Lew Rockwell Institute

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; White women are the crown jewel of human civilization. God’s most spectacular creation. How many men have lived and died in the hope of attaining their affection? This is a critique, but also a genuine love letter. You turn our heads. You make us do heroic, dangerous, and foolish things.

Little White boys all like to show off in front of little White girls. I don’t know, I suppose with the “diversification” of this country, maybe little White boys now show off to little girls of color, too. Maybe they even show off to the “transitioned” they/thems as well. But speaking traditionally, it was the pretty White female who caused White males to spring to their defense. To proudly wear a “shiner” in their honor. True, few have thrown their coats over a puddle since the days of Sir Walter Raleigh, but that instinct still exists. Even if it’s been weakened considerably with the targeting of testosterone via poisons in the food, water, and vaccines. Neither males nor females are what they once were, in this cold, dystopian world of America 2.0. Every poll shows that White women consider marriage and children far down on their list of priorities, while White males still consider it a top priority.

That has become the gist of the problem here. Generally speaking, White women are far more liberal politically than White males are. We’ve all heard the factoid about every state in the Union being red if just males voted, and every state blue if just females voted. That’s a real clash of philosophy. If you and your spouse literally vote for different people, what does that say about your relationship? Men and women see the world through different lenses now. I don’t think that’s by accident, and I don’t believe it’s a natural occurrence based on gender. A majority of White women are at least sympathetic to the “transgender” agenda, while few White males outside of those married to activist females do. If you follow any news story on battles between mothers and fathers over the “transitioning” of their poor child, it is always the White mother pushing it. Sometimes, both parents are deluded enough to support it, but you will never find a case of the father alone trying to “transition” their child.

I wrote much about how programmed females have been for a very long time, by a corrupt media that knows they are far easier targets, in my book Bullyocracy. During the 1950s, White women were conditioned to be attracted to the “bad boy,” which was exemplified by the James Dean-type of “rebel” figure. Countless films, television shows, and best selling books drummed home the theme that girls were “naturally” attracted to this type, and not the nice, clean-cut “boy next door.” Bad boys were “exciting,” and the Boomer girls learned that the last thing they wanted was to be “bored.” Nice guys are boring. And they finish last, as we all know. In more recent times, White girls have been brainwashed to think nonwhite males, especially Blacks, are “hot” and super manly. You can see this message drummed home in countless commercials and other products from Hollywood. They’re the ultimate “bad boy.” Although it’s “racist” to call them boys. Now it’s “bad, grown ass men.”

The fact that females vote the way they do, whether or not those votes are honestly counted, proves how effective all those years of propaganda have been. I’ve talked about how so many young White girls were impacted by Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird, and the film adaptation starring Gregory Peck. Peck’s Atticus Finch character was based on Lee’s father, who in real life was apparently a typically “racist” southerner of his era. And some believe the book was actually written by Truman Capote, a close friend of the Lees. It is decidedly odd that Lee never wrote any novels in the wake of this smashing success, until many decades later. Writers don’t do that. However you look at it, the book/film was disinformation. It wasn’t based on a true story. And it’s no accident that it’s a little girl, charmingly named Scout, who finds her political conscience in fiercely defending the falsely accused Black man. I can’t count the number of girls I’ve met who loved To Kill a Mockingbird. It was marketed to them.

While “bad boy” Marlon Brando burst upon the scene in The Wild One, disastrous conflicting messages were emanating from Hollywood. Both How to Marry a Millionaire and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes encouraged girls to use their looks to attain the wealth of men, and revel in gaudy materialism. How big of a rock did he get you, girlfriend? The engagement ring is one of the most frivolous expenses imaginable. The tradition of paying what is probably a young man’s entire savings, or a big chunk of his credit card limit, so that his bride to be can impress all her girlfriends, only exists because of females. Men understand how wasteful this is, when the funds could much more intelligently be spent on practical things like closing costs for a home, or a new car. Something substantial. Women have been conditioned into valuing empty materialism like expensive jewelry, or endless vacations. A White woman who doesn’t love traveling is as rare as a Jewish janitor. Destination wedding, baby!

