Category: israel

  • The primary aid group supporting humanitarian efforts for Palestinians in Gaza and beyond is facing funding shortfalls, with two major donor countries still withholding funding for the agency due to a smear campaign by Israeli officials that has yet to produce substantial evidence. In a press conference on Tuesday, UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) Chief Philippe Lazzarini…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After working behind the scenes for months, members of the far right coalition propping up Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are moving to hand over control of the West Bank to civilian authorities close to Israeli settlers, some of whom believe they have a divine right to terrorize and displace their Palestinian neighbors. Home to 3 million Palestinians who live between webs of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jen Perelman challenged incumbent Debbie Wasserman Schultz once before for Florida’s 25th congressional seat in the 2022 Democratic primary. Now, Perelman is back, and this time her staunch anti-Zionism is front and center in her campaign to unseat Wasserman Schultz, one of the most dedicated Zionists in Congress. Perelman sits down with The Marc Steiner Show for a tell-all interview, covering everything from her personal journey out of Zionism, to her plans to be a loud and proud “outlier” in Congress if elected.

    Studio Production: Cameron Granadino
    Post-Production: Alina Nehlich


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Marc Steiner:

    Welcome to The Marc Steiner Show here on The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s great to have you all with us. Two years ago in the Democratic primary, Jen Perelman ran for Congress against sitting Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida’s 25th congressional district. She got 30% of the vote running as a progressive on domestic issues like healthcare for all, ending corporate welfare, environmental justice, and took on the power of APAC. She ran on her experience as a former Zionist, as someone who loved and spent time in Israel, but then the oppressive nature of the occupation got to her as to many other people, and she’s running again in a very different atmosphere. After October the seventh, after that attack by Hamas, 251 people taken hostage and then the war by Israel on Gaza where over 30,000 have been killed, over 80,000 wounded, tens of thousands missing, 80% of Gaza destroyed, and a growing percentage of the Jewish world opposing this war and others as well, obviously. So once again, we talked with Jen Perelman, an attorney, an activist running for Congress in Florida’s 25th district. And welcome Jen. Good to have you here.

    Jen Perelman:

    Thank you so much for having me on. It’s good to talk to you again.

    Marc Steiner:

    So this campaign, first of all, I do a series here on Rise of the Right, and I’m doing a series here that we’re in called, Not in Our Name.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    And this is like a conjunction of the two to me in a way.

    Jen Perelman:

    Right.

    Marc Steiner:

    Because you’re running for Congress, literally in the belly of the beast.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah, I mean, it feels like that. Some days definitely worse than others, but it does. I mean, and it’s kind of interesting. Florida, we’re now considered a red state. I want people to understand that about us. We’re really not, we’re really a purple state that’s been hijacked by a bunch of red people in our state capitol, but in my district we’re blue and is this anomaly and it’s the bluest district in the state. And so we are definitely in an unusual district, and I am definitely up against one of the most corporate Congress people, established entrenched corrupt Congress people that there are. So it’s definitely an unusual environment for sure.

    Marc Steiner:

    So when you’re running this campaign, clearly a campaign that is against what Israel is doing in a district with a large Jewish population,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    With a very pro Zionist congresswoman who in some sense is popular with some people in the district.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m just curious about taking that on. What is different about this campaign from the last campaign you ran and how is it different in terms of your tactics and where you see people coming from in your district?

    Jen Perelman:

    Okay. So there’s a lot of different variables there. First of all, when I ran the first time, even back in yeah, in 2020, I was still under the delusion that there could maybe be a two state solution. So I have even in the past few years gone further to the left on that. I don’t know that I’d call it, further correct, further to the correct on that.

    Marc Steiner:

    Got you. Got you. Got you.

    Jen Perelman:

    Right. So that’s even shifted, but our district lines literally have shifted in a way that did cut out a very significant portion of our Jewish population. That’s coincidence. That happened in 22. As a result of the census and redistricting, we naturally got redistricted and the portion of our district, I don’t know if people are familiar with South Florida where I am, but in Broward County, we still had, even though it was just a sliver of Dade County was still in our district, but it was the affluent heart of the district that went all down the coastline into Dade County. And now that is no longer there.

    And so our demographics have changed. A very large majority of the Zionists that are in my district are registered Republicans and we have closed primaries, so they don’t even vote in my primary. And my district is a fairly dominant blue district. So it’s not as much of an issue as people think. And yeah, there’s definitely going to be people that go with her on that issue. There is no doubt going to be some Democrats, secular Jews even that are going to, that’s their issue is Israel and they’re going to go with her. But I am finding so much more solidarity in so many other communities right now that are very motivated and organized as a result of October 7th.

    Marc Steiner:

    So you think, before we get into some of the issues, I really want to talk to you about it, and your sojourn in this.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    So you think in this race at this point, you really, you have a real shot at winning this primary more than you did before?

    Jen Perelman:

    I do. I do for a lot of reasons, and that’s not to say that it’s still not an uphill battle.

    Marc Steiner:

    Right. Right.

    Jen Perelman:

    But I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t think it were possible. And everything that I do is with this clear intention of propelling my movement, this mission further and further regardless of me winning or losing that seat. So everything that I do is very mindful in my campaign of my bigger mission, and that goes well beyond what happens in this race. You see what I’m, so nothing is wasted here.

    Marc Steiner:

    So let’s talk a bit just for people listening to us now, your sojourn from a younger Jewish woman who went to Israel, spent time in Israel, came up in Zionist home as I did, and things began to shift. And you wrote about that I saw in Common Dreams.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    So talk a bit about that sojourn for people listening to us.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah, so when I was in Israel was, I was 16, it was in 1987 and I was there. So this was actually the summer before the first intifada. Now I realize that. At the time I had no idea about any of that but. So when I was there in 87, there were no different highways, there were no walls, there was none of that stuff existed. So there were no visible signs of an apartheid state. So there was nothing at that point in time. So when I left and came back here and years go by and I’m watching and it starts looking very differently. So now I’m somewhere early in the 2000s around, I want to say the second intifada, and I’m seeing this and I’m like, what is going on? This is not what this looks like. So I started digging into that.

    At the same time, the anti BDS legislations were popping up around the country here. And then I started digging into, well, what is BDS? Why are we anti BDS? What is BDS? And so I went down that rabbit hole and realized, oh, so it’s a nonviolent Palestinian resistance movement born out of oppression, and somehow I’m supposed to be against that. And being against that means that you are violating my first amendment rights in this country to be able to boycott, divest, or sanction as I see fit. I mean, that was the transition.

    And then since then, and that of course was, I want to say 2005 ish, maybe 2006, and then it just was downhill from there, and then it just went, like then I just started noticing the more and more influence of the lobby and the Israeli lobby in Congress, and it just started seeming more and more sinister. And then it just all, like it was almost like a house of cards. It just completely started unraveling. And now I’m just beyond. Now I’m so furious about it. Now I don’t even consider Israel a real place anymore.

    Marc Steiner:

    Wow.

    Jen Perelman:

    It’s like Disney World. That’s Disney World. It’s like a fake ethnicity based on stolen ethnicity from other people of a language that had to be resurrected to pretend you’re an ethnicity and it’s infuriating.

    Marc Steiner:

    That’s really interesting. So what do you think this takes us? I mean, when you are on the campaigns trail and you’re talking about this issue, and we’ll try to get some of the other things that you stand for as well, but when you get to this issue and you make a statement like that, I mean, what happens? What do people talk about?

    Jen Perelman:

    Well, okay, first of all, that statement is not something I’m going to say while having a discussion with Zionists because that gets you nowhere. That’s a statement I’m saying to you and people, I mean, I have no problem with people knowing that’s what I believe, but that’s not the proper, like but at the end of the day, there are two groups of people right now, and actually I’ll say three. Let’s say three.

    Marc Steiner:

    Okay.

    Jen Perelman:

    There’s people that have gotten it since the day one. Okay. There’s people that are possible to come around and have come around, maybe they’re not raised that Zionist, like there’s sort of more, and then there’s the people that are just never going to get it. They’re just never going to get it. And those people are what I call too far gones, and there’s no point in engaging. You know what I’m saying? Once I establish that this person is not even dealing with my same reality, meaning they do not acknowledge the Nakba, they do not acknowledge that Israel is an occupation and they don’t acknowledge that the Palestinians have a right of return. If you don’t acknowledge the existence and some other basic tenets of this, right, like if you don’t acknowledge that, then we’re not going to have any sort of productive discussion. So for the most part, people that are too far gone are not people that I bother engaging with on this topic.

    Marc Steiner:

    So how does that play out in terms of the race you’re running?

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah. Well, down here, for the most, honestly, I have yet to really, and like I said, the majority of our rabid Zionists are Republicans. So those are not even people that when we knock on doors, we’re only knocking on doors of registered Democrats. Right. So they’re just not people that are really engaged in this race because it’s just such a blue district. So that is that, and then of the people that are just Debbie people and just support her, and that’s it, it’s basically the same people that are the two far gones in the Zionism category. So at some point you accept that you work with people that you can, and there’s a lot of people that that isn’t their primary issue. And even though they disagree with me on that issue, they would still vote for me. Those are people that are in that middle category, and that’s fine, but it is what it is.

    There’s nothing I can do to change that situation. Right. I’m not going to say anything else other than what I’m saying about it. I’m not going to believe anything unless somebody brings me new, further previously unknown information. Right. So there’s nothing to do. It is what it is. So I try to be as diplomatic as possible with people when I know that it’s a sensitive subject, but at the end of the day, there’s just no tolerance for this kind of nonsense like Zionism or any other kinds of bigotry. At some point, it’s like there is just zero tolerance.

    Marc Steiner:

    So I’m curious what you think, two things here. The first one is this particular war happening right now in Gaza is devastating.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    And it has shifted a lot of people’s opinion. Even when I look at some polls around, especially in the Jewish community and younger Jews in particular, things are really shifting profoundly. And I wonder you think this, where it takes both Israel and Palestine in that struggle and where it takes America, what happens to us in this process this process because this has the potential to kind of explode on many levels,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Oh, yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    Politically.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah. Well, geopolitically, this is potentially World War III disaster level nuclear problem. And I don’t say that hyperbolically. I’m saying that seriously, because all it takes is for Iran, and let me tell you something, and people need to understand this. It is by the grace of Iran that Israel still is there without being bombed. Okay. That is what I think. It is by the grace of Iran. So as soon as they stop dealing with nonsense and actually want to say, all right, to hell with it, we’re retaliating. Okay, that’s one problem because they can bomb Tel Aviv if they want to. So now we’re talking about what? Then we’ll have to have boots on the ground. The next thing you know Turkey will get involved with their land army and then forget it. This is an untenable unwinnable situation. This is not going to work, and the whole world sees it except for Israel, and that’s the problem.

    So I am hopeful based on what you were just saying about the changing mindset among especially younger Jews in this country. But at the end of the day, this is one of those things where there will be a group of people, angry, bitter, disgruntled Zionists that will die at the end of their life, not having their way on this. That will happen. There will be people that will just not get their way on this. That’s how progress works. There were people that fought for segregation till they’re dying breath.

    Marc Steiner:

    Right.

    Jen Perelman:

    So there will be people that will basically die not getting their way or as we see the end of this other form of racist nationalism. So it’s the same thing, but I feel that in terms of geopolitically, the only way this is ending is with the United Nations peacekeepers on the ground, creating an actual United Palestine state from the river to the sea where everybody has equal rights. And how that happens militarily, how that happens in terms of diplomatically, I really don’t know, but I know that Israel cannot continue to exist as this. This is not a tenable situation.

    Marc Steiner:

    So let’s say that when we wake up on election day, primary day,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    And you win,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    How do you see what happens to you and this issue in Congress?

    Jen Perelman:

    I see that I am very much outcasted. I see that I am a pariah. I’m probably like the Thomas Massie of Democrats. I don’t know. I’m not going to, look, it’s like how effective, and I’ve said this all along. I’ve been saying this for years. When you’re on the outside politically from the center where I am, like when you’re, and I’ll say left because fine, left of center. Okay. So when you’re on the outside of what is the bell curve, you’re always going to sort of be pulling people in your direction. And it’s always sort of an uphill battle until the curve shifts a little bit. And so I don’t anticipate it being any different for me in a congressional position than I’m in here. But yeah, legislatively, no, I don’t think I would get elected and be able to give everybody single payer healthcare tomorrow. I don’t think that legislatively, that’s necessarily where the people that are on the outliers are ever the most effective.

    I think where the outliers are most effective is using their platform to pull people to the outlier. And I guess at the end of the day, it’s just going to be chipping away at enough of that on the outside, merging with labor, trying to connect all the different coalitions that are fighting against the same oppressor. Because that’s what I feel like one of my biggest purposes is and I felt like with my podcast, is really combining different movements because if all of these movements showed up for each other, that’s our general strike. And I feel like we need to get the labor movement, the environmental movement, the abolition movement, all of these groups are fighting the same oppressor. And so I just feel like that’s one of the things I would be most effective at, is using my platform to continue to shift that Overton window and get more and more people in because it’s not going to happen by me.

    Marc Steiner:

    Follow up on that for a moment here before we come back to Israel, Palestine.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    I mean, because in this country right now, we’re facing a huge divide.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    And it’s a real struggle for the future of democracy in our own country and where we might go. And in all the years I’ve been a political activist and doing work in journalism as well as an organizer, the last time I saw this divide this intense and this dangerous is when I was a civil rights worker on the Eastern shore in the Mississippi, is the last time I felt this.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    So I’m curious, your analysis about what is happening in our country now, and as a potential congresswoman, where do you think we’re going and how we organize around this?

