SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Funeral Held For Students And Staff Killed In School In Southern Iran
Further

Shit, Here We Go Again: War By Cartoon Sociopaths

In the second week of an inept narcissist's spiraling war - not even of choice but of whim - that's killed over 2,000 people and wreaked widespread havoc, almost as grotesque as the witless carnage itself is the "slopaganda" issuing almost daily from a White House evidently run by 14-year-old gamers who splice real combat footage with Call of Duty-esque video games to create banal war porn celebrating "JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY." Millions of us wanna know: "What the fuck is wrong with you people?

"Under Trump we will have no more wars - I am peace," once intoned the hollow reality-show specter now spreading mindless death, terror and economic mayhem across 12 countries. To date, US and Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 2,000 people across the Middle East, mostly civilians, and over 1,100 children, including infants and toddlers, in what the UN calls "a catastrophic" situation. In Tehran, bombs have struck at least four schools, strikes on oil refineries and storage facilities have blanketed the city in dark smoke and black rain in what many view as a Gaza-like genocidal attack on infrastructure, and historic heritage sites have been bombed in what experts call "a declaration of war on civilization," with no end in sight.

It's clear from Trump's flailing rhetoric he didn't expect or plan for a war, just a fast, hard, "kill their leader and they fold" move like Venezuela (which is def not Iran) so they could pick a pliable new leader. But everything he touches dies: After sloppily killing all their own choices for successors, they instead got the far more extremist, angrier son Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, a hardliner with close ties to Iran's most ideologically rabid, repressive clerics - and, after Trump's blithe assertion he'll kill him too, with nothing to lose. The outcome, deemed "the blueprint for a generational blood war," also pissed off rich Gulf states who've been courting him with investment pledges. One Dubai oligarch "at the heart of a danger (we) did not choose": “Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war?”

The slapdash incompetence of his "little excursion to keep us out of a war" quickly exposed an erratic take on what he actually called his "performance" not governance, more improv than strategy. The rationale kept shifting - no nuclear weapons, people free, regime change - as did the language: A "47-year-conflict" became an "imminent threat." ("Words, what are they for?") The promise Iranians' "future is yours to take" became a demand for imaginary "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" He bounced ideas off journalists, didn't expect the resulting energy debacle and spread to neighboring states, ignored likely consequences - what oil? - had no contingency plans and rebuffed allies: To the UK's offer of help: "We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!” Despite all his professed "reasons," most voters still think he made a war to deflect from a pedophile bestie.

Not so fast, said Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian, who warned their enemies “must take their dream of the Iranian people’s unconditional surrender to their graves." Then he apologized to neighboring countries for strikes against their U.S. bases. In response, Trump crowed they were ready "to cry uncle" and declared it "the first time Iran has ever lost in thousands of years." MAGA voted for an isolationist America First leader; they got a raging, idiotic, ignorant warmonger who launched more military attacks on more countries in a year than any president, and who doesn't give a shit about Americans. Asked if we should be worried about retaliatory attacks from Iran, he shrugged, "I guess...When you go to war, some people will die.” Aka, whatever. But lookit these cool, macho videos celebrating Epic Fury!

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Within days, the White House, or the puerile gamesters running their social media account, moved on from simply glorifying the violence to transforming it into video games, “gamifying" it by seamlessly merging video footage of actual U.S. strikes and explosions with bellicose clips from Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat. They also interspersed real kill-footage with popular action flicks and TV shows - Braveheart, Gladiator, Top Gun, Iron Man, even Saul Goodman and Walter White: "I am the danger" - complete with relentless, churning techno music to get your jingoistic heart racing. The result, both cringey and chilling, is to render real-life pain, blood, death, grief, terror, destruction, displacement mere cartoon entertainment, stripped of humanity, unworthy of empathy.

In a rare move, the gaslighting profanity of the videos prompted a "call to conscience" from Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, who decried the "profound moral failure" they represent. Seeing "real war with real death and real suffering treated like a video game" was "sickening," he wrote, war and its brutality become "a spectator sport" and a moral crisis. "Our government (is) thrilled by the destructive power of our military, addicted to the 'spectacle' of explosions," he wrote. "The American people are better than this." Maybe, some of them. But the malignant narcissist with a puerile, warped, self-serving world view and fanboys marveling at the capture of Maduro as "the most gangster thing I've seen in my life" are still hideously, obliviously "locked in" to the atrocities.