This whole money loving female persona was honed to such perfection in early Hollywood that they produced a series of “Gold Diggers” films for them. Few if any females seemed offended at being referred to in this way. They undoubtedly would be deeply offended at the term now, but it hasn’t stopped them from often acting exactly like…gold diggers. I don’t know how many gold diggers there were on the old frontier, but I’m pretty sure that few nineteenth century average men felt pressured to spend most of their money on a bauble for their sweetheart’s finger. And if your wife lost her ring, you couldn’t really get mad at them. I think Lucy dropped hers down the sink, if I remember my sitcoms correctly. Just buy them another one. What are you, a cheapskate? The culture nurtured a stronger materialistic bent in females than males. Generally. Of course, there are always plenty of exceptions. But no high profile woman is ever going to publicly condemn jewelry and such as pointless materialism.

Females have an innate empathy that is stronger than that found in most males. But that empathy has been gradually rechanneled, towards animals like cats and dogs. For White females specifically, these emotions are directed towards nonwhite males. They have learned first to feel sorry for nonwhite males, and then eventually to be sexually attracted to them. White condescension. If this just happened naturally, who could object? Love who you want. But there’s nothing natural about this same theme being drummed home incessantly by all the platforms in our decadent culture. This is clearly something that someone wants to happen. Who would be so interested in interracial relationships increasing? To push it so relentlessly in all media for so long? Sure, it’s nice if we all get along. Because the percentage of Whites in the U.S. population has fallen dramatically, there’s going to be more interracial socialization. By conquest or consent, as a conspirator once declared about One World government.

Feminism was created for White women. It was never about stopping females from being exploited, because by any measure the Western world has always treated women better than any other societies. It wasn’t that long ago that little Chinese girls had their feet broken, and stuffed into shoes too small for them, to keep them from journeying far from home. You’ll never heard a feminist talk about the submissive nature of Asian women. They won’t touch the barbaric female circumcision in Africa. Muslim women may have to cover their faces, but what about that redneck in the wife-beater? That’s why feminism only bad mouthed White men. Not for breaking little girl’s feet, or butchering them with circumcision, but because they enjoyed having their wives cook for them. In America, men held every door open for women, literally. They exalted them, placed them on pedestals. They were “my better half.” Men joked with each other about “the boss.” Everyone knew “the boss” was usually the wife.

Read the Whole Article

The post The White Women Conspiracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Former Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn decried the “assault on Christianity” in the United States, citing the “staggering” number of Catholic churches that have been attacked in recent years.

Flynn, in a recent interview with Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, shared how he learned that over 500 Catholic churches in the United States had suffered damage from attacks, including arson.

“The targeting, the fear, the intimidation, it’s all designed to silence people of faith,” Flynn wrote on X, commenting on the rash of violence. “Fear is a weapon that only works if we let it.”

What we’re seeing across America is a direct assault on Christianity.

Over 500 Catholic churches have been damaged or burned since 2021, and yet few are talking about it. The targeting, the fear, the intimidation, it’s all designed to silence people of faith.

Fear is a weapon… pic.twitter.com/xTcmE4k1lP

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) October 7, 2025

“‘Cause you think Jewish synagogues are going to be the ones that are targeted, and they are, but … the bigger issue is the assault on Christianity,” said Flynn, a Catholic.

Indeed, attacks on Christian churches, and especially Catholic churches, have exploded since the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

A Family Research Council (FRC) report from August identified 1,384 acts of hostility against Christian churches committed between January 2018 and December 2024. The evangelical group found that 50 crimes were committed in 2018, 83 in 2019, 55 in 2020 and 98 in 2021. However, in 2022, when Dobbs was leaked, the numbers of attacks more than doubled, hitting 198.

These hostile aggressions more than doubled again in 2023, reaching 485, before leveling off in 2024 with 415. Of the 2024 number, the majority of incidents were vandalism (284). There were 55 cases of arson, 28 gun-related crimes, and 14 bomb threats.