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah. So what you’re talking about, this sort of growing feeling of discomfort and just malcontent, it’s very, very pervasive. I feel it all over the place. It’s not just divisive, it’s just general, just unhappiness.

    Marc Steiner:

    Yeah.

    Jen Perelman:

    But where I really feel like as frustrating as that is, it’s such a good sign. It’s such a good sign because it’s a sign that we feel, it’s a sign that we’re noticing. It’s a sign that people are waking up and not wanting to take it anymore. And it’s almost like you’re watching the death throes of capital in that. And that’s I feel like one of my jobs, is to steward people from that feeling into, okay, what do we do with this next? Where can we go with this? What can we do with this? Make sure that people are punching up and not kicking down. And really just try to allocate and combine as many people to get as much progress as we can.

    But yeah, no, there’s so much anger right now and it’s very valid. I am so angry right now. I have never been this angry in my whole life as I am right now. And it’s all I can do to just constantly be remembering where to aim it and how to use that energy. And unfortunately, a lot of people sort of defer to their basis selves and are very easy to sway into kicking down and punching sideways and going after others. And that’s the problem, is that desperate times allows for people like a Trump. And again, he is by no means the end of democracy to me. The fact that those are the choices already indicates we’ve reached the end of democracy.

    But I think that the fact that we get people like him is because of how unhappy and how desperate people are. And they see him, he’s a snake oil salesman, but they see him as some sort of the answer and he teaches them to kick down. And that is the opposite of what we need. But there’s nobody on let’s say, for lack of a better word, the left like a Bernie at that point offering a direction otherwise. There’s nobody. The Democrats aren’t exactly saying, well, you need to punch up because they are the up.

    Marc Steiner:

    So I mean, the things you’re talking about, this moment are things I wrestle with all the time as well.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    I mean, because we are, I think as a nation and as a world, when I look at what’s happening in the Middle East especially, but what’s happening in our own country is that we really are on a precipice and kind of building a movement and electing certain political leaders to address that is really, I mean, it’s really critical. I mean it’s, I think about what our kids are going to inherit and where we’re going. So I’m curious what kind of, before we come back and conclude with looking at Palestine, Israel, talk about this coalition you’re trying to build in your district, which is really a pretty diverse district.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah. Well, when I talk about building coalition, I’m talking in a global sense, like what I’ve been doing for the past five years and just interconnecting so many different groups and different actions and different causes and linking people and really trying for people to see the intersectionality of all of it. But locally, I’m just a very on the ground in my community person. I mean, I knocked doors all the time. I was knocking doors even when I wasn’t running because I was canvassing to get no, I was either canvassing for my friend who’s now the mayor for that position, and I was also canvassing for a period of time to get our women’s reproductive rights on our ballot. We were able to get that on our November ballot.

    So I’ve stayed very politically active and just meeting people. But the thing about me, and this is definitely a distinction between me and someone like my incumbent, is that I really do appeal to a wide range of people. Even on my podcast, I have a lot of Republicans, libertarians, I even have anarchists. I have have a wide range of people and I think that that is what we need. We need somebody that can understand different people, what they need, communicate to them in an effective manner, and stop pitting those groups against each other. And that is something that I actually do really well. And it’s something I think that often frustrates some of my comrades on the left, is that I am able to get along with the right.

    And what bothers people is that in order to truly do that, you have to do it without judgment, you have to do it without judgment. So if I’m in Congress and I’m working on something, and let’s say somebody like Thomas Massie who I have great respect for, and he and I disagree on a ton of things, right, without a doubt, I disagree with him on a ton of things, but it’s like going into any sort of engagement with somebody with a holier than thou judgmental attitude will produce nothing. It’ll produce exactly the mess that we’re in right now, which is complete tribalism where they’re fighting each other, but yet they both stand for the same corporations. It’s like you’re literally watching a bird fight each wing with itself, and we’re not getting anywhere.

    And so I think that what we need to do is stop worrying about labels and tribalism and just try to work to, I mean, it sounds cliche, but it really isn’t hard to work with people if you put the labels aside. If we didn’t have parties, if I could wave a magic wand and overnight there were no parties and no one knew what anyone’s team or anybody, any of that, do you know how much stuff we could get done? It would be amazing.

    Marc Steiner:

    Yeah, I understand. If you look at any of our neighborhoods we live in and you’re a part of a community organization, that’s what exists.

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah, exactly.

    Marc Steiner:

    So as we close out here, coming back to where we began,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Yeah.

    Marc Steiner:

    Where do you think what’s happening now, where does it take us and how do we get out of it?

    Jen Perelman:

    Well, unfortunately, the problem we have, and this is something that I find to be this sort of level of Western entitlement that we have in this country, and it’s at an all time high. And I say this because people have very much conflated feeling uncomfortable with feeling unsafe. And I have a huge problem with this. And not only that, it’s impacting our constitutional rights is what we’re seeing right now left. And so where we need to be in this country is we need to be at a place where we all can feel comfortable with the discomfort. It’s very hard to deal with it. I had to go through it. You had to go through it. I’m not saying it’s easy to kind of come to terms with some of our not so pleasant past actions and deal with that, but people’s comfort level, particularly white privileged Jewish people’s level of comfort is just not something that we need to be prioritizing right now. Okay.

    And I think that that’s the problem. People being unhappy with antisemitism words, people being not happy with the idea of antisemitism and the discomfort of that does not take precedence over human beings being genocided in real time. Okay. And until we sort of grasp that and the people realize that they’re going to just have to sit with their discomfort, that is how long this will keep going on. It’s really up to them. I always say the level of violence or the level of uprising in this case is determined by the oppressor, not the oppressed. So it’s really up to them at what point they want to see supporting a genocidal apartheid state or not, how far they want to go down that rabbit hole before we end up being at the basic on the other side of the whole world with Israel and just us. I’d like to not see that. I’m proposing a better situation. I think we can have a better situation, but it’s not going to be with the military industrial complex and APAC running Congress. That I know.

    Marc Steiner:

    And that is absolutely true. That is absolutely true. Those kind of voices of reason, like you’re talking about, are really critical in all these discussions.

    Jen Perelman:

    Exactly. And that’s not what we’re having. How can we have reasonable discussion when all of the people that need to have the discussion are on the payroll of the companies that are profiting from the situation that needs to be discussed? It is the most ridiculous, it’s like a candid camera situation. I don’t understand how anybody could take any of these people seriously that are getting paid by companies like Raytheon, or Boeing, or Northrop Grumman or any of that. I don’t understand. How are we even taking these people seriously?

    Marc Steiner:

    So you take no corporate money?

    Jen Perelman:

    No. First of all, and that’s so funny. And recently someone said, “Well, do you agree not to take APAC money?” And I just started cracking up and I’m like, “First of all, I have been harping about APAC and calling them out as foreign agents for at least like four years now. I don’t think they’re offering me any.”

    Marc Steiner:

    No, I don’t think so. No.

    Jen Perelman:

    Right. And nor would any corporations. Although what’s interesting though is that I kind of feel like if there were some corporation that like the anti-corporate sentiment and was happy with what I was saying and they properly treated their employees well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I might consider taking a few bucks, but it would have to be like a Ben & Jerry situation. You know what I mean? We’d have to have a meeting of the minds. But no, they’re not offering me anything. Are you kidding? I’m like, I’m calling for dollars people every day and scraping for $50 donations.

    Marc Steiner:

    Well, good luck in the primary, and we’ll look forward to talking to you once this is done and,-

    Jen Perelman:

    Thank you.

    Marc Steiner:

    And you clearly, I can hear from our conversation, you have a lot of depth of ideas and you’ve got a lot of fight in your heart.

    Jen Perelman:

    I do. I’m so angry right now. I got to tell you, I almost feel like, yeah, it would’ve been better off for people had I won in 20. Yeah, I feel so angry right now. Like hell hath no fury. You know what I mean? Than a woman used in ethnic cleansing.

    Marc Steiner:

    Right. Right.

    Jen Perelman:

    And angry about it. But can I just tell people to go to the campaign website?

    Marc Steiner:

    Absolutely. Go ahead.

    Jen Perelman:

    Okay. So guys, check out the campaign website. It’s Jen2024.org. And please, and anybody can volunteer. We need text people, phone banking people. We need all sorts of people, and we need money because I’m fighting a corporate monolith. So please help us out if you can and follow us on social media. And I appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me on.

    Marc Steiner:

    And Jen Perelman, thank you for joining us, and we’ll be looking towards election day and see what happens and be putting all your contact information on our site for this story. So thank you so much.

    Jen Perelman:

    Absolutely. Thank you.

    Marc Steiner:

    Once again. Thank you Jen Perelman for joining us today. And thanks to Cameron Granadino for running this program and our audio editor, Alina Nelah and the tireless Kayla Rivara for making it all work behind the scenes. And everyone here at The Real News for making the show possible. Please let me know what you thought about what you heard today, what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com and I’ll write you right back. And once again, thank you Jen Perelman for being our guest. And so for the crew here, The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved, keep listening, and take care.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The Democrats have made abortion rights a central focus of the 2024 presidential campaign. Reportedly, this emphasis on abortion is part of an effort to spark more enthusiasm from voters in the face of diminishing support for the Biden administration, due to its material and ideological support for Israel’s campaign of genocide in Palestine. Polling indicates that for younger…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Part 1 of a two-parter: Israelis Live Wasted and Desperate Lives and Should Leave

    The fuss that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken manufactured over their Israel inspired ceasefire plan is pathetic. Claiming Hamas is “proposing changes that are not workable.” without specifying the proposed changes (are there changes?), is not informing anybody. Apparently, Blinken’s subservient role in this sleight of hand act is to make believe a truce is pursued, and then charge Hamas with deception for not agreeing with an impossible plan. His tone and posturing indicate more performance than honest diplomacy.

    Israel, and not Hamas, controls the hostilities, and, for that reason, no plan will work. Israel will continue encroaching on the Palestinians, which will eventually provoke Hamas to respond. Biden’s plan is a trap, placing Hamas in a “no win” situation. The US president should propose a cease to all aggression against the Palestinians and oppression of the Palestinians. Without a complete halt to both, no truce is guaranteed.

    With no truce plan operable, the future for the Palestinians is not hopeful. All proposals for self-governing ─ two states ─  or mutual governing — one-state, Federated states, bi-national state — are not acceptable to the single-minded, racist, supremacist, and apartheid Zionist regime. To prevent the genocide, one measure can be effective — Israeli Jews vote with their feet and leave Israel for other nations in much greater numbers than the Palestinians increase their tally in the stolen lands. With a great number of Jews gone, the Zionist government will have difficulties to govern for the benefit of Jews alone and have problems maintaining the territories for Jews alone. Hallelujah!

    When Zionism reared its ugly head, Jews were no longer seeking liberation, they were enjoying liberation, finding acceptance and expression throughout Western Europe. Although not completely integrated in the societies where they lived and still facing some headwinds, almost all Jews rejected Zionism. After World War II, Jews became completely integrated in Western nations that gave them the highest standard of living, an advanced education, security, equal opportunity, and prominence in all activities. After meeting Godot and finding Nirvana, most Jews have become Zionists, either willing to leave the nations that gave them succulence or swear allegiance to a Zionist country. Is that sensible?

    Conditioning

    There is only one reason for Jews to ally themselves with a militarist, nationalist, xenophobic, racist, and apartheid nation ─ conditioning. The principle elements of the conditioning, repeatedly drilled into every Jewish person, are that Jews are a nation, they have a shared ancient history that claims biblical lands, they are subjected to harassment by an anti-Semitic world, and they are only safe in their own nation. All of this is hysterical and none of this is historical

    Getting Israelis to move away from a land they believe God gave them seems absurd. No, absurd is that anyone lives in the God forsaken land.  I have only been to Israel on three occasions, once staying for three weeks in Jerusalem. Although observations are personal and go back 14 years, they still revealed the mindset of Israelis who inhabit a land that has been developed from subjugation of indigenous people. Growing up with the daily mischief, having a government that polishes the information and conditions its citizens, and not having any comparison, Yossi Israeli does not realize that he/she has been fed a distorted history, lives in nowheresville, and is going nowhere.

    Jews are not a nation

    The Jews that emerged from the Hebrews migrated to different nations, eventually spoke different languages, acquired different customs, formed different institutions, and no longer shared a common history. Unchained from the continual strife in a non-productive region, they spread throughout the world, loosely bound together by a common religion, shared myths, and shared values.

    Two persons make a people, but a people don’t make a nation. A nation refers to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and history. If it were otherwise, why has Israel given its Jews the scaffolding of a new nation by giving them a common language, culture, descent, and history, which reject how they previously lived? The Mizrahi who came to Israel were Arabs; the Ashkenazi were Western; the Falasha were Ethiopians; and the Yemenites were from the Arabian Peninsula. Israel replaced the differing languages, dialects, music, cultures, and heritage of the ethnicities with unique and uniform characteristics. Accompanying the destruction of each community was the destruction of centuries old Jewish history and life in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. All these immigrants became a new Jew, an Israeli Jew, who had no proven aspects of the biblical Hebrews

    Falsifying History

    Israel has many interesting sites, mostly Crusader, Roman, Christian, Canaanite, and Arabic. Biblical sites, related to Hebrews and Jews, are few, insignificant, and dubiously presented.

