Kernow Damo

The Maccabi Tel Aviv ban didn’t just upset the wrong people, it showed politicians can’t judge Israel without first picking a side. Right, so this isn’t just about a football match or a policing call that upset the wrong people, this is about Parliament showing, again, that when Israel is involved the rules bend, scrutiny softens, and the outcome is quietly pre-decided. The Home Affairs Committee has now made that unavoidable, because in trying to muscle the police over the Maccabi Tel Aviv ban it’s exposed who’s sitting in judgement, who they openly align with, and why for so many of them, that seems to be with Israel. An Israeli football team fans, the police who blocked them and a lot of friends of Israel are slamming the police – and whether that is for right or wrong based on the evidence, who can trust such people in their judgement, when conflicts of interest seem to be the norm? This also sadly isn’t new, and it isn’t accidental, it’s a pattern we’ve seen before if you know where to look, from lobbying networks to post-politics jobs to the way outrage suddenly materialises when Israel-linked interests feel inconvenienced. So stay with this, because once you line the record here up properly, what collapses here isn’t a police decision, it’s the last pretence that Parliament can still act as an honest referee on Israel at all. Right, so that was the Home Affairs Committee there, demonstrating why they as a group of people perhaps aren’t the best fit to have this discussion. Nevertheless, they have now sat in public to interrogate West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner over the decision to exclude Maccabi Tel Aviv away fans from that now infamous Aston Villa fixture in November of last year, it seems so much longer now, it is mad we’re still talking about a football safety event and we wouldn’t be if it wasn’t Israel of course, which is rather the point of this video, and the committee itself has of course made that a formal piece of parliamentary business under its football policing work here.

Israel’s Iran strategy has stopped working, and Iran has made sure it can never pretend otherwise ever again. Right, so Israel hasn’t just annoyed Iran again, it’s blown a hole in the one thing that used to keep this confrontation from running off the rails, and it can’t pretend it didn’t see it coming this time either, because their reaction has completely given the game away. We’ve seen this routine for years: Israel threatens on stage, reassures off-camera, and treats everyone else like extras who’ll stand still while it controls the countdown. This time that reassurance got thrown back in their face, dismissed as a lie, and even treated as part of the threat itself. Iran has had enough. It has now put it in writing that words count, signals count, and waiting to be hit next time before they react, is no longer a rule it says it will abide by. And here’s the bit you won’t hear on the mainstream news: Israel has gone begging to Russia to calm things down while still threatening “severe consequences” against Iran in public, which tells you exactly who just lost control of the escalation. The question this video presents therefore is if Iran did strike first next time, something they have never done before, would anyone actually side with Israel? Right, so Israel has spent the last few days apparently doing something it almost never does in public. Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to walk words back. He has been using third parties to reassure an adversary that Israel is not about to strike, while standing up in the Knesset and threatening “severe consequences” if that same adversary moves first. For years, the confrontation between Israel and Iran has been loud but structured, even when it has turned openly violent. They fought directly for twelve days in June, traded strikes, declared deterrence restored, and then stepped back into managed hostility where things usually sit, where things currently remain.

Saudi-UAE infighting has broken Yemen containment — and Israel is now stuck with the Houthis who are actually the only winners! Right, so Saudi Arabia and the UAE haven’t just fallen out over Yemen - they’ve blown up the entire system that kept the mess off everyone else’s doorstep whilst they were at it, and I’m sure you’ll be broken-hearted to hear that Israel is the one left with the fallout. Allies who swore they were aligned, running the same war for completely different reasons as they were in Yemen, but then start sabotaging each other instead. That’s exactly what’s happening now. Saudi jets are hitting a UAE-backed project, separatists are closing airports and blocking planes, and the so-called coalition that was meant to keep the Houthis boxed in is eating itself alive. Popcorn time for Ansarallah! And while the Gulf states posture and squabble, the Red Sea turns into a bigger and bigger problem Israel can’t outsource anymore, Somaliland plans or not. So in this video I’m going to show you how this arrangement really worked, why it was always so brittle we shouldn’t be surprised its falling apart like it is, and why this seemingly unconnected set of events is so bad for Israel, whilst handing the Houthis a win at the same time. Right, so Saudi Arabia’s project is simple enough: keep a Yemeni state-shaped thing alive on its border that won’t turn into a permanent security leak, keep a corridor of influence running down Yemen’s eastern flank, and get out of a ruinous conflict without admitting defeat. The UAE’s project is not that. The UAE has built relationships with forces that don’t need Sana’a to fall and don’t need Yemen to reunify; they need the coastline, the ports, the islands, the shipping lanes, and the local security forces that can hold them. If you’re Saudi Arabia, that looks like an ally freelancing in your backyard. If you’re the UAE, that looks like investing in the only assets that actually matter in a post-state Yemen. The “new cold war” framing becomes real when the two projects collide over the one thing neither can fake: who controls the south of the Arabian Peninsula, and who gets to decide what “stability” even means there anymore.