Focusing specifically on Catholic churches, American advocacy group CatholicVote (CV) has maintained an interactive map that tracks violent attacks on churches throughout the U.S. since 2020 when mob violence related to the tragic death of George Floyd ensued across the nation.

Having updated this resource on October 8, the organization documented that “at least 533 attacks against Catholic churches in the United States” have occurred since May 28, 2020.

These crimes included “acts of arson which damaged or destroyed historic churches; spray-painting and graffiti of satanic messages; rocks and bricks thrown through windows; statues destroyed (often with heads cut off); and illegal disruptions of Mass.”

CatholicVote also document the sharp rise in such crimes after the leaked Dobbs decision.

Suggesting widespread motivations of anti-Christian hostility behind such terrorist acts, the group reports that “while a handful of the attacks have included thefts, the vast majority have only involved property destruction, indicating that the primary motive is not material gain.”

Flynn suggested to O’Keefe that Christians should not respond to these attacks with fear but should instead take action. He stressed that local action “equals” national impact.

“Every citizen has a duty to stand, speak, and serve,” said Flynn, going on to share that he often asks people when they thank him for his military service, “How are you serving your community, family?”

“And then if you’re doing that, you’re serving our country,” he said.

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post Gen. Michael Flynn Denounces ‘Assault on Christianity’ in the US appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have labeled Putin’s conduct of war in Ukraine a strategic blunder that has ever-widened the war and is on the verge of spiraling out of control if Trump delivers nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.  The way Putin has conducted the war, now approaching four years in duration, has maximized Russian casualties.  Putin stupidly never permitted the Russian military to cut the train lines between Poland, Lvov, and Kiev, thus permitting unrestricted inflow into Ukraine of US and NATO weapons and men to the war front as well as the Ukrainian attack and occupation of Russia’s Kursk region.  

In other words, Putin did nothing to degrade Ukraine’s ability to fight a war.  He even left the neo-Nazi government in Kiev unmolested.

In his latest John Helmer seems to say that Putin’s unserious approach to war is becoming an issue in Russia, resulting in Putin’s removal of some restrictions on the General Staff’s conduct of the war. 

Gilbert Doctorow recently reported that there is now talk in Russia about moving Putin aside in favor of a more aggressive leader who will get the war over with.  On a recent program Doctorow discussed who some of these leaders might be. See also this.

I welcome the realism that Helmer and Doctorow are adding to my longtime efforts.  We have progressed on a path to nuclear war because Putin never demonstrated Russian resolution by quickly terminating Ukraine’s ability to continue the war.  The US took advantage of Putin’s irresolution to increase the number and severity of provocations.  Putin’s response has been to deny that they are provocations. He declared the attack on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet “an act of terrorism,” not an act of war.  As for Washington sending Tomahawk missiles, Putin and his foreign minister say the Tomahawks change nothing on the battlefield, an extraordinary claim as the range of the Tomahawks widens and deepens the battlefield by 1,000 miles.

These weak responses from Putin and Lavrov are not responses likely to deter more provocations.  Trump now speaks of Putin as a paper tiger and of Russia as a country that Zelensky can defeat.

In the West the understanding of the dangerous situation is limited and colored by those who are willing to give Putin the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that the war was forced on him by Washington and those who believe their own demonization of Russia, aiming for Russia’s destruction.  Non-partisan objective analysis of the situation has been rare.  Since neither Washington nor Moscow have an understanding of the mistakes they are making, the chances are rising that war will resolve the issue.

The War Continues Because Putin Refuses to Use the Force to End It

Gilbert Doctorow declares that he has abandoned his support for the way Putin is conducting his ever-widening, never-ending war in Ukraine as it is likely leading to the outbreak of major war.

The post It Looks Like It Will Be War That Resolves the Conflict Between the West and Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Sometime in 2026 a NASA project called Artemis II will send four astronauts to the moon and back.  Unlike the Apollo missions of the past century the Artemis crew will be diverse in gender and race.  In Greek mythology Apollo had a twin sister, Artemis, who was “the goddess of forests, hills, wild animals, childbirth, virginity, and the moon.”  In case you thought governments lacked ingenuity, naming the Apollo sequel “Artemis” explodes that myth.