    • Masada is given a heroic representation as the place where Jewish rebels sustained a Roman onslaught and committed suicide. It is an interesting Roman fortress with two places built by Herod the Great where Roman forces decimated Jewish rebels. No rebels committed suicide.
    • Some remains of Jewish dwellings, burial grounds, and ritual baths exist, but no Jewish monuments, buildings, or institutions from the Biblical era remain within the “Old City” of today’s Jerusalem.
    • None of the tombs — Abraham, Joseph, David, Rachel, and Absalom — are verified burial places of these biblical figures.
    • The City of David is a defensive network dating back to the Middle Bronze Age. No relation to the mythical King David has been determined.
    • The Western Wall is a supporting wall of the platform built during Herod’s time. It became a place of prayer for Jews in the late 15th century, after Mameluke authorities permitted Jews a safe area for worship and morphed into “the most revered site in Judaism” during modern times, only because there is no other.
    • Neither King David’s Tower nor King David’s Citadel relate to David or his time.
    • Neither the Pools of Solomon nor the Stables of Solomon relate to the time or life of King Solomon.
    • None of the major museums in Jerusalem and throughout the world exhibit an ancient Hebrew civilization. Mention is made in history of Hebrew tribes and short periods of governing small areas of the Levant, but no ancient Jewish civilization that had  lasting effect on history and whose people have a totally direct relation with all scattered contemporary Jews has been uncovered.

    Delusion

    Contemporary Jews have been deluded. Ancient Israel was home to ancient Jews. The area that is now Israel was not the ancient home of modern Jews. When ethnicities speak of an ancient home, they speak, such as from the voices of Native Americans, of caring for the land and hunting grounds, for attachment to a soil that nourished them, and with intimate knowledge of ancestors. They may look back at a recognized civilization that gave the world advances in technology, culture, warfare, administration, or other disciplines and left identifiable physical traces that excite mankind. Modern Jews have no attachment to a soil, no memories of an advanced civilization, no honest attraction to an ancient land, and do not have knowledge of ancestors. The Palestinians have 100 percent “skin in the game;” they cherish every olive tree their ancestors planted centuries ago, every orange tree that gives aroma to their surroundings, and all the ground eggplant for the baba ghanoush they eat.

    Zionist irredentism is concerned with the folk; it does not express concern for the land. Keeping biblical names as a subterfuge, Israel turned the land under the biblical names into an extension of northern Europe. In “beloved” Judah and Samaria, imported pine trees dot the landscape, hundreds of year-old olive groves lay torched, dormitory towns replace the green hilltops, and super highways pave over the quaint roads. In Israel, forests hide dynamited picturesque villages. Jerusalem, with its train, mall, contrived City of David, proposed cable car, and falsified tourist attractions has become a theme park.

    Tension and apartheid everywhere

    What person wants to continue a criminal past with a stained present? The parents of the present generation of Israeli Jews did not make amends for the injustices done to the Palestinians and continued the oppression. The present generation repeats the sordid activities of their parents. The continuing lives of Israelis is characterized by continuing the oppression. is that a meaningful life?

    Nazareth’s large Muslim population did not please Jews, and, in 1957, they left, claiming they did not want to live under a communist mayor. The government illegally appropriated land from Nazareth and founded Nazareth Illit, a settlement within the great settlement. Historian Geremy Forman, Military Rule, Political Manipulation, and Jewish Settlement: Israeli Mechanisms for Controlling Nazareth in the 1950s, Journal of Israeli History, (2006) 335-359, states, “the town would safeguard the Jewish character of the Galilee as a whole, and… demonstrate state sovereignty to the Arab population more than any other settlement operation.” Forman wrote that Nazareth Illit was meant to “overpower Nazareth numerically, economically, and politically.”

    Akka (Acre) is a world heritage site, whose old city is entirely Arabic. Jewish and Arab populations only meet at a junction. When I visited, the Souk was destroyed, with mud and water as surface material. Houses on the ancient streets needed repair. Israel supplies scarce funds to rehabilitate the Arab heritage of one of the jewels of the Mediterranean and pours funds into its Crusader attractions and constructing housing for obedient Jews to continually encroach on the Palestinian population and coerce them into selling their properties. Tensions have erupted into conflicts several times and, in 2022, the mayor declared, “The State of Israel is on the brink of civil war between Jews and Arabs.” The Jerusalem Post reported, “A series of Arab riots left city icons smashed and burned. Lynches sent Jewish residents to hospitals.”

    Haifa’s 2022 population of 290,306 has Israeli Arabs constituting 10% of its population. They live in communities separated from Jews. What happened to the previous large Arab population of about 65,000 in 1947? Contradictory explanations of the battle for Haifa and the exodus of its Arab inhabitants have been made. No contradiction in knowing who left and was never permitted back.

    Rashid al-Haj Ibrahim, an economist and nationalist, who, for a while, supervised the defense of Haifa, provided an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa’s Arab residents.

    Thousands of women, children and men hurried to the port district in a state of chaos and terror without precedent in the history of the Arab nation. They fled their houses to the coast, barefoot and naked, to wait for their turn to travel to Lebanon. They left their homeland, their houses, their possessions, their money, their welfare, and their trades, to surrender their dignity and their souls. According to The Economist, only 5,000–6,000 of the city’s 62,000 Arabs remained there by 2 October 1948.

    Tel Aviv-Jaffa is another city where both Jewish and a diminishing Arab population exist and do not mix. Similar to Acre, Israel supplies scarce funds to maintain the ancient character and heritage of Arab Jaffa, another jewel of the Mediterranean, and pours funds into changing its character, diminishing remains of its Arab heritage, and constructing housing for Jews who obediently encroach on the Palestinian population and harass them into selling their properties.

    Statistics from 1945 listed Jaffa having a population of 94,280, of whom 66,280 were Arabs and 28,000 were Jews. In 2021, Jaffa had 52,470 residents, about a third (17,000) of whom were Arabs. Abu Lyad, My Home, My Land a narrative of the Palestinian struggle describes the 1948 displacement of the Arab population.

    May 13, 1948, is a day that will remain forever engraved in my memory. Less than twenty four hours before the proclamation of the Israeli state, my family fled Jaffa for refuge in Gaza. We had been under siege: the Zionist forces controlled all the roads leading south, and the only escape left open to us was the sea. It was under a hail of shells fired from Jewish artillery set up in neighboring settlements, especially Tel Aviv, that I clambered onto a makeshift boat with my parents, my four brothers and sisters and relatives.

    Ashkelon, 20 kilometers north of the Gaza border, presents a picturesque setting along the Mediterranean coast. Sparkling white beaches matched by white-faced apartment buildings, green lawns and several wide boulevards depict a tranquil and content city. The modern city with the biblical name, is not peaceful. Rockets from Gaza have struck the city on several occasions. By arguments of war, the damage has not been extensive, but no damage can be ignored; there have been fatalities and wounded to the residents, who are Russian immigrants and descendants of those who seized Palestinian properties in the nearby villages.

    Al-Majdal and its citizens suffered the fate of many Palestinian villages that hoped to escape the hostilities, but became engulfed in the 1948-1949 war in the Levant. With war raging in their midst, the citizens of Al-Majdal retreated 15 kilometers to a haven in Gaza. On November 4, 1948, Israeli forces captured the village. In August 1950, by a combination of inducements and threats, Al-Majdal’s 1000-2000 remaining inhabitants were expelled and trucked to Gaza. According to Eyal Kafkafi (1998), Segregation or integration of the Israeli Arabs – two concepts in Mapai, International Journal of Middle East Studie, 347-367, as reported in Wikipedia, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan promoted the expulsion, while Pinhas Lavon, secretary-general of the Histadrut, “wished to turn the town into a productive example of equal opportunity for the Arabs.” Despite a ruling by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission that the Arabs transferred from Majdal should be returned to Israel, this never happened. In 2007, when I visited, I was told that only two Arab families remained in Ashkelon.

    Journalist, Ramzy Baroud, reported his father’s memories in My Father was a Freedom Fighter.

    My brothers and my comrades, we are all joined by a common sorrow and fate. We all fondly remember the rolling hills and valleys of our homeland, its villages, towns, its farms, and its humble yet dignified way of life. We long for the days of quiet and peaceful coexistence that Palestine offered, and we grieve the loss of life, the assault on our dignity, the destruction of our schools, mosques, homes in hundreds of villages that are now a fleeting memory. Our struggle has been an honorable and worthy cause, and it is by far more precious than trivial salaries and extraneous police uniforms the invader offers. I would rather starve, along with my family, a free man, than to live rich in slavery with badges of dishonor.

    Gaza border towns Kfar Aza, Be’eri, and Nahal Oz have been sites for consistent rocket and mortar fire from Gaza. All three communities suffered extensive casualties from the October 7, 2023 attack. With nothing special to induce people to live in the area, why do Israelis choose a place where a “safe room” is necessary in the home, life can be deadly, and Gazans see Israelis living comfortably on the property stolen from them? Answer: These Israelis are the first line of defense against Hamas militants crossing the border and a place to disturb Gazans by having them see Israelis living comfortably on the property stolen from them.

    Kibbutz Nahal Oz, was founded on October 1, 1955 and built on orchards stolen from the residents of the Palestinian village of Ma’in Abu Sitta.  Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, author of Mapping My Return: A Palestinian Memoir, was 10 years old when, on May 14, 1948, he and his family living on their land in “Ma’in Abu Sitta,” were attacked by a Haganah force of 24 armored vehicles. “The force destroyed and burnt everything. The soldiers demolished the school that my father built in 1920; they stole the motor and equipment in the flour mill and well pump; they killed anyone in sight.”

    Hebron is infamous for the massacre of a large gathering of Palestinian Muslims praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque. On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an American-Israeli physician and extremist of the far-right ultra-Zionist Kach movement, opened fire with an assault rifle and murdered 29 Muslim worshippers. When the Israeli military attempted to evict settlers from Hebron’s cherished “old city,” the setters broke windows and ruined Palestinian shops in the now empty “Old Town” area. They also broke the walls and locks of the Palestinian homes, then stood watch to harass any Palestinian who returns, and still try to prevent Palestinian children from attending a school in the area. To enforce the settler presence, Israeli security checkpoints have been installed at all former entrances to the market.

    The West Bank, as of January 2023, hosts 144 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem. In addition to the settlement, there are more than 100 outposts, which are unauthorized settlements. About 450,000 Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank and 220,000 reside in East Jerusalem. One third of the settlers “see their presence as a means of ensuring permanent Jewish control over the area, which they call by the biblical names ‘Judea and Samaria.’ These settlers believe that by living in the West Bank “they are serving God’s will and helping to bring about the long-awaited coming of the Messiah.” Two thirds of the settlers claim they live in the West Bank to increase their quality of life. This does not sound reasonable.

    The settlements are relatively small towns that are isolated from one another and rely on cities in Israel for employment and many services. On average, 60% of the employed population in a settlement is employed in Israel and the number of settlers employed in local agriculture and industry in the West Bank is very low.  Special benefits is the more likely reason. The Israel Policy Forum reports.

    In 2014, the average per capita aid from the Israeli government to local authorities in the Judea and Samaria region was NIS 3,762, compared to NIS 2,282 within Israel. Local authorities east of the security barrier received NIS 5,950 per capita on average. In 2017, settlers received on average NIS 1,922 in grants and tax benefits, NIS 1,416 more than the national average.

    The precarity of the settlement enterprise is obscured by the government largesse that keeps it afloat. Should Jerusalem choose to end this support, local governments and residents would find themselves in a dire financial position.

    The settlers are not bettering their lives. They are in the West Bank so Israel can carve it up and prevent establishment of a viable Palestinian state, to worsen Palestinian lives, and prevent the Palestinians from having ontological security ─   a stable mental state derived from a sense of continuity in regard to the events in one’s life. The settlers are living an unsettled and cruel life.

    The Specter of anti-Semitism

    The major ingredient of the conditioning mix is to keep the Jewish people aware that anti-Semitism is in their breakfast food and anti-Semites are lurking everywhere, ready to pounce upon the Jewish populations and bring them another holocaust. Nonsense. I have never known any anti-Semitism in my life and have never seen it affect others

    Sure, there are people who dislike Jews, just as people dislike, Sikhs, Orientals, Italians, Hispanics, rich people, poor people, Catholics, African-Americans, and even Eskimos, and, at times, exhibit virulent hatred of a particular ethnicity. Nothing unusual in a world of 7.5 billion people. Because Israel claims it is a Jewish state, which already arouses antipathy from humanity and many Jews align with an Israel that is accused of committing genocide, it is natural that a part of the world’s population will attack Jews. Should those enabling genocide be lightly treated? The pro-Israel faction reply to the challenge is not “we will stop the genocide.” They use the attacks to benefit their ugly work by labelling them anti-Semitic.

    A “Nova survivor” ─ a new and calculated term, similar to Holocaust survivor, which will enter the lexicon for posterity and forever remind the world that only what happens to Jewish people matters  ─ arrived in new York as a part of an exhibition commemorating the victims of the Nova festival during the October 7 attack. What point is there in exhibiting and commemorating tragedies that cannot be undone and why in America? What do Americans have to do with the attack? Protestors came and protested this disgusting use of the violated to violate the American conscience and stir it to aid and abet the genocide.

    Eilat Tibi, the “Nova survivor” showed how conditioned Israelis seek to label a protest against Israel as anti-Semitic. She said:

    The other thing that’s surprised me the most is the antisemitism. As a Jew who lives in Israel, I had never felt it before. Coming to the States made me realize that Jews in the diaspora live with it all the time — sometimes it’s more intense, other times less.