The IHRA working definition's use inside the NHS has now created a legal problem serious enough to be tested in court - and not before time. Right, so The IHRA definition has just blown up in the NHS, and that matters because a non-binding definition has now dragged the health service into a judicial review no less. We’ve seen this pattern for years, where IHRA lands inside an institution, criticism of Israel turns radioactive overnight, and perfectly lawful speech starts getting erased to keep managers out of trouble, but this time it’s gone too far to smooth over. Doctors, hospital spaces, children’s artwork, zero complaints, plenty of pressure — the record is already there and it’s ugly. What’s new is that the law is now forcing that record into the open, and once IHRA has to justify itself in court, the idea that it’s “just guidance” collapses. Stay with this one, because when you line up how IHRA has actually been used, who keeps pulling the trigger, and why the NHS keeps ending up as the test case, this stops looking like antisemitism policy and starts looking like a protection racket that’s finally hit the wall. Right, so NHS England has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and, in doing so, has triggered a judicial review. A public health body has taken a non-statutory definition, embedded it into policy, and is now being forced into court to explain why that move does not unlawfully interfere with freedom of expression. A definition sold as guidance has reminded everyone that once it is operationalised, it becomes a legal object nonetheless.

Trump’s Greenland threats have revealed NATO’s defence guarantee only works when the US allows it. Right, so Donald Trump has just done something that exposes a flaw NATO was never meant to show, and it doesn’t go away whether he acts on it or not. Denmark is affected, Greenland is affected, and the alliance that claims to guarantee their security has been forced to sit there while its leader talks about taking allied territory and refuses to rule out force. We’ve seen this pattern before, where sovereignty gets treated as conditional and security gets used as a crowbar, but this time it’s happening inside the alliance itself. Greenland already hosts US forces, already does the job Trump says he “needs very badly,” and yet its leaders are being forced to say out loud that it isn’t for sale. That’s not noise. That’s a system under stress. And the part people aren’t being shown is what breaks next when the restraint everyone counted on turns out to be make believe Right, so Donald Trump has publicly stated that the United States needs Greenland “very badly,” has refused to rule out the use of force to obtain it, and has triggered formal diplomatic rebukes from Denmark and Greenland as a result. Denmark’s prime minister has told the US president to stop threatening allied territory. Greenland’s prime minister has said the territory is not for sale and has called the rhetoric disrespectful. Denmark has summoned the US ambassador. None of that is normal. None of that is symbolic. None of that can be walked back by pretending it was all bluster any longer, because where Trump has been laughed off before, after Venezuela, nobody is laughing now. The act that actually matters most here has already happened. An allied head of government has been forced to warn another allied head of government to stop threatening her country’s territory. Donald Trump's recent actions have exposed a significant flaw within NATO, impacting Denmark and Greenland. This situation highlights how "national sovereignty" can be treated as conditional and how security is sometimes used as leverage, a pattern seen before but now within the Alliance itself. This video examines the broader "geopolitics" and "international relations" at play, especially concerning "arctic geopolitics" and the implications for "nato news" and "trump nato" relations. The analysis references a speaker in the European Parliament, suggesting a wider context to these events, compelling us to consider the ongoing impact of these actions.

