Credit: Edmond_spotteur

Has Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fled to Greece amid the military escalations with Iran?

Speculations and theories swirled online after Netanyahu’s official aircraft, known as the ‘Wing of Zion’, was spotted at the Athens airport on Friday afternoon, barely a few hours after Tel Aviv launched military strikes deep into Iranian territory.

Users on Platform X tracked the flight’s route, timing, and eventual landing in Greece using publicly available data from the aviation monitoring service FlightRadar24.

However, it was not clear whether Netanyahu or any of his family was on the plane.

In response to escalating hostilities, Greece’s highest foreign and defence policy council, KYSEA, was slated to convene under the leadership of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

Greece’s Foreign Ministry has issued a safety advisory to nationals in Israel, urging them to remain close to shelters and heed local authority instructions. The advisory comes as Israel shuts down its airspace and halts all flights at Ben Gurion Airport.

The Greek Crisis Management Unit has been activated, with emergency contact lines and embassy support available for citizens in Tel Aviv.

Athens stopover raises questions 

As tensions rise following Israel’s overnight strikes on Iran, the unexpected presence of Netanyahu’s aircraft in Athens has sparked intense speculation.

Observers point to several possible strategic motives behind the move, including enhanced security protocols and potential diplomatic or military planning.

One possible explanation is that the move serves as a preemptive safety measure. With the heightened risk of Iranian retaliation, Israeli authorities may be implementing enhanced security protocols to safeguard senior leadership.

Positioning Netanyahu’s aircraft in Athens could be a calculated step to remove it from potential missile or drone strike zones targeting Israeli air infrastructure.

There is also speculation that Netanyahu may have travelled to Athens with members of his family as a precautionary measure. In situations involving credible threats of retaliation, it is not unusual for national leaders to temporarily relocate key figures, particularly if intelligence suggests a heightened risk of targeted attacks.

While Israeli authorities have not confirmed his whereabouts, the timing and destination of the flight have raised questions about whether this move was part of a broader security strategy to shield the prime minister and his inner circle.

Israeli state aircraft “Wing of Zion” which flew Israel’s ambassador to Greece from Israel is seen at the Athens International airport / Reuters

A third possible explanation points to backchannel diplomatic efforts. Reports of US aircraft personnel being repositioned overnight suggest preparations for a potential Iranian counterstrike.

In this context, Athens may have been selected as a neutral and secure location for high-level, in-person coordination between Prime Minister Netanyahu and American military or intelligence officials.

With no official statement confirming Prime Minister Netanyahu’s location or the purpose of the flight, questions continue to mount over the true motive behind the Athens stopover.

Is this a protective measure in anticipation of further escalation, a discreet diplomatic engagement with Western allies, or a signal of deeper strategic manoeuvring?

Will Greece arrest Netanhayu?

There is also speculation whether Athens will act on the arrest warrant against Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) if the Israeli premier is indeed in Athens.

The ICC had issued warrants against Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

However, many pointed out Greece’s non-committal stance immediately after the ICC warrants, in November 2024.

In a press conference following the ICC’s announcement, Greek government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis refrained from confirming whether such a warrant would be enforced, stating instead that “such decisions do not help and will not solve any problems”.

Marinakis had drawn a distinction between Israel and other states under ICC scrutiny, arguing that Israel had suffered a terrorist attack and should not be equated with countries that initiated hostilities.

His remarks signalled Athens’ political position on the matter—critical of the ICC decision and supportive of Israel’s security narrative—making it highly improbable that Greek authorities would act on the warrant during Netanyahu’s stopover.
[…]

Via https://trt.global/world/article/26bf219546c4

Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, From Franklin to Kennedy Volume I 1750s to 1850s

By Anton Chaitkin (2020)

Book Review

(Part 2)

Although President Washington, like his friend Alexander Hamilton, strongly supported US industrialization, the presidents who followed him tended to support the interests of southern slave owners and New York bankers who profited more from a pre-industrial economy. In addition, British spies Aaron Burr and Albert Gallatin actively campaign to turn New York and Pennsylvania against the US government.