    Ms. Tibi is in the United States for a few days and knows the American pulse. She has lived in Israel for a lifetime and doesn’t know that if you want to find hatred of Jews – go to Israel, where the secular Jews despise the Orthodox Jews, the European Ashkenazi Jews are contemptuous of the Arab Mizrahim Jews and all discriminate against the Ethiopian Falasha Jews. From UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:

    TEL AVIV, 9 February 2012 (IRIN) – Growing up in Israel, Shay Sium became accustomed to being called a “nigger”. Sium, 32, has lived in Israel most of his life, but says he and other Ethiopian Jews are treated differently from other Israelis: factories do not want to employ them; landlords refuse them; and certain schools turn away their children. “The word discrimination doesn’t describe what we experience. There is another word for it: racism. It is a shame that we still have to use this word today,” he told IRIN.

    Conclusion

    Israeli Jews can live most anywhere and have an enjoyable life. Instead, they choose to live in a racist, virulent nationalist, and militarist state that practices apartheid and engage in the genocide of the Palestinian people. They choose to be a party to the genocide, to suffer, generation after generation, the agonies and threats that go with being an aggressor, living a life of lies and desperation. Their nation without borders is a mirror image of the Nazi Germany state that also had sketchy borders. They do not see themselves in the mirror. If they saw themselves in the mirror, would they want to stay in a genocidal state?

    Zionism, let our people go.

    Part two will examine more of the conditioning process and propose a method to rescue Jews from the Zionist grip.

    The post Preventing the Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Part 1 of a two-parter: Israelis Live Wasted and Desperate Lives and Should Leave

    The fuss that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken manufactured over their Israel inspired ceasefire plan is pathetic. Claiming Hamas is “proposing changes that are not workable.” without specifying the proposed changes (are there changes?), is not informing anybody. Apparently, Blinken’s subservient role in this sleight of hand act is to make believe a truce is pursued, and then charge Hamas with deception for not agreeing with an impossible plan. His tone and posturing indicate more performance than honest diplomacy.

    Israel, and not Hamas, controls the hostilities, and, for that reason, no plan will work. Israel will continue encroaching on the Palestinians, which will eventually provoke Hamas to respond. Biden’s plan is a trap, placing Hamas in a “no win” situation. The US president should propose a cease to all aggression against the Palestinians and oppression of the Palestinians. Without a complete halt to both, no truce is guaranteed.

    With no truce plan operable, the future for the Palestinians is not hopeful. All proposals for self-governing ─ two states ─  or mutual governing — one-state, Federated states, bi-national state — are not acceptable to the single-minded, racist, supremacist, and apartheid Zionist regime. To prevent the genocide, one measure can be effective — Israeli Jews vote with their feet and leave Israel for other nations in much greater numbers than the Palestinians increase their tally in the stolen lands. With a great number of Jews gone, the Zionist government will have difficulties to govern for the benefit of Jews alone and have problems maintaining the territories for Jews alone. Hallelujah!

    When Zionism reared its ugly head, Jews were no longer seeking liberation, they were enjoying liberation, finding acceptance and expression throughout Western Europe. Although not completely integrated in the societies where they lived and still facing some headwinds, almost all Jews rejected Zionism. After World War II, Jews became completely integrated in Western nations that gave them the highest standard of living, an advanced education, security, equal opportunity, and prominence in all activities. After meeting Godot and finding Nirvana, most Jews have become Zionists, either willing to leave the nations that gave them succulence or swear allegiance to a Zionist country. Is that sensible?

    Conditioning

    There is only one reason for Jews to ally themselves with a militarist, nationalist, xenophobic, racist, and apartheid nation ─ conditioning. The principle elements of the conditioning, repeatedly drilled into every Jewish person, are that Jews are a nation, they have a shared ancient history that claims biblical lands, they are subjected to harassment by an anti-Semitic world, and they are only safe in their own nation. All of this is hysterical and none of this is historical

    Getting Israelis to move away from a land they believe God gave them seems absurd. No, absurd is that anyone lives in the God forsaken land.  I have only been to Israel on three occasions, once staying for three weeks in Jerusalem. Although observations are personal and go back 14 years, they still revealed the mindset of Israelis who inhabit a land that has been developed from subjugation of indigenous people. Growing up with the daily mischief, having a government that polishes the information and conditions its citizens, and not having any comparison, Yossi Israeli does not realize that he/she has been fed a distorted history, lives in nowheresville, and is going nowhere.

    Jews are not a nation

    The Jews that emerged from the Hebrews migrated to different nations, eventually spoke different languages, acquired different customs, formed different institutions, and no longer shared a common history. Unchained from the continual strife in a non-productive region, they spread throughout the world, loosely bound together by a common religion, shared myths, and shared values.

    Two persons make a people, but a people don’t make a nation. A nation refers to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and history. If it were otherwise, why has Israel given its Jews the scaffolding of a new nation by giving them a common language, culture, descent, and history, which reject how they previously lived? The Mizrahi who came to Israel were Arabs; the Ashkenazi were Western; the Falasha were Ethiopians; and the Yemenites were from the Arabian Peninsula. Israel replaced the differing languages, dialects, music, cultures, and heritage of the ethnicities with unique and uniform characteristics. Accompanying the destruction of each community was the destruction of centuries old Jewish history and life in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. All these immigrants became a new Jew, an Israeli Jew, who had no proven aspects of the biblical Hebrews

    Falsifying History

    Israel has many interesting sites, mostly Crusader, Roman, Christian, Canaanite, and Arabic. Biblical sites, related to Hebrews and Jews, are few, insignificant, and dubiously presented.

    • Masada is given a heroic representation as the place where Jewish rebels sustained a Roman onslaught and committed suicide. It is an interesting Roman fortress with two places built by Herod the Great where Roman forces decimated Jewish rebels. No rebels committed suicide.
    • Some remains of Jewish dwellings, burial grounds, and ritual baths exist, but no Jewish monuments, buildings, or institutions from the Biblical era remain within the “Old City” of today’s Jerusalem.
    • None of the tombs — Abraham, Joseph, David, Rachel, and Absalom — are verified burial places of these biblical figures.
    • The City of David is a defensive network dating back to the Middle Bronze Age. No relation to the mythical King David has been determined.
    • The Western Wall is a supporting wall of the platform built during Herod’s time. It became a place of prayer for Jews in the late 15th century, after Mameluke authorities permitted Jews a safe area for worship and morphed into “the most revered site in Judaism” during modern times, only because there is no other.
    • Neither King David’s Tower nor King David’s Citadel relate to David or his time.
    • Neither the Pools of Solomon nor the Stables of Solomon relate to the time or life of King Solomon.
    • None of the major museums in Jerusalem and throughout the world exhibit an ancient Hebrew civilization. Mention is made in history of Hebrew tribes and short periods of governing small areas of the Levant, but no ancient Jewish civilization that had  lasting effect on history and whose people have a totally direct relation with all scattered contemporary Jews has been uncovered.

    Delusion

    Contemporary Jews have been deluded. Ancient Israel was home to ancient Jews. The area that is now Israel was not the ancient home of modern Jews. When ethnicities speak of an ancient home, they speak, such as from the voices of Native Americans, of caring for the land and hunting grounds, for attachment to a soil that nourished them, and with intimate knowledge of ancestors. They may look back at a recognized civilization that gave the world advances in technology, culture, warfare, administration, or other disciplines and left identifiable physical traces that excite mankind. Modern Jews have no attachment to a soil, no memories of an advanced civilization, no honest attraction to an ancient land, and do not have knowledge of ancestors. The Palestinians have 100 percent “skin in the game;” they cherish every olive tree their ancestors planted centuries ago, every orange tree that gives aroma to their surroundings, and all the ground eggplant for the baba ghanoush they eat.

    Zionist irredentism is concerned with the folk; it does not express concern for the land. Keeping biblical names as a subterfuge, Israel turned the land under the biblical names into an extension of northern Europe. In “beloved” Judah and Samaria, imported pine trees dot the landscape, hundreds of year-old olive groves lay torched, dormitory towns replace the green hilltops, and super highways pave over the quaint roads. In Israel, forests hide dynamited picturesque villages. Jerusalem, with its train, mall, contrived City of David, proposed cable car, and falsified tourist attractions has become a theme park.

    Tension and apartheid everywhere

    What person wants to continue a criminal past with a stained present? The parents of the present generation of Israeli Jews did not make amends for the injustices done to the Palestinians and continued the oppression. The present generation repeats the sordid activities of their parents. The continuing lives of Israelis is characterized by continuing the oppression. is that a meaningful life?

    Nazareth’s large Muslim population did not please Jews, and, in 1957, they left, claiming they did not want to live under a communist mayor. The government illegally appropriated land from Nazareth and founded Nazareth Illit, a settlement within the great settlement. Historian Geremy Forman, Military Rule, Political Manipulation, and Jewish Settlement: Israeli Mechanisms for Controlling Nazareth in the 1950s, Journal of Israeli History, (2006) 335-359, states, “the town would safeguard the Jewish character of the Galilee as a whole, and… demonstrate state sovereignty to the Arab population more than any other settlement operation.” Forman wrote that Nazareth Illit was meant to “overpower Nazareth numerically, economically, and politically.”

    Akka (Acre) is a world heritage site, whose old city is entirely Arabic. Jewish and Arab populations only meet at a junction. When I visited, the Souk was destroyed, with mud and water as surface material. Houses on the ancient streets needed repair. Israel supplies scarce funds to rehabilitate the Arab heritage of one of the jewels of the Mediterranean and pours funds into its Crusader attractions and constructing housing for obedient Jews to continually encroach on the Palestinian population and coerce them into selling their properties. Tensions have erupted into conflicts several times and, in 2022, the mayor declared, “The State of Israel is on the brink of civil war between Jews and Arabs.” The Jerusalem Post reported, “A series of Arab riots left city icons smashed and burned. Lynches sent Jewish residents to hospitals.”

    Haifa’s 2022 population of 290,306 has Israeli Arabs constituting 10% of its population. They live in communities separated from Jews. What happened to the previous large Arab population of about 65,000 in 1947? Contradictory explanations of the battle for Haifa and the exodus of its Arab inhabitants have been made. No contradiction in knowing who left and was never permitted back.

    Rashid al-Haj Ibrahim, an economist and nationalist, who, for a while, supervised the defense of Haifa, provided an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa’s Arab residents.

    Thousands of women, children and men hurried to the port district in a state of chaos and terror without precedent in the history of the Arab nation. They fled their houses to the coast, barefoot and naked, to wait for their turn to travel to Lebanon. They left their homeland, their houses, their possessions, their money, their welfare, and their trades, to surrender their dignity and their souls. According to The Economist, only 5,000–6,000 of the city’s 62,000 Arabs remained there by 2 October 1948.

    Tel Aviv-Jaffa is another city where both Jewish and a diminishing Arab population exist and do not mix. Similar to Acre, Israel supplies scarce funds to maintain the ancient character and heritage of Arab Jaffa, another jewel of the Mediterranean, and pours funds into changing its character, diminishing remains of its Arab heritage, and constructing housing for Jews who obediently encroach on the Palestinian population and harass them into selling their properties.

    Statistics from 1945 listed Jaffa having a population of 94,280, of whom 66,280 were Arabs and 28,000 were Jews. In 2021, Jaffa had 52,470 residents, about a third (17,000) of whom were Arabs. Abu Lyad, My Home, My Land a narrative of the Palestinian struggle describes the 1948 displacement of the Arab population.

    May 13, 1948, is a day that will remain forever engraved in my memory. Less than twenty four hours before the proclamation of the Israeli state, my family fled Jaffa for refuge in Gaza. We had been under siege: the Zionist forces controlled all the roads leading south, and the only escape left open to us was the sea. It was under a hail of shells fired from Jewish artillery set up in neighboring settlements, especially Tel Aviv, that I clambered onto a makeshift boat with my parents, my four brothers and sisters and relatives.

    Ashkelon, 20 kilometers north of the Gaza border, presents a picturesque setting along the Mediterranean coast. Sparkling white beaches matched by white-faced apartment buildings, green lawns and several wide boulevards depict a tranquil and content city. The modern city with the biblical name, is not peaceful. Rockets from Gaza have struck the city on several occasions. By arguments of war, the damage has not been extensive, but no damage can be ignored; there have been fatalities and wounded to the residents, who are Russian immigrants and descendants of those who seized Palestinian properties in the nearby villages.

    Al-Majdal and its citizens suffered the fate of many Palestinian villages that hoped to escape the hostilities, but became engulfed in the 1948-1949 war in the Levant. With war raging in their midst, the citizens of Al-Majdal retreated 15 kilometers to a haven in Gaza. On November 4, 1948, Israeli forces captured the village. In August 1950, by a combination of inducements and threats, Al-Majdal’s 1000-2000 remaining inhabitants were expelled and trucked to Gaza. According to Eyal Kafkafi (1998), Segregation or integration of the Israeli Arabs – two concepts in Mapai, International Journal of Middle East Studie, 347-367, as reported in Wikipedia, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan promoted the expulsion, while Pinhas Lavon, secretary-general of the Histadrut, “wished to turn the town into a productive example of equal opportunity for the Arabs.” Despite a ruling by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission that the Arabs transferred from Majdal should be returned to Israel, this never happened. In 2007, when I visited, I was told that only two Arab families remained in Ashkelon.

    Journalist, Ramzy Baroud, reported his father’s memories in My Father was a Freedom Fighter.