Calling Nicolas Maduro illegitimate exposes Western hypocrisy over Venezuela’s historic dictators and oil and I've got the receipts! Right, so calling Nicolás Maduro illegitimate has now detonated the entire Western Venezuela narrative, because a sitting president has been seized in the name of democracy while the men who actually cancelled elections, ruled by decree, and filled mass graves before him were treated as trusted partners. That’s the end position. That’s the scandal. And the reason it matters is buried in a history you’re not supposed to line up. So this isn’t a news update. This is checking the receipts. Because this is the same manoeuvre every time. Dictatorship shrugged off when oil stayed obedient. Mass killings tolerated when soldiers were sent into the streets. No sanctions, no indictments, no moral panic — right up until Venezuelans elected governments that stopped handing control outward. So in this video I’m going to drag that history into the open, stack it against what’s just happened, and show you why this arrest doesn’t prove dictatorship at all — it exposes something far more embarrassing, and far more dangerous, for the people pretending to enforce democracy. Right, so the United States has decided that Nicolás Maduro is illegitimate. It has indicted him under US criminal law. It has made his removal an explicit objective. And it keeps insisting this is about democracy, legality, and human rights. Well that claim doesn’t survive contact with Venezuela’s history, you don’t even have to delve too much into it, a cursory glance in fact Is enough to tear it to smithereens. For most of the twentieth century Venezuela was ruled by men who cancelled elections, suspended constitutions, governed by decree, imprisoned opponents, tortured dissidents, and killed civilians. Washington recognised all those governments. It funded them. It armed them. It protected them diplomatically. There were no sanctions. No indictments. No legitimacy lectures. Oil flowed and that was all that matters.

Israel recognised Somaliland and turned recognition into leverage - and global fears are proving justified. Right, so Somaliland has finally been recognised, and it turns out recognition wasn’t the prize, it was the bill. A territory that wanted legitimacy now has exposure, a parent state has lost control of its own borders, and Israel has demonstrated that recognition still works exactly how empires prefer it to work — as leverage. That outcome is nowlocked in, and no amount of denial is putting the lid back on. Israel didn’t recognise Somaliland to tidy up a map or reward good behaviour. It recognised Somaliland because recognition now buys access, alignment, and silence, and Somaliland was in no position to say no. Somalia pays the price in territorial authority, Somaliland pays it in strategic vulnerability, and Palestinians are dragged back into the conversation as something that can be moved around if the bargain demands it. So this isn’t just about one recognition decision. It’s about how recognition itself has stopped closing arguments and started opening transactions, and why once that happens, the cost doesn’t arrive once, it keeps coming. Right, so Israel has recognised Somaliland, and that recognition has landed not as closure but as exposure. A territory that wanted legitimacy now carries strategic liability, a parent state has lost control over how its own borders are treated, and Israel has shown that recognition no longer functions as an endpoint but as leverage. That outcome is already fixed. The argument has moved on, whether the parties involved are comfortable admitting it or not. Israel has taken a step no other state has taken in more than three decades. Somaliland has existed in diplomatic suspension since 1991, governing itself, running elections, maintaining internal order, and still being treated as if none of that counted because recognition never arrived.

Trump has turned influence into conquest and forced South America to respond accordingly - and resistance is becoming unavoidable. Right, so Trump has just made conquest official again. Not invasion-by-invasion, not deniable pressure, but a written claim that all of South America will be subordinate to US authority, its governments conditional on that, its resources pre-tagged for the US, its borders negotiable by Trump’s leave. Venezuela wasn’t a mistake or a one-off, it was the proof of concept, the test, the moment Washington stopped pretending this was about law enforcement or democracy and started acting like take over was the point. Once a US president puts doctrine behind that, once oil is named, once leaders are removed, and military force is normalised across borders, every country in the hemisphere has to adjust or be caught flat-footed. That adjustment is already under way, because submission under these terms isn’t stability, it’s exposure. This isn’t a flare-up. It’s the moment an old 150 year old imperial system gets resurrected and made explicit and Venezuela is just the start. Right, so Donald Trump has announced a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and ordered the United States to reassert pre-eminence across South America through military force, resource control, and enforced alignment. This is the policy now apparently being implemented. We should have seen this coming actually. Trump’s National Security Strategy, published in November of last year, names the Western Hemisphere as the primary security priority of the United States and commits Washington to assert and enforce a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Enforcement is not diplomacy. It is coercion with a timetable attached to it. South America is not framed as a set of sovereign states with interests to balance. It is framed as an internal zone to be managed, secured, and disciplined. Everything else follows from that.