So are, of course, his loyal buffoonish minions, strutting and gloating over America's bloody, illegal "victories." "We're marching through the world," declared giddy, craven lickspittle Lindsay Graham to a laughing Maria Bartiromo on Fox. "We’re clearing out the bad guys." All praise to "Ronald Reagan plus," "the greatest commander in chief of all time." He doesn't want "a fair fight," just "a quick one," he said, joining the bully ranks, and to make lots of money. Committed to being the cringiest cheerleader on the vile team, he even brought props; he waves "inane Make Iran Great Again" and "Free Cuba" hats, and smirks, "Stay tuned." Oh puke. Who asked America to clear out the bad guys? Who thinks what we need is a hat-based foreign policy? Idiotic hubris, thy name is.

Meanwhile, insufferable Press Barbie Stepford, her little Christian cross front and center, has gone full, smug, North Korea agit-prop. What does Trump's imaginary “unconditional surrender" mean, she is asked. She yammers at length, dragging out the titles in an effort to bolster her gobbledygook: "It means that when President Trump, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, determines that Iran no longer poses a threat to the United States of America and the goals of Operation Epic Fury has (sic) been fully realized, whether they say it themselves or not." And as the blessed leader of MAGA, she adds breezily, there may or may not be boots on the ground in Iran; "President Trump wisely keeps all his options on the table." And bring on the video games.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Most repulsive is smarmy, abusive, chest-thumping Christo-fascist and "day-drunk dipshit" Kegseth, who finally got a war to go with his puerile bravado. Preening in his greasy hair and patriotic pocket square, he vows to "unleash overwhelming and punishing violence,” revels in "death and destruction from the sky," brags, "America is winning - decisively, devastatingly and without mercy," and gloats of the "quiet death" - and war crime - of 87 Iranian sailors killed when a US torpedo hit their unarmed frigate heading home from a training exercise the US took part in. A lethal "broken boy in a costume," he's reviled by peers for his bombastic language and "moral depravity." One advocate calls him "a very dangerous person," "out of his depth," "cavalier, obtuse and so incompetent I wouldn’t feel safe leaving him in charge of a DoorDash order."

Despite all that - and reports of Pentagon excess topping $93 billion spent in one month, under use-it-or-lose-it funding rules, on furniture, ice cream machines, sushi prep tables, iPads, king crab, lobster tail, steak, doughnuts - still there he was, pig-eyed, smirking, loathsome, ostensibly assuring us not to worry about Russia reportedly giving Iran intel on American troops, because "the president has an incredible knack at mitigating those risks." "Nobody's putting us in danger," he sneered. "We're putting the other guys in danger - that's our job." Then he launched into a casual genocidal rant deemed "some really dark shit." Per Rumsfeld: You go to war with the sociopathic, bullying, self-declared Secretary of War you have, and the base war porn that goes with him.


And of course the imbecile who last weekend attended the "dignified transfer" of the senselessly dead Americans he's to blame for, wearing his undignified white USA golf cap because he cares more about his "hair." He eloquently noted "I hate to do that" - see the dead, also muss his hair - but "it’s part of war. It's the bad part of war." Truth. Later, he was asked about the murder of up to 175 girls in an Iranian elementary school. Though the investigative Bellingcat and multiple news outlets confirmed a US Tomahawk missile hit the school - another war crime - Trump suggested, with no evidence, it may have been Iran; challenged why he thought so, he conceded he had no idea what he was talking about. Still, slimy Hegseth concurred: "The only side that targets civilians is Iran." And the only side to mistakenly kill 175 children is America.

Trump went golfing, then spoke at a GOP retreat at his friggin' golf club. He railed against Dems opposing the SAVE America Act, which would sabotage the mid-terms with new voting strictures: "It even has 'America' in its name," he whined, and Schumer is "now a Palestinian officially." He dismissed concerns about soaring gas prices, "a very small price to pay (for) World Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY," and warned Iran not to "try anything cute" to block the Strait of Hormuz, or "Death, Fire, and Fury will reign (sic) upon them." And still more war slopaganda streamed from a White House that touts killing as sport. Home runs in baseball, like missiles hitting targets, are "pure American dominance." Football = missile hits = "TOUCHDOWNS!", all, "JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY."