2. Washington served two terms (1789-1797). Under his term

• 1791 – Hamilton starts model industrial city in Patterson New Jersey.
• 1792 – Hamilton and his family begin building the Erie Canal.
• 1793 – Jefferson (a close associate of British intelligence chief Lord Shelbourne – see Hidden History: How Ben Franklin and Friends Create Britain’s Industrial Revolution) resigns as Washington’s Secretary of State and started the Democratic-Republican Party. Its main platform was free trade (opposing Hamilton’s tariffs) and states rights.2John Adams (1797-1801) generally opposed the pro-industrial policies favored by Hamilton and Washington

2. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) anti-industrialist

• 1802 – Previously opposing the establishment of a military academy at West Point (which provided essential engineering skills for US industrial revolution), Jefferson eventually signs off on it.
• 1804 – Aaron Burr kills Hamilton in a duel. Later charged with treason for organizing a conspiracy for New York to secede from US. Follow acquittal, he flees to the UK owing to outstanding murder charge.
• 1807 – British launch unprovoked attack on US naval vessel off the coast of Virginia. In response, US passes Embargo Act, which bans all overseas cargo. Big boon for US manufacturers who no longer have to compete with cheap British imports (Jefferson ha revoked Hamilton’s protective tariffs).

3. James Madison (1809-1817) anti-industrialist who tries, unsuccessfully, to shut down West Point

• 1812 – 1815 – Exasperated by ongoing attacks on northern states by British trained and funded native Americans, US declares war on Britain. Defeats and excludes British Navy from Great Lakes and ends Indian attacks from Canada. Following the truce, Britain immediately launches new trade war.
• 1815-18 West Point becomes unique source of American engineers, who perform all tkey surveys for railroad development and hold all the chief railroad positions between 1823-29. The academy develops the first steam engine in the US and establishes a foundry that casts all the fittings for American water powered mills and steam engines, as well as all the army’s cannon and ammunition.

4. James Monroe (1817-1825) pro-industrialist

• Enacts 1824 Tariff Act and General Survey Act, which authorizes the president to use Army Corps of Engineers (from West Point) to undertake survey of all potential canals and roads of national significance.
• 1824-25 – Enacts federal subsidies to build a US canal system (to facilitate coal transport) as far south as Mississippi. Also begins railroad building and supports modern iron production. Monroe pro-industrialization efforts helped by pro-industry governors in North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia.

5. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) pro industrialist

• 1826 Tariff conference organized in Philadelphia by Pennsylvania Society for Promotion of Mechanics and Mechanical Arts. Would lead to tariff increases in 1828 to encourage investment in new forges.

6. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837). During first term, Jackson, who initially claimed to be pro-industry, continued federal support of railroad development.

• 1830-32 first electric motor and first long distance telegraph
• 1832 South Carolina Ordination of Nullification – South Carolina refuses to honor US tariff laws and threatens to secede if forced to do so.
• 1837 US experiences it first serious depression after Jackson vetoes bill to recharter National Bank of US (ending federal credit for fledgling industries and new infrastructure) and country returns to monetary system run by multiple private banks and speculators.

7. Martin Van Buren (1837-41) anti-industrialist

• 1837 Van Buren orders West Point to discontinue all involvement in railroad building

8. William Henry Harrison (1841) strong supporter of tariffs and American system, dies unexpectedly one month after taking office.

9. John Tyler (1841-1845) anti-industrialist slave owner from Virginia

• 1842 – pro-industrialists successfully push new tariff law through Congres and gain Tyler’s reluctant approval

10. James Polk (1845-1849) anti-industrialist

• 1847 production of iron had quadrupled when Polk triggers a depression by discontinuing tariffs
• 1848 Henry C Carey, son of pro-industrialist Irish-American Matthew Carey helps to found Republican Party (which elects Lincoln in 1860)

Viktor Mikhin

Anna Young

The Trump administration is barred from deporting and continuing to detain anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

New Jersey federal Judge Michael Farbiarz issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting federal officials from booting the Columbia University rabble rouser from the country, arguing that the admin’s reasoning that Khalil’s continued presence would pose a risk to foreign policy was not sufficient, according to court documents obtained by The Post.