Keir Starmer’s cowardice has turned silence into policy and submission to Donald Trump into the UK’s default position. Right, so Keir Starmer has just told Britain that it will not judge whether international law was broken when the United States seized Nicolás Maduro, because saying so might upset Donald Trump. That is the line. That is the policy. Britain will apply the law until the law becomes inconvenient, and then it will look away. This hits Starmer first because it is his decision, owned by his office, briefed to journalists with pride. It hits everyone else because it tells the rest of the world exactly when Britain’s judgement switches off. If you are powerful enough, Britain won’t ask whether what you did was legal. If you are not, Britain will lecture you anyway. This is not a bad answer to a hard question. It is a rule being set in public. It locks in a pattern where silence gets called responsibility and submission gets sold as realism. Starmer didn’t hesitate. He folded, and he made folding the standard. Starmer is appeasing so hard he’d frankly make Chamberlain blush. Right, so Keir Starmer’s government has told journalists that it will not judge whether the United States acted lawfully when it seized Nicolás Maduro, that it will not criticise the action, and that it would abstain if the issue reached the UN Security Council, because doing otherwise might anger Donald Trump. That statement alone is the event. It is not the capture itself, it is not the diplomatic fallout, it is not the commentary swirling around it. It is a government announcing, out loud, that judging legality depends on who acted, and that when the actor is the United States, Britain will stand down. That is a change in function. Britain has not merely declined to speak. It has withdrawn from the role it previously claimed to perform. For decades, regardless of whether those judgements were selectively enforced or inconsistently applied, the UK maintained that it had both the right and the responsibility to assess whether international law had been breached. This time it refused that role explicitly, not because the facts were unclear, not because the law was disputed, but because the political cost of judgement was deemed too high.

Trump hasn’t get caught over Venezuela - he put himself on the record though, and the law surely can’t ignore him forever? Right, so Donald Trump has managed to do what even seasoned warmongers usually avoid: he has walked himself straight into an array of legal messes, not just through what he has done, but also by openly bragging about it. He didn’t just authorise force, he narrated it. He didn’t just claim control over another country, he announced it. He didn’t just detain a foreign head of state, he posted the picture. In legal terms, that is self-harm on steroids. Trump has stacked admissions on top of jurisdiction, on top of precedent, and pinned his own name to every layer, because he took it all upon himself. International law only struggles when powerful actors hide behind procedure. Trump didn’t bother. He stepped out from behind it and waved. So from here on, every rule applied elsewhere snaps back toward him, because the same logic cannot suddenly stop working without the system admitting it only ever worked selectively and the consequences if he gets away with it are disastrous. Right, so Donald Trump has said the United States used overwhelming military force against Venezuela, has described the operation as decisive and successful, has claimed that Washington will run the country during a transition, and has circulated an image identifying Nicolás Maduro in US custody aboard a US warship. Taken together, those statements have done something power normally avoids. They have turned a coercive act into an established record, and in doing so they have fixed responsibility in a way that can no longer be diluted across institutions, time, or vague ambiguity. Trump has always relied on the assumption that power protects itself. That he therefore must be untouchable. It often does, but only when it stays deniable, procedural, or quietly distributed. What Trump has done instead, according to his own words and posts, is concentrate action, justification, and proof into a single public performance. That choice changes the conditions under which the system can pretend neutrality. From the moment the act is declared, named, and displayed, silence stops being restraint and starts being a position. The Venezuelan government has responded as a functioning state. Delcy Rodríguez has spoken publicly as Vice President, now acting President, chaired emergency meetings of the National Defence Council, insisted that Nicolás Maduro remains the legitimate president, and described the reported US action as an illegal kidnapping and military aggression. Those statements matter because they remove one of the oldest escape routes used to normalise force. There is no vacuum being filled here. A government is operating, issuing orders, and rejecting the act in the language of sovereignty and self-defence.