Iran, it turns out, also seeks their own justice. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced they do not want to harm ordinary Americans who oppose foreign wars like "Operation Epic Mistake,” but they will no longer seek diplomacy and they have "many surprises in store" if America keeps attacking their oil or nuclear sites. In response to our cartoon agitprop, they also released their own LEGO-style video - missiles, explosions, a whiteboard reading, "My homeland is my life." Comments: "Begun, the content wars have," "Who would've thought a country run by religious fanatics that propagates martyrdom would not just roll over upon being attacked?" and, "Maybe I shouldn't have wished to live in more interesting times." Also, "Even their AI slop is killing ours."

Trump, flailing in the face of political and economic blowback to a feckless, miscalculated war/not war against a potentially nuclear-armed nation of 91 million, is struggling to figure out how to end it, or at least randomly declare victory like in elections. We are awash in mixed messages. Hegseth on where are we now: "We're in a very strong place," "This is just the beginning," "Our will is endless." Trump, asked if it's over or just starting: "You could say both," "The war is very complete, pretty much," "I can end it whenever I want," though Iran has reportedly rejected two ceasefire offers, US intelligence sees "no imminent collapse" of their government, and the Strait of Hormuz is (predictably) both closed and lethal though Trump is "looking at it strongly." "It's going great," he says. "It is won, but not won enough." For once, he's right: We're tired from so much fucking winning.

It turns out the only imminent threat was, is Trump, writes David Rothkopf, who cites "the madness" of so many people around the world "buffeted by the psychosis of a single man," his "whims, impulses, ignorance, greed, malevolence, hatefulness, turning pique into economic pain, promoting the incompetent and monstrous to do his dirty work, seeking desperately to steal glory he does not deserve," and by shuttering US programs worldwide causing "the death of millions who simply had the misfortune to live in Trump's time." On Saturday, Country Joe McDonald died at 84 after a decades-long music career. Its touchstone was perhaps his furious performance, before nearly half-a-million people at 1969's Woodstock Festival, of his I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag, about another rich man's war and poor man's fight. May he, and too many others, rest in peace and power.

"And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?" - Country Joe McDonald

"Looking at what we are confronted with today, those most likely to argue they should hold a place above ordinary people are actually, in fact, the least of us, the most contemptible among us." - David Rothkopf

Update: The Pentagon has barred several news photographers from Kegseth's Iran war briefings after his aides found some earlier photos "unflattering," The Washington Post reported Wednesday. Thank goodness the purported leader of the world's largest military is laser-focused on his priorities in these apocalyptic times.

Iran's LEGO-themed agit-prop Iran's LEGO-themed agit-propScreengrab on X

- YouTube www.youtube.com

SEE ALL
AWS Data Center with worker inside
News

'A Big F*ck You to Big Tech': New Jersey Residents Defeat AI Data Center

The New Brunswick, New Jersey City Council voted Wednesday to cancel plans to construct an artificial intelligence data center and instead build a new public park where the 27,000-square foot facility would have gone.

Artificial intelligence data centers—which house the servers and other infrastructure needed to train and power AI models—have major environmental and climate impacts, as they consume massive amounts of electricity and water, as well as rare earth metals and other resources.

According to New Brunswick Patch, hundreds of people packed into Wednesday evening's city hall meeting to voice concerns that the proposed data center would send their electricity and water bills skyrocketing, and that the facility would harm the environment.

"Many people did not want this in their neighborhood," New Brunswick NAACP president Bruce Morgan said during the council meeting. "We don't want these kinds of centers that's going to take resources from the community."

The site of the nixed data center, 100 Jersey Avenue, is already slated for development including 600 new apartments—10% of which will be affordable housing units—and warehouses for startups and other small businesses. Now, thanks to Wednesday's vote, a park is on the agenda too.

"This is great news, no data center," New Brunswick resident Anne Norris told Patch.