Farbiarz ordered that the legal US resident be freed from custody as early as Friday, asserting that his continued detention is causing irreparable harm to his career, his family and his constitutional right to free speech.

The Department of Homeland Security has until Friday morning to appeal the decision.

Khalil – a 30-year-old green card-holding Palestinian born in Syria – was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at his Columbia-funded Manhattan apartment in March following a federal crackdown on anti-Israel demonstrators at university campuses nationwide.

The New York resident, who is also a citizen of Algeria, was then shipped off to a Louisiana migrant detention center – thousands of miles away from his lawyers and US citizen wife, who gave birth to their first child while he was awaiting deportation.

The Trump administration claims the new dad, who served as a spokesman for anti-Israel groups including Columbia University Apartheid Divest, engaged in activities “aligned to Hamas,” the Palestinian terror group.

The radical activist group is responsible for the riotous takeover at Columbia’s Hamilton Hall last April.

“When you advocate for violence, glorify and support terrorists that relish the killing of Americans, and harass Jews, take over buildings and deface property, that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement Wednesday following the ruling.

Khalil’s lawyers have been fighting the arrest both in immigration court and in New Jersey federal court — arguing that his seizure violated the First Amendment right to free speech, since the government allegedly targeted him for his anti-Israel activities.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security invoked an obscure law that allows a Secretary of State to deport noncitizens who potentially threaten US foreign policy.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously argued that Khalil’s presence undermines “US policy to combat antisemitism” and his participation in “antisemetic protests” fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students across the country.

He has also claimed that the Trump administration has authority to deport noncitizens whose presence hurts US foreign policy interests.

An immigration judge in Louisiana, where Khalil’s case is also being heard, ruled in April that he can be deported based on Rubio’s justifications, but Farbiarz, the federal judge, had temporarily blocked his deportation while the case played out.

A spokesperson for the White House reiterated Rubio’s claims in response to the judge’s ruling Wednesday.

“While in the United States, Khalil has consistently engaged in conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests including ongoing support for Hamas and harassment of Jewish students on campus,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “The law authorizes the Secretary of State to revoke green cards of individuals who pose a threat to American foreign-policy interests.”

Both the White House and the DHS said the admin plans to fight the ruling.

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2025/06/11/us-news/federal-judge-rules-anti-israel-activist-mahmoud-khalil-cannot-be-deported-or-detained-by-trump-admin/

“Families are scared not just for their loved ones’ safety, although that’s a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.”

Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to “mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy”, said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. “Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,” he said.

The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment.

Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being “obliterated” by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours’ drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a “trash heap” that was in danger of burning to the ground.

In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police have made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city’s mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities.

At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest.

Newsom has described the deployment as “a provocation, not just an escalation” and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulated photograph, later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water.

A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard and marines deployments, as well as disapproval of Trump’s immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Post poll published on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins.

Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as “shitty” – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach.

“Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,” Streyder described the message as saying. “This is quite the opposite.”

According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms.

“Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,” Goldbeck said. “Some were concerned that the marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.”

The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies.

“We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,” Streyder said. “The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response … It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.”

The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said.

After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there were bitter complaints among guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal border patrol. Several guardsmen took their own lives.

The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In one infamous episode during the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said “cover me”, meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe.

To the marines, though, “cover me” meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.

CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of his mixed feelings about the assignment: “The Marines’ presence in greater Los Angeles … felt unnecessary,” he said. “I’d like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.”

Streyder and the other advocates concurred. “Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,” Streyder said. “As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.”

[…]

Via https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/los-angeles-national-guard-troops-marines-morale