    My brothers and my comrades, we are all joined by a common sorrow and fate. We all fondly remember the rolling hills and valleys of our homeland, its villages, towns, its farms, and its humble yet dignified way of life. We long for the days of quiet and peaceful coexistence that Palestine offered, and we grieve the loss of life, the assault on our dignity, the destruction of our schools, mosques, homes in hundreds of villages that are now a fleeting memory. Our struggle has been an honorable and worthy cause, and it is by far more precious than trivial salaries and extraneous police uniforms the invader offers. I would rather starve, along with my family, a free man, than to live rich in slavery with badges of dishonor.

    Gaza border towns Kfar Aza, Be’eri, and Nahal Oz have been sites for consistent rocket and mortar fire from Gaza. All three communities suffered extensive casualties from the October 7, 2023 attack. With nothing special to induce people to live in the area, why do Israelis choose a place where a “safe room” is necessary in the home, life can be deadly, and Gazans see Israelis living comfortably on the property stolen from them? Answer: These Israelis are the first line of defense against Hamas militants crossing the border and a place to disturb Gazans by having them see Israelis living comfortably on the property stolen from them.

    Kibbutz Nahal Oz, was founded on October 1, 1955 and built on orchards stolen from the residents of the Palestinian village of Ma’in Abu Sitta.  Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, author of Mapping My Return: A Palestinian Memoir, was 10 years old when, on May 14, 1948, he and his family living on their land in “Ma’in Abu Sitta,” were attacked by a Haganah force of 24 armored vehicles. “The force destroyed and burnt everything. The soldiers demolished the school that my father built in 1920; they stole the motor and equipment in the flour mill and well pump; they killed anyone in sight.”

    Hebron is infamous for the massacre of a large gathering of Palestinian Muslims praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque. On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an American-Israeli physician and extremist of the far-right ultra-Zionist Kach movement, opened fire with an assault rifle and murdered 29 Muslim worshippers. When the Israeli military attempted to evict settlers from Hebron’s cherished “old city,” the setters broke windows and ruined Palestinian shops in the now empty “Old Town” area. They also broke the walls and locks of the Palestinian homes, then stood watch to harass any Palestinian who returns, and still try to prevent Palestinian children from attending a school in the area. To enforce the settler presence, Israeli security checkpoints have been installed at all former entrances to the market.

    The West Bank, as of January 2023, hosts 144 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem. In addition to the settlement, there are more than 100 outposts, which are unauthorized settlements. About 450,000 Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank and 220,000 reside in East Jerusalem. One third of the settlers “see their presence as a means of ensuring permanent Jewish control over the area, which they call by the biblical names ‘Judea and Samaria.’ These settlers believe that by living in the West Bank “they are serving God’s will and helping to bring about the long-awaited coming of the Messiah.” Two thirds of the settlers claim they live in the West Bank to increase their quality of life. This does not sound reasonable.

    The settlements are relatively small towns that are isolated from one another and rely on cities in Israel for employment and many services. On average, 60% of the employed population in a settlement is employed in Israel and the number of settlers employed in local agriculture and industry in the West Bank is very low.  Special benefits is the more likely reason. The Israel Policy Forum reports.

    In 2014, the average per capita aid from the Israeli government to local authorities in the Judea and Samaria region was NIS 3,762, compared to NIS 2,282 within Israel. Local authorities east of the security barrier received NIS 5,950 per capita on average. In 2017, settlers received on average NIS 1,922 in grants and tax benefits, NIS 1,416 more than the national average.

    The precarity of the settlement enterprise is obscured by the government largesse that keeps it afloat. Should Jerusalem choose to end this support, local governments and residents would find themselves in a dire financial position.

    The settlers are not bettering their lives. They are in the West Bank so Israel can carve it up and prevent establishment of a viable Palestinian state, to worsen Palestinian lives, and prevent the Palestinians from having ontological security ─   a stable mental state derived from a sense of continuity in regard to the events in one’s life. The settlers are living an unsettled and cruel life.

    The Specter of anti-Semitism

    The major ingredient of the conditioning mix is to keep the Jewish people aware that anti-Semitism is in their breakfast food and anti-Semites are lurking everywhere, ready to pounce upon the Jewish populations and bring them another holocaust. Nonsense. I have never known any anti-Semitism in my life and have never seen it affect others

    Sure, there are people who dislike Jews, just as people dislike, Sikhs, Orientals, Italians, Hispanics, rich people, poor people, Catholics, African-Americans, and even Eskimos, and, at times, exhibit virulent hatred of a particular ethnicity. Nothing unusual in a world of 7.5 billion people. Because Israel claims it is a Jewish state, which already arouses antipathy from humanity and many Jews align with an Israel that is accused of committing genocide, it is natural that a part of the world’s population will attack Jews. Should those enabling genocide be lightly treated? The pro-Israel faction reply to the challenge is not “we will stop the genocide.” They use the attacks to benefit their ugly work by labelling them anti-Semitic.

    A “Nova survivor” ─ a new and calculated term, similar to Holocaust survivor, which will enter the lexicon for posterity and forever remind the world that only what happens to Jewish people matters  ─ arrived in new York as a part of an exhibition commemorating the victims of the Nova festival during the October 7 attack. What point is there in exhibiting and commemorating tragedies that cannot be undone and why in America? What do Americans have to do with the attack? Protestors came and protested this disgusting use of the violated to violate the American conscience and stir it to aid and abet the genocide.

    Eilat Tibi, the “Nova survivor” showed how conditioned Israelis seek to label a protest against Israel as anti-Semitic. She said:

    The other thing that’s surprised me the most is the antisemitism. As a Jew who lives in Israel, I had never felt it before. Coming to the States made me realize that Jews in the diaspora live with it all the time — sometimes it’s more intense, other times less.

    Ms. Tibi is in the United States for a few days and knows the American pulse. She has lived in Israel for a lifetime and doesn’t know that if you want to find hatred of Jews – go to Israel, where the secular Jews despise the Orthodox Jews, the European Ashkenazi Jews are contemptuous of the Arab Mizrahim Jews and all discriminate against the Ethiopian Falasha Jews. From UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:

    TEL AVIV, 9 February 2012 (IRIN) – Growing up in Israel, Shay Sium became accustomed to being called a “nigger”. Sium, 32, has lived in Israel most of his life, but says he and other Ethiopian Jews are treated differently from other Israelis: factories do not want to employ them; landlords refuse them; and certain schools turn away their children. “The word discrimination doesn’t describe what we experience. There is another word for it: racism. It is a shame that we still have to use this word today,” he told IRIN.

    Conclusion

    Israeli Jews can live most anywhere and have an enjoyable life. Instead, they choose to live in a racist, virulent nationalist, and militarist state that practices apartheid and engage in the genocide of the Palestinian people. They choose to be a party to the genocide, to suffer, generation after generation, the agonies and threats that go with being an aggressor, living a life of lies and desperation. Their nation without borders is a mirror image of the Nazi Germany state that also had sketchy borders. They do not see themselves in the mirror. If they saw themselves in the mirror, would they want to stay in a genocidal state?

    Zionism, let our people go.

    Part two will examine more of the conditioning process and propose a method to rescue Jews from the Zionist grip.

    The post Preventing the Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In the space of just two days, Palestine Action have smashed up banks, stopped production at an arms factory, and sent Cambridge Uni a message. It is, of course, all over these companies and institutions’ complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The actions collectively show that the group will not be stopped.

    Barclays and JPMorgan get another dose of Palestine action

    First, on Monday 24 June two groups from Palestine Action targeted JP Morgan Chase’s offices new offices in the Landmark building and Barclays branch in Altrincham:

    Both banks saw their windows shattered and red paint covering their offices, symbolising their complicity in Palestinian bloodshed:

    Both JP Morgan Chase and Barclays bank are both investors in Israel’s biggest weapons firm, Elbit Systems — a company which is the primary target of Palestine Action’s direct action campaign. Elbit manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment, as well as munitions, bullets, and missiles.

    Bezhalel Machlis, CEO of the Israeli weapons maker, publicly states the company has “ramped up production” to arm the ongoing Gaza genocide.

    Last month, JP Morgan Chase reduced their stake in Elbit Systems shares by 70%. However, their remaining investment is still significant and is currently valued at approximately $16m.

    A Palestine Action spokesperson said:

    Our actions cause economic disruption to those who make a killing out of genocide. By doing so, we make deadly dealings a less attractive investment for banks who only value profit. All investors must understand investing in Elbit comes with the additional risk of Palestine Action.

    Elbit shut down – again

    Then, also on 24 June seven Palestine Action activists were arrested after they attached themselves to two vehicles and blockaded the only road into the British headquarters of Israel’s largest weapons company, Elbit Systems, for nine hours:

    Police had to drill through concrete within the vehicles in order to remove and arrest the activists:

    Palestine Action Israel

     

    The action successfully grounded Elbit’s operations to a halt today, disrupting an integral part of the genocidal arms company which Palestine Action vows to see forced out of Britain.

    Elbit’s Bristol premises, at 600 Aztec West, Almondsbury, is used to oversee all British operations – including their drone-parts factories in site in Staffordshire and Leicester, and their weapons sights factory in Kent, all of which have found their activities severely disrupted by Palestine Action activists.

    By managing all of these operations, the factory is a key operational hub for ‘Elbit Systems UK Ltd’ and its contributions to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, not least by processing the immense volume of arms that Elbit exports to Israel from Britain.

    From across their global presence, Elbit manufactures munitions, combat vehicles, missiles and other Israeli arms and weapons components, and their British sites are used particularly for drones parts – with Elbit overall providing up to 85% of Israel’s drone fleet.

    Palestine Action have shut down the Bristol HQ numerous times, by various means including person-to-person lock-ons, vehicular lock-ons, and occupations of the factory. Activists have also frequently targeted Somerset council, the landlords of Elbit’s Bristol HQ.

    This action, as with every one undertaken by direct action network Palestine Action, has been taken to cease the operations at the premises, and to cease their contributions to Israel’s occupation and genocide in Palestine:

    A spokesperson has stated:

    Elbit Systems uses Gaza as a laboratory to develop their weaponry, a business model which has no place in any society. By arming Israel and allowing Elbit to operate in this country, our political establishment have failed to abide by their legal and moral obligations to end complicity in the Gaza genocide. That’s why it’s up to ordinary people to take direct action and shut Elbit down.

    Cambridge Uni: also in Palestine Action’s sights

    Meanwhile, on Saturday 22 June action takers sprayed the University of Cambridge’s historical Senate House in blood-red paint, in an act undertaken in collaboration with Palestine Action:

    Palestine Action IsraelThe site, used for the University’s upcoming graduation ceremonies, now reflects the Palestinian bloodshed which soaks the University’s financial records, research output, and historical legacy:

    This action marks the end of an entire academic year where the University of Cambridge has funded, enabled and normalised the ongoing Palestinian genocide. Cambridge University has failed to take any meaningful action against, or even release a statement opposing, UK/US-backed-Israeli atrocities in Palestine.

    The administration has repeatedly ignored student, staff, and alumni pleas for dialogue. The University has additionally refused to engage with escalating disruption which has been pursued in response to their silence, including the longstanding Cambridge University Encampment.

    As one action taker said:

    Uni administration sit in ivory towers, and don’t bat an eyelid at their involvement in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The white pillars at Senate House prop up a legacy of white supremacy and colonialism, which continues to this day through investments in and partnerships with arms companies like Elbit. Cambridge’s graduation hall is stained with the blood of Palestinians and now these stains have been made visible.

    Senate House stands as the imperial heart of Cambridge and is the educational birthplace of its Zionist alumni, most infamously Arthur Balfour, author and signatory of the Balfour declaration. Balfour graduated from this very building, as did many others who actively aided the foundation and establishment of the modern-day apartheid state, and continue to support it today.

    The University of Cambridge continues to actively invest in weapons companies and research partnerships enabling and normalising the UK/US-backed Palestinian genocide. “Defence” research and grants conceptualising the development of AI systems, drones, and surveillance technologies abused for the deliberate starvation and decimation of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Overall, Palestine Action said:

    As long as these [companies and institutions] continue to support the brutal Zionist project, actions will escalate.

    Featured image and additional images via Palestine Action and Neil Terry

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the general election enters its final few days, the forty Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidates standing across Britain on 4 July are fighting to keep opposition to Israel’s war on the Palestinians and genocide in Gaza a key election issue.

    TUSC: keeping Israel’s genocide in the spotlight

    In Chorley constituency in North West England a former member of the National Union of Teachers’ national executive committee, Martin Powell-Davies, is conducting a vigorous campaign against the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle.

    The Speaker, who is being supported by all the ‘mainstream’ parties in this election, is notorious for his role in February when he blocked an SNP Commons motion condemning the “collective punishment of the Palestinian people” from being debated in order to avoid embarrassment to Labour’s frontbench. Martin is determined to make sure that’s not forgotten.

    Meanwhile, at the other end of the country in South East England, the TUSC banner is being carried by the anti-war campaigner Momtaz Khanom, contesting the Folkestone and Hythe constituency. As a Folkestone Stands With Palestine group activist Gaza has been central to her campaign.

    As part of its effort to keep Palestine an election issue, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has asked all candidates standing in the general election to give a 150-word statement saying how they would use the MP position to help stop the war in Gaza.

    Stepping up

    TUSC chairperson and Coventry East candidate, Dave Nellist, the socialist ex-Labour MP (1983-1992), has responded:

    I would use the position of MP and the platform it gives to support the campaign for the end of Israel’s war on Palestine and its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

    I believe trade unions in Britain need to step up their involvement in the movement to end the war by mobilising more members to attend mass demos and calling for workers’ sanctions to block the flow of arms and supplies from Britain to the Israeli military.