"My kids went through the public school system; we didn't pay for lunch because we have so many families under the poverty line," Norris said before taking aim at what she said was the dearth of affordable housing approved for the site.

"Given the economic status of the people who live in New Brunswick, I don't think 10% is really sufficient," she contended.

Following the council meeting, jubilant residents celebrated the data center's cancellation, chanting slogans including, "The people united will never be defeated!"

"We say a big 'fuck you' to Big Tech!" local organizer Ben Dziobek shouted to the crowd. "We say a big 'fuck you' to private equity! And it's time to build communities, not data centers."

SEE ALL
‘Poor Jeff’: Sanders Ridicules Bezos-Owned Washington Post for Attacking Billionaire Tax Plan
News

‘Poor Jeff’: Sanders Ridicules Bezos-Owned Washington Post for Attacking Billionaire Tax Plan

Sen. Bernie Sanders mocked Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after the editorial board of the newspaper owned by the Amazon founder denounced his plan to tax billionaires' wealth.

In an opinion piece published Monday, the Washington Post editorial board accused Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored Sanders' wealth tax plan, of threatening to "strangle America’s golden goose" by hitting billionaires with an annual 5% wealth tax.

"Sanders wants to confiscate 5% of all assets every year from America’s billionaires, with the goal of stealing half their fortunes," the editorial complained. "He estimates, unrealistically, that this could raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years to fund a wish list of progressive fantasies, including something akin to a universal basic income and more government-managed healthcare."

The editorial then argued this was bad because "even for billionaires, a 5% tax on every asset they own would virtually wipe out any gains they make in a normal year," and would force them to sell off some illiquid assets such as "collections of wines, art, jewelry, and yachts" just to make their annual payments to the government.

The editorial concluded by claiming "Sanders and Khanna take as a given the capacity of American capitalism to deliver continuing prosperity, no matter how many anchors they weigh it down with," then warned that "economic history proves that future growth is never guaranteed."

In a social media post, Sanders mocked the Post editors for publishing an opinion piece defending the economic interests of their owner, whose current net worth is estimated by Forbes to be well north of $200 billion.

"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," Sanders wrote. "I wonder why? If enacted, Bezos would owe $12 billion in taxes, and an average family of four would receive a $12,000 direct payment. Poor Jeff would be left with just $224 billion to survive."

In a news article about the tax plan published by the Post Monday, Khanna was quoted as saying it was needed to address the historic disparities in wealth that have only grown over the last 50 years.

"This is Sen. Sanders' defining vision for our age," Khanna explained. "It is the most ambitious and transformative legislation for our times to tackle inequality in the New Gilded Age."

Wealth inequality has become so acute that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal in February published a news analysis declaring that billionaires' tax avoidance schemes were "becoming a problem for the economy."

The Journal last month also published an analysis of US wealth inequality by chief economics commentator Greg Ip showing that corporate profits’ share of gross domestic income is now the highest it has been in more than 40 years, while the share of income paid out in workers’ wages is at the lowest.

“Profits have soared since the pandemic, and the market value attached to those profits even more,” wrote Ip. “The result: Capital, which includes businesses, shareholders, and superstar employees, is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains.”

SEE ALL
Mike Johnson Defends GOP Colleague's Bigoted Attack on Muslims
News

Mike Johnson Defends GOP Colleague's Bigoted Attack on Muslims

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday defended a Republican colleague who made an explicitly bigoted attack on Muslims.

During a press conference at the US Capitol, Johnson (R-La.) was asked about remarks made by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who wrote a social media post on Monday declaring that "Muslims don't belong in American society."

Johnson indicated that he took issue with the tone of Ogles' statement, but defended its underlying sentiment.

"Look, I've spoken to those members, and all members, as I always do, about our tone and our message and what we say," Johnson began. "Look, there's a lot of energy in the country, a lot of popular sentiment, that the demand to impose Sharia law in America is a serious problem. That's what animates this."

Johnson provided no evidence that backed up his assertion that the potential imposition of Sharia, which is the legal system based on Islamic scriptures, is a "serious problem" in the US. The number of cities and states in the US that recognize the authority of Sharia is zero and there is no movement pushing to change that.