The original Apollo missions were suspect in some quarters because of alleged insurmountable obstacles of a manned moon mission, but the rebuttals are consistent with science.  One of the problems was getting the astronauts through the Van Allen belt without killing them from intense radiation, an argument disposed of neatly with a single word, firewalking.

The Apollo program had its roots with the October 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, “the world’s first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth’s orbit.”  Fear of a Soviet ICBM nuclear attack frightened American authorities, who also felt a profound humiliation from being trounced by communists.  A year later President Eisenhower signed NASA into existence, and the space race was on.

From 1961 to 1964, NASA’s budget was increased almost 500 percent, and the lunar landing program eventually involved some 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors.

The Soviets made four failed attempts to put astronauts on the moon between 1969 and 1972, and with the success of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969 and subsequent lunar landings, the US could claim “victory” in the space race.

One of the reasons given for the race was to show the superiority of capitalism over communism.  But capitalism was a no-show for Apollo.  The federal government taxed free market participants to pay for the “flags and footprints” of the moon missions.  NASA and other Apollo defenders argue that the program’s impact “on our daily lives is almost incalculable. . . . In 1975, just three years after the last Apollo mission, the program’s return on investment was estimated at 15 to 1. By now [2019] it’s off the charts.”

In searching for benefits, we need to remember Apollo was not a market venture, but a government program.  It did not have an ROI because there were no investors, only taxpayers.  Advancements in computing, communications, and other tech products were already underway, and even if Apollo accelerated development the benefits weren’t distributed proportionately.  And like all government programs, tax funding leaves a residue of unknown lost opportunities for individual taxpayers.

People have complained that instead of spending the money on rocket ships the government should have spent it on social programs.  How about leaving the money with those who earned it and let them decide what to do with it?

According to NASA, the Artemis “campaign” is more inclusive than Apollo, relying on “men and women across America and around the world [for] building the systems to support missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.”  And unlike Apollo, its twin sister will seek to establish a permanent residency on the moon.

Whereas explorers after Columbus came to the Americas looking for gold, Artemis astronauts will be looking for ice.  “Lunar water ice is believed to reside within permanently shadowed regions, or PSRs, contained within super-chilly cold traps, where gasses can freeze to their solid form. . . [but there is] the scarcity of data supporting the prospect of utilizing water ice on the moon.”  NASA will deploy a Micro Nova Hopper — a propulsive drone — that jumps across the lunar surface looking for “hydrogen, a key indicator for the presence of water.”

What’s so important about lunar ice?  According to EarthSky,

Future lunar astronauts might be able to use the lunar ice for drinking water, oxygen (from the oxygen component of water), and even rocket fuel (hydrogen) without needing to transport large quantities from Earth.

Maybe Artemis will put a temporary halt to government’s wars, and in that sense it would be a good thing.  But Artemis is in competition with China, a country possibly more blackened than Russia in Western media.  Recently, “experts” told a Senate Commerce Committee that “Unless something changes, it is highly unlikely the United States will beat China’s projected timeline [of] making its first crewed lunar landing before 2030.”  Blame is currently placed on the “pace of development of SpaceX’s Starship, which will serve as the Artemis 3 lunar lander, and the need for multiple refueling missions to get Starship to the moon.”

Lost in most commentaries is the recognition that the US economy is running on fumes because of a growing and massive government debt fueled by fiat money and deficit spending, thereby darkening prospects for a space bonanza.

Some context for human ambitions

One can admire people for wanting to extend mankind’s reach to the stars.  It’s not just a dream, but necessary for our long-term survival.  But a free market approach is the only way we’ll get there and stay.  In this respect, the long-forgotten lesson of James J. Hill and his Northern Pacific Railway is instructive.  As Burt Folsom writes in The Myth of the Robber Barons, while the rush for railroad subsidies was going on, Hill

was building a transcontinental from St. Paul to Seattle with no federal aid whatsoever. Also, Hill’s road was the best built, the least corrupt, the most popular, and the only transcontinental never to go bankrupt. It took longer to build than the others, but Hill used this time to get the shortest route on the best grade with the least curvature. In doing so, he attracted settlement and trade by cutting costs for passengers and freight. Could it be that, in the long run, the subsidies may have corrupted railroad development and hindered economic growth?