    Major firms in the defence industry should be publicly owned and democratically planned to develop alternative, socially useful production to replace production for war.

    Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak both back imperialism in the Middle East and the bosses here in Britain. I believe in workers’ unity between ordinary Palestinians and ordinary Israelis and socialism to secure a permanent end to national conflict and oppression with guaranteed rights for all.

    The need for a new party post-general election

    The TUSC says that as in domestic policy, so in foreign policy too, Starmer’s Labour Party now serves to defend the upholders of the capitalist system with its inherent inequality and exploitation of the working class, minorities and the dispossessed, and the international relations keeping the system in place.

    As in domestic policy, so in foreign policy too, the need for a new party that could achieve the mass political representation of the working class could not be clearer.

    Martin, Momtaz, and Nellist are all speaking at public meetings this week to help keep Palestine as an election issue, with details on the TUSC website, here – there are meetings in other towns and cities as well.

    You can watch and read interviews with other independents as part of the #CanaryCandidates series, here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Independent journalist Richard Medhurst explains why and how to resist Zionism. Filmed in Blackburn at Saint Paul’s Methodist Church on June 13, 2024.

    The post The Importance of Resisting Zionism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Since October, Israeli government officials have spent millions of dollars on a widespread campaign to target people who are opposed to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and advance Zionist policies in the U.S. and Europe, a sprawling new investigation finds. A report by The Guardian released Monday reveals that the same group behind a covert Israeli social media campaign to influence U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • There are over 20,000 children in Gaza who are missing, Save the Children estimates, in addition to the over 15,000 children who have been killed amid Israel’s genocide and campaign of extermination. In February, UNICEF estimated that at least 17,000 children in Gaza are unaccompanied or separated from their families, or about 1 percent of the 1.7 million Palestinians who Israel has forced out of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • During the 2016 election Trump fanatics chanted “Lock her up,” referring to Hillary Clinton. The tables have now turned. Trump is a convicted criminal and Biden violates international law.

    In one of the most twisted forms of logic ever to appear in politics, liberals believe that screaming “Trump is a fascist” somehow proves that Biden is not. If what Biden is helping the Zionists do in Gaza is not a fascist war crime, it is difficult to know what is.

    The word “fascism” has historically been used when a rich world government begins committing the same atrocities against its own (white) people as has been done for centuries against colonialized peoples. Some find it offensive to use the word “fascist” to describe the treatment of Native Americans, slaves, or peoples of Africa, Asia or Latin America. Thus, they shudder in horror that anyone would describe as “fascist” what Zionists and their European and American supporters do to Palestinians. Using the same word, “fascism,” for Biden as for Trump is essential for an anti-colonial perspective.

    Biden’s apologies for Israel’s hideous acts scream “Palestinian Lives Do Not Matter.” Should Biden be applauded for suggesting that he “might” withhold weapons unless Netanyahu slows the rate of mass murder? This is like telling someone who bombs a hospital, blows up schoolchildren, and uses an automatic rifle against a crowd lined up for food that you “might” withhold giving him bullets unless he kills fewer the next time.

    Put Trump and Biden in the Same Jail Cell

    On May 31, 2024 Biden approved the Zionist demand that Hamas “not be allowed to rearm” itself – yet he allows Israel to have the most deadly weapons on the planet. Biden claimed “Hamas began this war,” pretending that 76 years of Zionist attacks never occurred. Biden announces that he “will bring those responsible for October 7 to justice” to stamp in the idea that those who have slaughtered Palestinians will never even face trial.

    This blustering by Biden was on the same day that Trump was found guilty of all charges against him. Biden pompously proclaimed that “No one is above the law.” The very same Biden was outraged that the International Criminal Court is examining charges against the mass murderer Netanyahu. Perhaps he worries that he could be the next to be indicted.

    The Democratic Party acts like its political opponents “are not above the law;” but their own bosses should not face any legal consequences. Liberals whine that everything is lost if Trump wins the election. They want us to believe that all power comes from elections and zero power comes from mass movements.

    … vote for what you want …

    They forget that the criminal Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1968, yet mass movements forced him to accept what he despised. A mass movement forced the US to end its criminal war against Viet Nam. Nixon had to accept the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and decriminalization of abortion. The Food Stamp Program, Clean Water Act, Freedom of Information Act and recognition of China were gained during the presidency of the fascist Richard Nixon.

    There are two hidden paths that support Biden. One is to not vote. This will be interpreted as not caring about the war on Palestine. The other route is to write in a candidate for whom there will not be a vote tabulation. The only way to vote against the Biden/Trump violence machine is to have a peace candidate on the ballot and vote for that person.

    The more success the anti-war movement has, the more repression increases. Liberals say that it would get worse with Trump. They pay no heed to arrests of the African Peoples’ Socialist Party for the absurd claim that they are “Russian agents.” But Biden’s attacks on the APSP reflect a broad attack on communities of color which includes mass incarceration, no Medicare-4-All, mis-education, lack of decent housing, and un- and under-employment. The similar pattern of arrests of campus encampments across the country suggests that Biden’s team is actively coordinating them.

    When he is not designing wars Biden is applying life-threatening sanctions to Venezuela and Cuba.

    Think about China. Trump tried to get people to call Covid the “China virus.” It was clearly a hate campaign. Trump flopped and no one bought it. Now Biden is being much more effective in fomenting hostility toward China via reports on the “threat” it poses to Taiwan and trade and Tic-Toc restrictions.

    Biden is backing a regime in Ukraine that actually has a Nazi battalion within its armed forces. Turning over Ukraine’s nuclear power plants to Nazis would not be a good way to attain peace.

    None of the above is meant to suggest that Biden is worse than Trump – only that they are horrible in different ways. Trump extols what could be called “hard core fascism.” Hate this group, hate that country, etc. In contrast, Biden is far more effective at attaining media compliance for his most recent military excursions. He oozes diplomacy for the same colonialist goals – it could be called “soft core fascism” for its unspeakable effects on its victims.

    Though Biden apologists love to say “Now is not the time to leave the Democratic Party, they do not say what time that would be. Their hidden answer is clear: they believe it is never the time to build our own political party.

    Ask them when we should create new environmental groups that actually challenge growth-oriented poisoning of the world and stop fossil fuel extinction. Their silent answer will be “never.”

    It is not possible to stop never-ending wars by voting for never-ending warriors.

    A core difference between Biden liberalism and revolutionary politics is believing that it is never the right time for fundamental change vs. understanding that it is always the right time to ask how to build a new world. Now is the time to support the LandBack! demand of Native Americans that has spread across the globe. Regaining land is central to efforts by the colonized to assert their existence. It advocates decolonization, dismantling white supremacy, and reclaiming stewardship to save their land,

    The partition of Palestine was based on the assumption that Israel would eventually drive out the people who lived there. It has always been a scheme for slow but certain genocide of Palestinians. The solution for the crisis must begin with Israel’s withdrawing from occupied territories, acknowledging its criminal history, and providing reparations to its victims.

    The post Lock Them BOTH Up! first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On top of the more than 15,000 children Israel has killed since 7 October, up to another 21,000 are missing, according to Save the Children.

    As a result of Israel’s ongoing onslaught, many are trapped beneath the rubble, lost, detained by Israel or buried in unmarked graves. As of 1 May, Israel held 61 children in administrative detention, where Israel can detain them indefinitely without charge or trial.

    The UN has placed Israel on a blacklist of countries and organisations that engage “in violations against children”.

    “Stop the genocide”

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who’s running as an independent in Islington North, said:

    Up to 21,000 Palestinian children are missing in the Gaza Strip, including 4,000 who are likely buried under the rubble. What utter inhumanity. Stop the genocide in Gaza.

    Israel is also starving the Gazan children who it hasn’t killed or caused to be missing. Earlier in June, UNICEF found that nine out of ten children in Gaza are experiencing “severe child food poverty, surviving on diets comprising two or fewer food groups per day – one of the highest percentages ever recorded”. That’s because of Israeli blockades preventing supplies from entering Gaza.

    Of the 21,000 children missing, estimations are that 17,000 are separated from their parents amid Israel’s bombardment and 4,000 are under the debris.

    “No safe place in Gaza”

    A Save the Children Child protection specialist in Gaza said:

    Every day we find more unaccompanied children and every day it is harder to support them. We work through partners to identify separated and unaccompanied children and trace their families, but there are no safe facilities for them – there is no safe place in Gaza.

    Besides, reuniting them with family members is difficult when ongoing hostilities restrict our access to communities, and constantly force families to move.

    According to the UN, Israel has orphaned 17,000 Palestinian children since 7 October. The classification “wounded child, no surviving family” is widespread in hospitals. James Elder, UNICEF’s chief spokesperson, has said:

    When we speak of a war on children, it’s not to try to be dramatic. It’s rooted in the data…That speaks obviously to the severity and the intensity of the bombardment. We believe it also speaks to the indiscriminate nature of the bombardment, and it speaks to a disregard for civilians, particularly children.

    Israel has also covered up some of its killing with mass graves that include children. According to the UN, many of the bodies uncovered showed signs of torture, summary executions or even being burnt alive.

    Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children didn’t begin with the ongoing genocide. As of July 2023, 86% of children Israel militarily detained faced beatings. Others experience sexual violence or Israel transferring them in small cages.

    Children are not terrorists. The number of children Israel has killed is one of the clear signs this is a genocide. It must end.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Faramarz Farbod: You have taught at Princeton University for four decades; you were the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in Israel (2008-2014); and you are the author of numerous books about global issues and international law. In preparation for this conversation, I have been reading your autobiography, Public Intellectual: The Life of a Citizen Pilgrim (2019). Tell us about yourself and how you became politically engaged in your own words.

    Richard Falk: I grew up in New York City in a kind of typical middle-class, post-religious, Jewish family that had a lot of domestic stress because I had an older sister with mental issues who was hospitalized for most of her life. This caused my parents to divorce because they saw the issues in a very different way. I was brought up by my father. He was a lawyer and quite right-wing, a Cold War advocate, and a friend of some of the prominent people who were anticommunists at that time, including Kerensky, the interim Prime Minister of Russia after the revolution between the Czar and Lenin. My father had a kind of entourage of anti-communist people who were frequent guests. So, I grew up in this kind of conservative, secular environment, post-religious, post any kind of significant cultural relationship to my ethnically Jewish identity.

    I attended a fairly progressive private school that I didn’t like too much because I was more interested in sports than academics at that stage of my life. I managed to go to the university and gradually became more academically oriented. I was jolted into a fit of realism by being on academic probation after my first year at the University of Pennsylvania. That scared me enough that I became a better student. I went to law school after graduating from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in economics. But I knew I didn’t want to be a lawyer in the way my father was. So, it was a very puzzling time. I studied Indian law and language to make myself irrelevant to the law scene in the US. I never thought of myself as an academic because of the mediocre academic record I had managed to compile. When I graduated from law school, I was supposed to go to India on a Fulbright, but it was canceled at the last minute because India hadn’t paid for some grain under the Public Law-480 program [commonly known as Food for Peace signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1954 to liquidate US surplus agricultural products and increasingly used as a policy tool to advance US strategic and diplomatic interests with “friendly” nations]. It turned out Ohio State University was so desperate to fill a vacancy created by the sickness of one of its faculty that they hired me as a visiting professor. I realized immediately that it was a good way out for me. I managed to stay there for six years until I went to Princeton for 40 years.

    I became gradually liberated from my father’s conservatism and achieved a certain kind of political identity while opposing the Vietnam War. That took a very personal turn when I was invited to go to Vietnam in 1968. There I encountered the full force of what it meant to be a Third World country seeking national independence and yet be opposed by colonial and post-colonial intervention. I was very impressed by the Vietnamese leadership, which I had the opportunity to meet. It was very different from the East European and Soviet leadership that I had earlier summoned some contact with. They were very humanistic and intelligent and oriented toward a kind of post-war peace with the US. They were more worried about China than they were about the US because China was their traditional enemy. But it made me see the world from a different perspective. I felt personally transformed and identified with their struggle for independence and the courage and friendship they exhibited towards me.

    FF: What did you teach at Princeton University?

    RF: My academic background was in international law. Princeton had no law school, so in a way, I was a disciplinary refugee. I began teaching international relations as well as international law. The reason they hired me was that they had an endowed chair in international law instead of a law school and they hadn’t been able to find anyone who was trained in law but not so interested in it. They tracked me down in Ohio State and offered me this very good academic opportunity. They invited me as a visiting professor first and then some years later offered me this chair which had accumulated a lot of resources because they had been unable to fill this position and I was able to have a secretary and research assistants and other kinds of perks that are not normal even at a rich university like Princeton. I felt more kind of an outsider there in terms of both social background and political orientation, but it was a very privileged place to be in many ways that had very good facilities, and I was still enough of an athlete to use the tennis and squash courts as a mode of daily therapy.

    FF: Why would the Vietnamese leadership invite you to come to Vietnam to meet them? Was it because you were a professor at a prestigious university, which gave you an elite status, or was it something else?