Johnson went on to say that Ogles "used different language than I would have used" when he said Muslims "don't belong" in the US, but he reiterated that the fears animating Ogles' remarks were "a serious issue."

"Sharia law, and the imposition of Sharia law, is contrary to the US Constitution," Johnson said, without offering any examples of Sharia being imposed in the US. "When you seek to come to a country and to not assimilate, but to impose Sharia law... that is the conflict that people are talking about. It is not about people, as Muslims, it is about those who seek to impose a different police system that is in direct conflict with the Constitution."

In fact, Ogles' post did not specify he was only opposed to the imposition of Sharia law. Rather, he flatly declared that "Muslims don't belong in American society."

Mehdi Hasan, editor-in-chief of Zeteo News, expressed disgust with Johnson's evasion about Ogles' bigoted statements.

"Rep. Ogles said Muslims don't belong in America," he wrote. "And this is all Speaker Mike Johnson can bring him to say in response??"

Journalist Laura Rozen was baffled by Johnson's attempt to justify Ogles' views.

"Who is demanding imposing Sharia law in America?" she asked.

Journalist Zaid Jilani conducted a thought experiment where he tried applying Johnson's defense of Ogles' attacks on Muslims to attacks on other religious minorities.

"If a member of Congress said that Jews shouldn't be let into America," Jilani wondered, "would Mike Johnson reply by saying, well I wouldn't use those words, but there's a lot of problems with the Talmud?"

SEE ALL
Masked federal agents stand in a hallway at the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court
News

In Latest Blow to Trump's Mass Deportation Plan, Judge Blocks Overhaul of Immigration Appeals

Immigrant rights advocates on Monday hailed a federal judge's ruling that blocked significant portions of President Donald Trump's proposed policy changes regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had been scheduled to go into effect this week and would have "eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases," according to rights groups.

In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss issued a late-night order on Sunday calling Trump's rule titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was proposed last month, “a fast-track mechanism for disposing of the vast majority” of immigration court appeals.

The proposed rule would have reduced the time immigrants have to file appeals from 30 days to just 10 days; required summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) 15 permanent members voted to accept the case for review within 10 days; and permitted case dismissals before records were transmitted to the board.

Moss said the administration had violated the legal requirement for the government to notify the public of its proposed changes to a federal rule and provide an opportunity for public comment. The Trump administration could potentially try again to change the immigration appeals process.

Laura St. John, legal director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, said the ruling "keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case."

"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."

"As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal," said St. John. "Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”

The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is one of several groups that sued the administration over the proposed rule, with Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center representing the plaintiffs.

St. John argued in court that it can take at least a week for advocacy groups to prepare materials and file an appeal to the BIA after it has determined a noncitizen can be deported. Forcing immigrants and their legal teams to file an appeal within 10 days would leave many without any "meaningful review" of their cases, St. John said.

While the Executive Office for Immigration Review claimed the new policy would swiftly reduce the backlog of cases before the BIA, Moss wrote in his opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions would "operate in combination to deprive almost all affected parties of the administrative appellate review 'that they were previously entitled to.'"

Erez Reuveni, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, said the decision "makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations."

Reuveni is a former Department of Justice lawyer who revealed in a whistleblower complaint last year that DOJ staffers had been advised by the Trump administration to ignore court orders in order to swiftly carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.

“Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights," he said. "We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”

The Department of Homeland Security has not regularly disclosed the number of people it is deporting under the Trump administration; internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data showed last year that more than 10,000 people were being deported per month.

Moss' ruling came less than a month after US District Judge Sunshine Sykes in the Central District of California threw out a BIA decision that endorsed the administration's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants with no criminal records who have been detained. A federal appeals court issued a temporary pause on that ruling last Friday after the White House appealed.

Mary Georgevich, a senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said Moss' ruling was "an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel."

"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated," she said, "all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."

SEE ALL
Raffi Berg legal action
News

Leftist Journalist Owen Jones Vindicated in Libel Case Over BBC's Biased Coverage of Gaza Genocide

British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."

The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.

The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.

Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.

It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"

"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."

The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."

The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.

Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.

He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.

Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.

In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.

"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.

SEE ALL