A long run view is political suicide for today’s politicians.

The principles of economics that created a productive American society have been under attack since at least 1913 when government decided it needed to protect big bankers and have access to people’s income.  The disasters of economic crises and war, coupled with nonstop draining of private wealth through monetary inflation, have marked our history since then. More government spending even under the heading of ancient Greek heroes will not salvage our economy.

The post Going for Broke appeared first on LewRockwell.

Author’s Note: I wrote this essay in grief and fury, but above all in urgency. Gaza is not a metaphor — it is a place where children starve, hospitals collapse, and families vanish beneath rubble while the world debates terminology. The blockade is not a policy dispute; it is a strategy of annihilation. Two years in, we must resist the normalization of atrocity and demand that language, law, and conscience be reclaimed from the machinery of Israel’s impunity.

***

Gaza’s Siege Is Not a Means to an End, It Is the End

Two years into Israel’s war on Gaza, the enclave is unrecognizable. Israel has exterminated (no other word is as apt) over 67,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians. At least 20,000 children are among the dead. It has wounded more than 170,000, many with injuries more typical of combat soldiers than civilians. It has erased entire families in single airstrikes. Thousands of Palestinians remain missing under the rubble.

What kind of regime would then follow these atrocities by enforcing siege and blockade?

One might recall the Warsaw Ghetto, where Nazi forces not only confined Jewish civilians but also subjected them to starvation, disease, and relentless bombardment — culminating in mass extermination. Yet even that horror, as historically singular as it was, did not unfold under the pretense of humanitarian concern or democratic self-defense.

The difference here lies in the rhetorical inversion: a state claiming liberal values enacts a total blockade on food, water, and medicine, while simultaneously insisting it is targeting only combatants. The siege is not a prelude to atrocity — it is its continuation. It does not merely set the stage for violence; it is violence enacted through deprivation, isolation, and slow erasure. Every denied shipment of medicine, every bombed bakery, every fisherman chased from Gaza’s waters is not preparation for war — it is war. The blockade is not a temporary measure awaiting resolution; it is the resolution itself, designed to collapse a society from within. It transforms daily life into a battlefield, where survival becomes resistance and starvation becomes strategy. In Gaza, atrocity is not a moment — it is a system. And the siege is its most enduring form.

And unlike historical parallels where regimes sought to erase evidence, here the destruction is livestreamed, archived, and debated in real time, yet met with impunity.

The War on Life Itself

And then, as if the devastation of homes and lives were not enough, Israel turns its cruelty toward the very systems meant to preserve life. It has systematically destroyed infrastructure, damaging or obliterating over 90% of homes, deliberately rendering hospitals barely functional.

Only 14 out of 38 remain open, most operating at over 200% capacity. Medical supplies are at zero stock for over half of essential drugs. Cancer patients, dialysis patients, and pregnant women are dying not from illness, but from blockade-induced neglect.

The targeting of hospitals and the engineered collapse of medical infrastructure is not collateral — it is policy. It transforms treatable conditions into death sentences, making survival itself a form of resistance.

Starvation as Strategy

If there was a fleeting moment of relief for Gaza’s fishermen, it came during the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla in early October. As Israeli naval forces turned their attention to detaining over 450 activists from 42 countries, Gaza’s fishermen seized the distraction.

“We hauled in fish for the first time in months,” one man said, “but only because they were busy arresting foreigners.”

Videos showed men dragging heavy nets ashore as crowds cheered — a rare moment of sustenance under siege. But that window has slammed shut. During the second wave — the Addameer-led Freedom Flotilla — Israel intensified its blockade.

“This time, they [Israeli navy] didn’t leave the coast,” said Ahmed Bakr. “They chased us back before we even touched the water. It’s like they want us to starve and disappear.”