    RF: I think it was partly because of my background. I had written some law journal articles that had gotten a bit of attention, and somebody must have recommended me. I don’t know. I was somewhat surprised. I was supposed to go with a well-known West Coast author considered a left person, but she got sick, and I was accompanied by a very young lawyer. So, I was basically on my own, inexperienced, and didn’t know what to expect. It seemed a risky thing to do from a professional point of view because I was going as an opponent of an ongoing war. There was a 19th-century law that said if you engage in private diplomacy, you’re subject to some kind of criminal prosecution. I didn’t know what to anticipate. But it turned out this was at a time when the US was at least pretending to seek a peaceful negotiation to end its involvement. So, when I came back, because I had these meetings with the Prime Minister and others who had given me a peace proposal that was better than what Kissinger negotiated many deaths later during the Nixon presidency, the US government rather than prosecuting me, came to debrief me and invited me to the State Department and so on, which was something of a surprise.

    FF: Did the State Department take this peace proposal seriously?

    RF: I don’t know what happened internally in the government. I made them aware of it. It was given a front-page New York Times coverage for a couple of days. There was this atmosphere at that time, in the spring of 1968, that was disposed toward finding some way out of this impasse that had been reached in the war itself. The war couldn’t be won, and the phrase of that time was “peace with honor” though it was hard to have much honor after all the devastation that had been carried out.

    FF: What were the elements of that peace proposal given to you that were striking to you?

    RF: The thing that surprised me was that they agreed to allow a quite large number of American troops to stay in Vietnam and to be present while a pre-election was internationally monitored in the southern part of Vietnam. They envisioned some kind of coalition government emerging from those elections. It was quite forthcoming given the long struggle and the heavy casualties they had endured. It was a war in which the future in a way was anticipated; the US completely dominated the military dimensions of the war, land, sea, and air, but managed to lose the war. That puzzle between having military superiority and yet failing to control the political outcome is a pattern that was repeated in several places, including later in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    It is a lesson the US elites can not learn. They are unable to learn because of the strength of the military-industrial-congressional complex. They can’t accept the limited agency of military power in the post-colonial world. Therefore, they keep repeating this Vietnam pattern in different forms. They learned some political lessons like not having as much TV coverage of the US casualties. One of the things that was often said by those who supported the war was that it wasn’t lost in Vietnam; it was lost in the US living rooms. Years later, we heard the same concerns with “embedded” journalists with combat forces, for instance, in the first Gulf War. It was a time when they abolished the draft and relied on a voluntary, professional armed forces. They did their best to pacify American political engagement through more control of the media and other techniques. But it didn’t change this pattern of heavy military involvement and political disappointment.

    FF: This pattern maybe repeating itself in Gaza as we speak. But I would like to ask you a follow up question. You said that the reason essentially for the persistence of that pattern is the existence of a powerful military-industrial-congressional complex. Are you assuming that the US political leadership is wishes to learn the hard lessons but gets blocked by the influence of this complex? Could it be that the US ruling class is in fact so immersed in imperial consciousness that it cannot learn the right lessons after all? When the US leaders look at debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, don’t they seek to learn lessons to pursue their imperial policies more effectively the next time? Which of these perspectives is closer to reality in your thinking?

    RF: The essential point is that the political gatekeepers only select potential leaders who either endorse or consider it a necessity to go along with this consensus as to putting the military budget above partisan politics and making it a matter of bipartisan consensus with small agreements at the margins about whether this or that weapon system should be given priority and greater resource. Occasionally one or two people in Congress will challenge that kind of idea but nothing politically significant in terms of friction. There’s no friction in terms of this way of seeing the projection of US influence in the post-colonial world.

    FF: Let’s assume that’s correct, and I think you’re right about that. But why is that the case? Is it because the US political class knows that a modern capitalist political economy and state needs this military industrial complex as a kind of floor to the economy, that this floor needs to exist, otherwise, if you remove it, stagnationist tendencies will prevail? Is this military industrial floor a requirement of modern US capitalism? Is that why they’re thinking in this way?

    RF: It is a good question. I’m not sure. I think that the core belief is one that’s deep in the political culture. That somehow strength is measured by military capabilities and the underrating of other dimensions of influence and leadership. This is sustained by Wall Street kind of perspectives that see the arms industry as very important component of the economy and by the government bureaucracy that became militarized as a consequence first of World War Two and then along the Cold War. It overbalanced support for the military as a kind of essential element of government credibility. You couldn’t break into those Washington elites unless you were seen as a supporter of this level of consensus. It’s similar in a way to the unquestioning bipartisan support for Israel, which was, until this Gaza crisis, beyond political questioning, and still is beyond political questioning in Washington, despite it being subjected for the first time to serious political doubts among the citizens.

    FF: I think you’re right. There is a cultural element here as well in addition to the uses of military Keynesianism for domestic economic reasons and for imperial reasons to project power. I want to ask you one final question about your reflections on Vietnam. What was the quarrel about from the US perspective? Why was the US so keen on having decades of engagement after the French were defeated in early 1950s all the way to mid 1970s? Why did the US engage in such destructive behavior?

    RF: I think there are two main reasons. Look at the Pentagon Papers that were released by Daniel Ellsberg; they were a study of the US involvement in Vietnam.

    FF: In 1971.

    RF: Yes in 1971, but they go back to the beginning of the engagement. The US didn’t even distinguish between Vietnam and China. They called the Vietnamese Chicoms in those documents. Part of the whole motivation was this obsession with containing China after its revolution in 1949. The second idea was this falling dominoes image that if Vietnam went in a communist direction, other countries in the region would follow and that would have a significant bearing on the global balance and on the whole geopolitics of containment. The third reason was the US trying to exhibit solidarity with the French, who had been defeated in the Indochina war, and to at least limit the scope of that defeat and assert a kind of Western ideological hegemony in the rest of Vietnam.

    FF: I think Indonesia was probably more important from the US perspective. Once there was a successful US-backed coup d’etat in 1965, some in the US argued that perhaps it’s over. The US has won and achieved its strategic objectives by securing Indonesia from falling in the image of the falling dominoes. The US could have gotten out of Vietnam then. But it didn’t. Maybe this was because of concerns about losing credibility. Do you have any thoughts on this matter?

    RF: Yes, that’s a very important observation and it’s hard to document because people don’t acknowledge it fully. The support that the US and particularly CIA gave to the Indonesian effort at genocidal assault on the Sukarno elements of pro-Marxist, anti-Western constituents there resulted in a very deadly killing fields. Indonesia was from a resource and a geopolitical point of view far more important than Vietnam. But Vietnam had built-up a constituency within the armed forces and the counterinsurgency specialists that created a strong push to demonstrate that the US could succeed in this kind of war. The defeat which eventually was acknowledged in effect was thought correctly to inhibit support within the United States for future regime changing interventions and other kinds of foreign policy.

    FF: Let’s move on to another politically engaged episode in your life. You were engaged with the revolutionary processes in Iran in late 1970s. You even met Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978 in a three-hour-long meeting prior to his departure from Paris to Iran in early 1979 when he founded the Islamic Republic and assumed its Supreme Leadership until his death in 1989. What were your thoughts about the Iranian revolution? And what are your reflections today given the vantage point of 45 years of post-revolutionary history? Also tell us what were your impressions of Ayatollah Khomeini in that long meeting you had with him?

    RF: My initial involvement with Iran was a consequence of several Iranian students of mine who were active at Princeton. Princeton had several prominent meetings in 1978 during the year of the Revolution. As a person who had been involved with Vietnam, I was approached by these students to speak and to be involved with their activities. They were all at least claiming to be victims of SAVAK, the Iranian intelligence service under the Shah that was accused of torturing people in prison. I was convinced that after Vietnam, the next place the US would be involved in a regressive manner would be in Iran in support the Shah. Recall that Henry Kissinger in his book on diplomacy says that the Shah was the rarest of things and an unconditional US ally. By that he meant that he did things for Israel that were awkward even for the US to do and he supplied energy to South Africa during the apartheid period. This sense that there would be a confrontation of some sort in Iran guided my early thinking. Then I also had this friendship with Mansour Farhang, who was an intellectual opponent of the Shah’s regime [and later the revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the UN] and represented the Iranian bazaari [pertaining to the traditional merchant class] view of Iranian politics that objected to the Shah’s efforts at neoliberal economic globalization. All that background accounted for my invitation to visit Iran and learn first-hand what the revolution was about.

    I went with the former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a young religious leader. Three of us spent two quite fascinating weeks in Iran in the moment of maximum ferment because the Shah left the country while we were there. It was a very interesting psychological moment. The people we were with in the city of Qazvin on the day the Shah left couldn’t believe it. They thought it was a trick to get people to show their real political identity as a prelude to a new round of repression. During the Carter presidency, the US was very supportive of the Shah’s use of force in suppressing internal revolt. They had an interval at [the September 1978] Camp David talks, seeking peace between Egypt and Israel, to congratulate the Shah on the shooting of demonstrators [on 8 September in Jaleh Square] in Tehran. That was seen as the epitome of interference in Iran’s internal politics.

    After our visit, we met many religious leaders and secular opponents of the Shah’s government. It was a time when Carter sent the NATO General Huyser to Iran to try to help the armed forces. Because our visit went well, we were given the impression that as a reward for our visit we would have this meeting with Khomeini in Paris, which we did. My impression was of a very severe individual, but very intelligent, with very strong eyes that captured your attention. He was impressive in the sense that he started the meeting by asking us questions – quite important ones as things turned out. His main question was: Did we think the US would intervene as it had in the past in 1953 against Mossadeq? Would the US repeat that kind of intervention in the present context? He went on to add that if the US did not intervene, he saw no obstacle to the normalization of relations. That view was echoed by the US ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, during our meeting with him. Khomeini objected to speaking of the Iranian revolution and insisted on calling it the Islamic revolution. He extended his condemnation of the Shah’s dynasty to Saudi Arabia and the gulf monarchies arguing that they were as decadent and exploitative as was the Shah. He used a very colorful phrase that I remember to this day, which was the Shah had created “a river of blood” between the state and society. His own private ambition was to return to Iran and resume his religious life. He did not want to be a political leader at that point at least or he may not have understood the degree of support that he enjoyed in Iran at that time. He did go back to the religious city of Qom and resumed a religious life but was led to believe that Bazargan, the Prime Minister of Iran’s interim government, was putting people in charge of running the country who were sacrificing revolutionary goals.

    FF: When you met Ayatollah Khomeini, were you aware of the series of lectures he had given in the early 1970s in Najaf while in exile in Iraq that were smuggled via audio cassettes into mosque networks inside Iran and later published as a book titled Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist? Some people knew that he had those ideas about an Islamic state, but he did not talk about it in Paris. Did he talk about it when you met him?

    RF: He didn’t talk about it. I was superficially familiar with it. Among the people we met in Tehran was a mathematician who was very familiar with that part of Khomeini’s writing and was scared by what it portended. Of course, Khomeini, as I said, did not anticipate or at least said he did not anticipate his own political leadership, and may have regarded that vision in his writing as something he hoped to achieve but did not necessarily think of himself as the agent of its implementation. I have no idea about that.

    FF: In retrospect, what are your general reflections looking back on Iran’s revolution?

    RF: One set of reflections is the revolution’s durability. Whatever failures it has had, it has successfully resisted its internal, regional, and global adversaries. If it had not been tough on its opponents, it probably would not have survived very long. The comparison, for instance, with the Arab Spring’s failures to sustain their upheavals is quite striking, particularly with Egypt when comparing the failure of the Egyptian movement to sustain itself with the Iranian experience and resistance.

    The second thing is disappointment at the failure to develop in more humane directions and the extreme harshness of the treatment of people perceived as their opponent. In that sense, there is no doubt that it has become a repressive theocratic autocracy. But countries like Israel and the US are not completely without some responsibility for that development. There was a kind of induced paranoia in a way because they had real opponents who tried to destabilize it in a variety of ways. The West encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and gave it a kind of green light. The attack involved the idea that they could at least easily control the oil producing parts of Iran, if not bring about the fall of the Khomeini-style regime itself. As often is the case in the US-induced use of force overseas, there are a lot of miscalculations, probably on both sides.

    FF: The US has viewed Iran ever since its revolution as a threat to its geostrategic interests. I think that the “threat” is more the deterrence power of Iran, in other words, Iran’s ability to impose a cost on US operations in the region, oftentimes targeting Iran itself. And of course, Israel, too, is in alliance with the US. Do you agree with this assessment that there is basically no threat to the United States from Iran aside from Iran’s ability to impose costs on US operations in the region, oftentimes against Iran itself?

    RF: I completely agree with that. Iran had initially especially at most an anti-imperial outlook that did not want interference with the national movement. Of course, it wanted to encourage Islamic movements throughout the region and had a certain success. That was viewed in Washington as a geopolitical threat. It was certainly not a national security threat in the conventional sense. But it could be viewed as a threat to the degree to which US hegemony could be maintained in the strategic energy policies that were very important to the US at that time.

    FF: Let’s shift to Palestine-Israel. What is the appropriate historical context for understanding what happened on Oct. 7 and what has been taking place since then in Gaza and the West Bank? We know that the conventional US view distorts reality by talking about this issue as if history began on 7 October with the Hamas attack on southern Israel.

    RF: This is a complicated set of issues to unravel in a brief conversation. But there is no question that the context of the Hamas attack is crucial to understanding its occurrence, even though the attack itself needs to be problematized in terms of whether Israel wanted it to happen or let it happen. They had adequate advance warning; they had all that surveillance technology along the borders with Gaza. The IDF did not respond as it usually does in a short period. It took them five hours, apparently, to arrive at the scene of these events. On the one side, we really don’t know how to perceive that October 7 event. We do know that some worse aspects of it, the beheading of babies, mass rapes, and those kinds of horrifying details, were being manipulated by Israel and its supporters. So, we need an authoritative reconstruction of October 7 itself.

