims of 7 October 2023 were killed not by the Palestinian Resistance but by Israeli forces carrying out a “Hannibal” operation against their own.
Beginning with Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg Trials and recently confirmed during the trials after the Rwandan Genocide, using media to promote crimes against humanity and genocide is a crime in and of itself. The world will need many new convictions in this area.
Finally, amends will have to be made: How can a Hamas fighter, for instance, be vilified as a “terrorist,” if in reality, he has desperately and against the odds struggled to stop Israel’s genocidal forces? This is perverse. In general, the Palestinians have a right under international law to armed resistance. Resisting genocide makes this only even more obvious. And those who have resisted in the rest of the world, whether by demonstrations, campus occupations, boycotts, or sabotaging Israeli arms makers must have justice, too. That is, they must be recognized as exemplary instead of being persecuted, as, for instance, in Germany, the UK, and the US.
Much more will need to happen if a world that is already post-Gaza Genocide wants to reverse a steady descent into hell. It will take decades, at least, to clean up the filth produced by the crime itself and the widespread complicity. There is no guarantee at all that, as a collective, we will even try. But one thing is certain: if we don’t, we will deserve everything that is coming for us in a world where we all have made genocide the norm or allowed this to happen.
The US president has claimed that the television networks only give him “bad publicity”
US President Donald Trump has floated the idea of “maybe” revoking the broadcast licenses of American television networks that provide negative coverage of him.
The suggestion came a day after ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, following what it called “offensive and insensitive” comments made by the comedian about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel claimed on his program that Trump and his supporters were trying to “score political points” over Kirk’s killing and compared the president’s reaction to his death to “how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”
Trump, who was returning from the UK aboard Air Force One on Thursday, told journalists that TV networks “give me only bad publicity or press.”
“I mean, they are getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” he said.
However, the president noted that it will be up to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to rule whether to keep the networks on air or not. So far, the FCC head has been “doing a great job,” according to Trump.
Just hours before ABC suspended ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’, Carr told podcaster Benny Johnson that “these companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” He warned that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
Trump welcomed the move by ABC in a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, suggesting that NBC’s late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers should also be “canceled.”
Trump stressed that the late-night shows “have not had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said, but when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They are licensed. They are not allowed to do that.”
In his show on Tuesday, Meyers accused Trump of “pursuing a crackdown on free speech,” while late-night comedian Stephen Colbert, whose show on CBS will not be prolonged after May 2026, claimed that “this is blatant censorship. With an autocrat, you can’t give an inch.”
Member states continue to buy energy resources from Russia despite EU sanctions, Bild has reported
EU member states imported €8.7 billion ($10.2 billion) worth of Russian goods in the first three months of 2025 alone, Bild has reported, citing data from the German Economic Institute.
In the first quarter of this year, the EU-Russia trade balance was slightly skewed in Moscow’s favor, meaning that the bloc purchased more from its eastern neighbor than it sold. The German media outlet singled out natural gas imports, accounting for €4.4 billion, and crude oil at €1.4 billion as the top two items being imported by Russia to the EU
In the wake of the Ukraine conflict escalation in February 2022, the bloc declared its intention to cut economic ties with Moscow. While imports of Russian gas and oil have dropped significantly since, a number of EU nations still source a large proportion of their energy supplies from Russia.
Several member states have watched their industries lose ground globally after switching to costlier alternatives.
Also topping the list in early 2025 were Russian fertilizers, iron and steel, as well as nickel, according to Bild.
Earlier this year, the European Commission proposed its RePowerEU Roadmap that envisages a complete phase-out of all Russian energy imports by the end of 2027.
Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, have strongly opposed the plan, saying that it would undermine their respective energy security.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accused certain member states earlier this month of “hypocrisy,” claiming that they are still buying “Russian oil secretly” via Asian intermediaries.
In August, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged that his country was “not just in a period of economic weakness, we are in a structural crisis of our economy,” citing falling earnings by Germany’s major automakers.
Commenting on the bloc’s economic woes back in April, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that “this is the true cost of the EU’s anti-Russian agenda.”
“Russophobia is an expensive obsession,” she concluded.
The Gaza offensive shows how far West Jerusalem will go without restraint
“Israel relies on its ability to use force against all opponents at once.”
This could serve as a motto for the moment. Israel’s ground assault on Gaza City, launched with Washington’s blessing, shows how completely the country has embraced the doctrine of “peace through strength.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave the nod during his recent visit, though he urged them to hurry. For Donald Trump, the concern is less about Gaza itself than about optics: the longer the fighting drags on, the more it complicates his own political calculus.
One such complication was Israel’s strike on Doha, capital of Qatar, a US ally which hosts Hamas negotiators. The stated aim was to eliminate Hamas leaders. That failed, and Benjamin Netanyahu retroactively rebranded it as a “signal.” The message was blunt: there are no safe havens for radicals, and Israel does not recognize anyone’s right to harbor them.
Diplomatic niceties no longer restrain Israel. Military superiority, backed by US indulgence, is the only currency.
Almost a week after the strike, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation gathered in Doha to denounce the aggression. They even threatened to seek Israel’s suspension from the United Nations. Everyone knew it was theatre. Such a measure is impossible to enact. Even if it were, Israel would continue to act as it pleases, protected by its own strength and by American backing.
The larger truth is stark: in the second quarter of the 21st century, the Palestinians remain hostages to a stalemate that no diplomacy can resolve. Israel seized the justification handed to it by Hamas two years ago. The October 7 massacre gave cover for military campaigns that would once have been condemned. Now, the restrictions are gone.
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is fighting on seven fronts and ready to expand, it is not just bluster. These are declared objectives.
Trump’s slogan “peace through strength” has reached its purest form in Israel. The decades-old fiction of a two-state solution – forcing Israel to yield territory while coaxing the Palestinians into constructing a pseudo-state – has collapsed. No one can admit openly that it failed, but the failure is undeniable.
Israel today calculates only in terms of force. Collateral damage and diplomatic fallout do not enter the equation. Its military and technical edge is unquestioned, its opponents badly weakened. No state dares to intervene directly on their behalf. Regional players – Arab monarchies, even Türkiye – have read the balance of power and refuse to gamble.
For America’s allies, the lesson is clear. When push comes to shove, Washington’s loyalty to Israel outweighs any other relationship in the region. Trump scolded Netanyahu for the Qatar strike, but nothing followed. It is hard to believe Washington was ignorant of the plan. At best, it chose not to interfere.
The Gulf monarchies are learning that money alone cannot purchase security. Their strategy of buying protection will continue, but the price is rising in a multipolar world.
Should Israel be considered the victor? Its enemies are weaker, and the deterrent message is unmistakable: it’s better not to provoke such a neighbor. Yet “peace through strength” locks Israel into permanent readiness for war. Perhaps Israel has never lived otherwise. But rarely has it displayed such disdain for diplomacy – even with its own patron, whom it now confronts with faits accomplis.
The moral argument that once shielded Israel is also eroding. The state founded by victims of one of history’s greatest atrocities long enjoyed a unique legitimacy. Today, the habit of equating every foe with Nazi criminals convinces fewer and fewer people. Against the backdrop of relentless military operations, that appeal fades.
If the struggle in the Middle East becomes a raw contest among local powers, Israel will remain dominant for now – the most ruthless player on the board. But reliance on force as the only language cannot last forever. It will hold until someone stronger emerges, or until Washington’s priorities shift.
For the moment, there are no obstacles in Israel’s path. That, perhaps, is the most telling sign of how the “liberal world order” has decayed – and of how a multipolar reality has already arrived.
This article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