Israel is not just starving Gaza — it is engineering starvation. It blocks aid trucks, rejects basic supplies, bombs distribution sites, and manipulates the narrative. In July 2025, Israel allowed only 28 aid trucks per day — down from 600 during the January ceasefire. UNRWA confirmed it had enough food in Egypt to feed Gaza for three months. Israel refused to let it cross. On July 19, Israeli forces shelled a food distribution site in Gaza City, killing 49 and wounding 270. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in August 2024 that it might be “moral and just to starve Gaza” to retrieve hostages. A year later, that policy is reality.

The UN declared famine in northern Gaza in August 2025. Over 460 people, including 154 children, have died from hunger. Water access has collapsed: one million people receive less than six liters of drinking water per day. Cropland is 91% destroyed. Fishing is banned. Bakeries are bombed. Aid convoys are blocked or fired upon.

One might recall the Allied bombing of German cities during World War II, particularly Dresden, where civilian infrastructure — including hospitals — was obliterated in firestorms. Yet even in that case, the destruction was framed as part of a broader military campaign against an industrial war machine, not as a sustained siege designed to starve and medically isolate a captive population.

What distinguishes Gaza is the precision of its isolation: the blockade ensures no medicine enters, no fuel powers generators, no ambulances reach the wounded. It is not war as clash of armies, it is war as slow suffocation, where the absence of care becomes a weapon. Israel has barred international journalists from entering Gaza since May and killed over 100 Palestinian journalists. Western media reports “clashes” and “complexity” while Gaza burns.

Humanitarian Aid as Provocation

And when the siege tightens to the point of famine, even the possibility of external relief is treated as a threat. The interception of humanitarian flotillas — most notably the 2010 Mavi Marmara, and again now in 2025 with ships carrying food, water, and medical aid — reveals the extent to which Israel enforces not just territorial control but the denial of sustenance itself.

These flotillas, often organized by civil society groups and international coalitions, are met not with coordination but with military force. Their interception and the detention of their passengers are not a defensive maneuver — they are a declaration that starvation is strategic.

Historically, one might compare this to the British naval blockade of Germany during World War I, which led to widespread civilian hunger and malnutrition. Yet even that blockade, brutal as it was, operated within the framework of declared war between states.

Gaza’s blockade is imposed on a stateless, occupied population, with no army, no navy, and no escape. The difference is not only legal — it is moral. Where past blockades sought to pressure governments, this one seeks to collapse a society. And when boats carrying flour and antibiotics are treated as provocations, it becomes clear: the siege is not a means to an end. It is the end. Not a tactic to pressure leadership, not a temporary measure to secure borders, but a sustained architecture of annihilation.

The Architecture of Annihilation

And as Gaza burns — its children buried beneath rubble, its hospitals turned to morgues —

Trump fiddles, cloaked in the language of peace. His so-called “Deal of the Century” did not offer a roadmap to justice or dignity; it offered a blueprint for permanent dispossession.

By legitimizing Israeli annexation, fragmenting Palestinian territory into disconnected enclaves, and denying the right of return, the plan reframed apartheid as negotiation. It did not extinguish the fire — it poured accelerant on it, codifying siege as diplomacy.

While Gaza starves, Trump stages press conferences. On September 28, 2025, he unveiled a 20-point “peace initiative” alongside Netanyahu. The plan promises reconstruction, ceasefires, and hostage exchanges — but only if Hamas disarms and relinquishes control. Trump warned of “complete obliteration” if Hamas refuses. Netanyahu called it “a great deal for Israel.”But for Palestinians, the initiative is not a path to peace — it is a demand for surrender. It offers conditional relief in exchange for political erasure, framing basic human needs as bargaining chips. The promise of reconstruction is dangled as reward for relinquishing sovereignty, while the threat of annihilation looms as punishment for resistance. It rebrands siege as diplomacy, and coercion as negotiation. For Palestinians, it is not a deal — it is a decree: accept permanent subjugation or face continued extermination.

And while the cameras rolled in Washington, Israeli forces bombed Gaza City, blocking aid convoys, shelling hospitals and killing children by hunger. The plan was not coordinated with Palestinian leadership. It was diplomacy as spectacle — negotiation without negotiation, peacekeeping without peace.

Trump’s team called the plan “historic.” But it ignored the siege, the starvation, the mass graves. It offered no accountability for war crimes, no restitution for stolen gas, no justice for the dead. It was a press release dressed as policy.

The Addameer ship, named for conscience in Arabic, carried more than crutches and baby formula — it carried a moral indictment. On board were activists, medics, and artists from dozens of countries, each bearing witness to the blockade not with weapons, but with supplies and solidarity. The ship’s cargo was modest: powdered milk, antibiotics, mobility aids. But its symbolism was immense. It sailed not to provoke, but to affirm that Gaza’s suffering is not invisible, and that conscience can cross borders even when aid cannot. Israel intercepted it in international waters, detaining its passengers and confiscating its contents. Yet the Addameer did not fail — it exposed. It revealed the extent to which humanitarianism itself is criminalized when directed toward Palestinians. It showed that in a world numbed by spectacle, a ship of conscience can still rupture the silence. It sails, it resists, it refuses to be silenced — not because it expects permission, but because it demands accountability.

Trump’s conscience is not alive — it is outsourced to spectacle, where threats of obliteration masquerade as diplomacy and starvation becomes a bargaining chip.

The Legal Order’s Spectatorship

Meanwhile, the UN and the international legal order perform their own symphony of fiddling. Resolutions are passed, statements are issued, and commissions are formed, yet none interrupt the Israeli machinery ofblockade. The very institutions tasked with upholding humanitarian law have become spectators to its erosion.

Gaza is not just besieged by tanks and drones — it is besieged by Israeli impunity and by the Palestinian exception to justice. The siege persists not because the world lacks evidence, but because it has carved out an exemption from accountability for Israel’s actions, and a parallel exemption from protection for Palestinians.

International law, which promises universality, fractures at the point of Palestine. The right to resist occupation, the prohibition against collective punishment, the protection of civilians — all are suspended, rewritten, or ignored when applied to Gaza.

This suspension extends beyond land and into the sea, where Israel’s actions violate not only moral codes but binding international law. Since 2007, Israel has enforced on the Gaza strip an illegal shifting maritime boundary — sometimes 6 nautical miles, sometimes 3 — well below the 20 miles agreed under Oslo.

The interception of humanitarian flotillas in international waters — far outside Israel’s territorial jurisdiction — constitutes piracy under maritime law, yet it is rarely named as such. Likewise, the repression of Gaza’s fishermen within waters legally designated as Palestinian under the Oslo Accords breaches both the Law of the Sea and the principle of sovereign access to natural resources. Israel shells Palestinian boats, seizes them and sinks them, not for crossing into Israeli territory, but for existing in Gaza’s own maritime space.

Meanwhile, just beyond the reach of Gaza’s nets, Israel drills for gas in the Gaza Marine field — estimated to hold over 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Palestinians are denied access to their own maritime resources, while Israel signs billion-dollar export deals with Egypt and Europe. The blockade is not just territorial. It is economic theft, ecological sabotage, and generational punishment. The bombardment is genocide.

These acts are not defensive, they are imperial. And the silence of legal bodies in the face of such blatant illegality signals not a failure of enforcement, but a refusal to apply the law where Palestinians are concerned.

A System Bent Beyond Recognition

This exception is not accidental; it is engineered through decades of diplomatic shielding, legal obfuscation, and rhetorical inversion. When Palestinians invoke international law, they are accused of politicizing it. When Israel violates it, it is framed as self-defense.

The result is a legal order that functions not as a shield for the vulnerable, but as a scaffold for the powerful. Gaza’s siege is not merely a military strategy — it is a test of whether the international system can be bent so far that it no longer recognizes the humanity of those it was designed to protect.

And so far, the answer is yes.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Gaza’s Blockade Is Not a Temporary Measure Awaiting Resolution; It Is the Resolution Itself. ‘Starvation as Strategy’ appeared first on LewRockwell.