    But even without that reconstruction, we know that Hamas and the Palestinians were being provoked by a series of events. There is a kind of immediate context where Netanyahu goes to the UN General Assembly and waves a map with Palestine essentially erased from it. To Netanyahu, this is the new Middle East without Palestine in it. He has made it clear recently that he is opposed to any kind of Palestinian statehood. So, one probable motivation was for the Palestinians to reassert their presence or existence and resolve to remain.

    The other very important contextual element is the recollection of the Nakba or catastrophe that occurred in 1948 where 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from their homes and villages and not permitted to return. The Israeli response since October 7 gives rise to a strong impression that the real motivation on its part is not security as it is ordinarily understood but rather a second Nakba to ethnically cleanse and to implement this by the forced evacuation and unlivability of Gaza carried out by what many people, including myself, have regarded as a genocide.

    The Israeli argument that they are entitled to act in self-defense seems very strained in this context. Gaza and the West Bank are from an international law point of view occupied territories; they are not foreign entities. How do you exercise self-defense against yourself? The Geneva Accords are very clear that the primary duty of the occupying power is to protect the civilian population. It is an unconditional duty of the occupying power, and it is spelled out in terms of an unconditional obligation, to make sure that the population has sufficient food and medical supplies, which the Israeli leadership from day one excluded. They tried to block the entry of food, fuel, and electricity and have caused a severe health-starvation scenario that will probably cost many more lives than have already been lost.

    FF: Not to speak of another violation by Israel: As an occupying power it is prohibited from transferring its own population to the territories that it has been occupying.

    RF: Yes.

    FF: Of course, Israeli expansionism in terms of its settlements, practically does away with the viability of the idea of a two-state solution, unless somehow, they can be forced to remove all the settlers and dismantle the major settlement blocks in the West Bank.

    Let me get your thoughts on the following. It seems Israel used October 7 as an excuse to carry out a speedier mass expulsion campaign rather than to continue with the slower ethnic cleansing that oftentimes characterize its actions in various decades in the period of Israeli control over these territories. We can point to 1948 and 1967 as two other occasions when Israel took advantage of historical moments and expelled many Palestinians. Post-Oct. 7 may be the third historical moment in which Israel is behaving in this manner. Do you agree with this assessment?

    RF: Absolutely. The only thing I would add is that the Netanyahu coalition with religious Zionism as it took over in Israel in January of 2023 was widely viewed, even in Washington, as the most extreme government that had ever come to power in Israel. What made it extreme was the green lighting of settler violence in the West Bank, which was clearly aimed at dispossessing the Palestinian presence there. They often at these settler demonstrations would leave on Palestinian cars these messages: “leave or we will kill you.” It is horrifying that this dimension of Israeli provocation has not been taken into some account.

    FF: Yes, we see that in the West Bank since October 7. By now some 16 villages have been depopulated, several hundred Palestinians killed, and close to 6000 arrested by the Israeli Offensive (not Defensive) Forces who often act alongside armed settlers who enjoy impunity in terrorizing the Palestinians.

    Well, thank you, Richard, for joining me in this conversation. I found it to be very interesting.

    RF: Thank you and I also found your questions very suggestive and a challenge.

    The post Richard Falk on the Vietnam War, Revolution in Iran, and Genocide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 khourynetanyahu

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that the Israeli military plans to shift its focus to Lebanon, from where attacks on Israel by Hezbollah have escalated in recent months. “The Lebanon-Israel border is more dangerous than ever because of the capabilities that Hezbollah has,” says Palestinian American journalist Rami Khouri. He explains how the balance of power has shifted in the region, but warns of the potentially “devastating” effects of a full-scale war in Lebanon. Khouri adds, “We’ve passed the point where Israel and the U.S. dominate the strategic realities, military realities, in the Middle East.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The southern Lebanese border has reached its highest point of tension since October 7. Both Hezbollah and Israel have escalated threats of all-out war, and now it seems that it might be an actual possibility. On Thursday, June 20, CNN quoted unnamed U.S. officials saying that Israel had informed Washington of its plans to transfer military equipment to the northern border ahead of a war with…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Fossil Free London activists unfurled a large banner reading ‘National Trust: Protect Nature, Drop Barclays’ across a tower at the iconic Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, on Friday 21 June. the protest was over the organisation’s links to the fossil fuels and arms manufacturer-supporting bank.

    Barclays: climate-wrecking investments

    Bodiam Castle, which was built in 1385 and is famous for its beautiful, moated setting, is one of hundreds of sites owned by the National Trust; the guardian of nature reserves, national parks, coastline, historic buildings and estates across the country.

    Activists claimed the National Trust were ‘hypocrites’ for banking with Barclays, Europe’s worst funder of fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement, drawing attention to one of the trust’s core aims; to protect nature and climate. In 2023 alone, Barclays provided $24.221bn of financing to fossil fuel companies:

    Barclays

    Recently, other institutions have announced their intentions to stop banking with Barclays for ethical reasons. Christian Aid and Oxfam have removed their funds from Barclays already. Cambridge University is withdrawing its support for Barclays and is leading a group of universities and colleges that are investigating more sustainable financial products.

    Pressure is building on Barclays and those institutions with links to the bank, since its sponsorship of Latitude, Download and Isle of Wight festivals was suspended when bands threatened to withdraw from the festivals because of Barclays funding of arms used by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza.

    Barclays Bank holds over £1bn in shares and provides over £3bn in loans and underwriting to nine companies whose weapons, components, and military technology are being used by Israel in its genocidal attacks on Palestinians.

    Complicit in Israel’s genocide

    This includes General Dynamics, which produces the gun systems that arm the fighter jets used by Israel to bombard Gaza, and Elbit Systems, which produces armoured drones, munitions, and artillery weapons used by the Israeli military.

    Amongst Barclays £3bn investments and loans in companies facilitating the Gaza genocide, the bank holds shares in Elbit Systems which is the primary target of Palestine Action’s campaign. Elbit Systems provide 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land-based equipment, as well as bombs, missiles and other weaponry.

    The Israeli weapons maker market their weapons as “battle-tested” after they are developed during bombardments on occupied Palestine.

    Joanna Warrington, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:

    The National Trust’s core mission is to protect our environment, nature and heritage; but they are failing to do this for as long as they bank with Barclays. Because our world and all we love in it is in crisis, yet Barclays is still pouring billions into the fossil fuels destroying it. It’s time for the National Trust to stand up and protect nature, by ending their relationship with this oily bank.

    Featured image via Fossil Free London

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • Is it a coincidence that a controversy about Niki Ashton’s expenses for a one-and-a-half-year-old trip to Quebec emerged after she challenged Canada’s biggest contribution to Palestinian dispossession?

    On June 13 the NDP’s revenue critic hosted a press conference at the parliamentary press gallery calling “on the Liberal government to investigate Canadian charities that allegedly funneled taxpayer money in support of Israeli military operations and illegal settlements in Palestine.” After sponsoring a parliamentary petition on the subject, Ashton posted a letter she’d sent previously to Revenue Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau demanding the government investigate charities funding Israeli military operations in Gaza and illegal Israeli settlements. Ashton ended the May 27 post noting, “Not one cent of Canadian tax-dollars should be funding genocide.”

    Ashton’s statement was referenced in a public letter headlined Stop Subsidizing Genocide signed by Gabor Mate, Yann Martel, Linda McQuaig, Roger Waters, Monia Mazigh, Amir Khadir, Desmond Cole, Libby Davies, Ellen Gabriel, Alex Neve and Sarah Jama. The letter calls into question the more than a quarter billion dollars a year sent to Israel and the Canada Revenue Agency’s failure to “enforce its rules on registered charities assisting foreign militaries, racist organizations and West Bank settlements.”

    June 13 was set to be an important step forward for the Just Peace Advocates and Canadian Foreign Policy Institute led “colonialism is not charity” campaign that’s been gaining steam in Palestine solidarity circles. But the Ottawa press conference was upended by the revelation Ashton charged taxpayers $17,000 for a trip she took in December 2022. According to an article published that morning by CBC parliamentary bureau reporter John Paul Tasker, Ashton brought her husband and two young children with her on a trip over the Christmas period that took them to Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. Ashton represents a northern Manitoba ridding so the airfare for the four of them cost $13,000. Ashton’s finances were okayed by the appropriate authorities, yet CBC Power and Politics did a 13-minute five-person discussion about Ashton’s expenses. The National Post, Winnipeg Sun, Truth North, Global News and Rebel News also reported on Ashton’s finances.

    Apparently, four journalists attended the press conference and two of them asked multiple questions about Ashton’s finances, but none covered the Israel-focused charity subject. The dominant media completely ignored the substance of the presser though wide social media circulation of a clip from the press conference suggest significant interest in charities funding Israel’s genocide.

    Most likely, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs or B’nai Brith shared information on Ashton’s finances to the media. They may have done so when they caught wind of the press conference or when Ashton posted on May 27 about the hyper-sensitive subject of taxpayer-subsidized charities funneling funds to Israel in contravention of CRA rules.

    Likely, the Israel lobby has been keeping tabs on Ashton who has long been in their crosshairs. In 2017 the Jewish supremacist organization published a press release titled “B’nai Brith Denounces MP Niki Ashton for Standing in ‘Solidarity’ with Terrorists.” It began “B’nai Brith Canada strongly denounces federal NDP leadership candidate Niki Ashton for attending a rally this week in support of Palestinian terrorists and for questioning Israel’s right to exist in a Facebook post.”

    Alternatively, journalists sat on details about Ashton’s expenses and social media posts from her husband dating back to December 2022. They then so happened to release the information just as Ashton challenged a little discussed subject that’s Canada’s most significant contribution to Palestinian dispossession.

    Criticizing Ashton’s expenses serves to undercut her standing on public expenditures. As such, it was the perfect scandal to reveal about a politician challenging Israel charities laundering public funds.

    But, the real scandal is how journalists either instigated or allowed themselves to be used to undermine a discussion about unlawful activity that costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year to help a foreign government caught interfering in Canadian politics.

    Beyond undercutting Ashton’s standing on public expenditures, it was a powerful message to the NDP. Apparently, NDP foreign critic Heather MacPherson was planning to participate in the press conference until the expenses information came to light. It will be interesting to see if the NDP and Ashton shy away from challenging Canada’s biggest contribution to Palestinian dispossession because of the ‘scandal’.

    Part of why the Israel lobby likely pursued this line of response to Ashton challenging Israel charities is that they don’t have a good retort to the criticism. In addition to the large transfer of public funds, the charity issue undercuts their claim Israel is unfairly “singled out”. In fact, no other wealthy, faraway, country receives a remotely comparable amount of charity fundraising. And many of the Israel-focused registered charities violate existing CRA rules. Since 2005, for instance, the Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz’s HESEG Foundation has raised nearly $200 million to assist non-Israelis who join the Israeli military despite CRA rules that clearly state “supporting the armed forces of another country is not” charitable activity.

    The Israel lobby is known for underhanded tactics and are likely behind the recent attack on Niki Ashton.

    For those of us appalled by Israel’s holocaust in Gaza our response to this slander of Ashton must be to redouble our efforts to demand “not one cent of Canadian tax-dollars should be funding genocide.”

    The post Real Scandal is Undermining Discussion of Tax Subsidies for Israel first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Israel Defense Forces on Friday yet again shelled tents of displaced Palestinians near the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, killing at least 25 and wounding another 50, local health and emergency officials said. “According to Ahmed Radwan, a spokesperson for Civil Defense first responders in Rafah, witnesses told rescue workers about the shelling at two locations in a coastal area that has…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hundreds of Youth Demand supporters blocked Oxford Circus, London to demand a two-way arms embargo on Israel and for the incoming UK government to halt all new oil and gas licences granted since 2021.

    Youth Demand: bringing central London to a standstill

    At around 12pm on Saturday 22 June, a large group of Youth Demand supporters gathered at Victoria Embankment Gardens. The group heard speeches and held a people’s assembly – a deliberative discussion about the crisis and what to do about it:

    The group then dispersed, with groups marching through central London before reconvening at Oxford Circus, at around 2:50pm:

    Of course, Youth Demand did previously warn it would be disrupting London each Saturday. As the Canary previously reported, the group gave the UK government one week from 23 May to stop all arms licences to Israel. Spain, Canada, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands have all paused arms licenses or shipments to Israel over fears that they may be used in violation of international humanitarian law.

    That deadline passed – and now Youth Demand are acting, starting at Oxford Circus.

    One of those taking action at Oxford Circus was Poppy Jabelman, 23, a human geography student from Exeter who said:

    We’re demanding a two way arms embargo with Israel, as it’s appalling that the UK is still providing the bombs being dropped on starving people forced into refugee camps in Palestine. Each of the over 37,000 people brutally murdered had dreams, families and futures.”

    Meanwhile Keir Starmer still refuses to call it what it is: genocide. Labour are set to win the general election with an unprecedented landslide, but this is no cause for celebration whilst they are complicit in the murder of children. The Youth Demand better! If you’ve similarly lost faith in our broken political system, and are outraged by the crimes against humanity we’re witnessing, head to youthdemand.org to sign up for action.

    “We deserve better”

    Another of those taking action at Oxford Circus was Violet Powell, 23, a student from Leeds who said:

    Our country is complicit in genocide. Both major parties refuse to acknowledge the horrors they’re enabling or to call for an arms embargo on Israel. What good is voting when the outcome is the same? For a future to be liveable, and to not have regrets, I must take action now. I couldn’t live with myself otherwise. Join us for a week of action in Central London from the 13th-20th July.

    The group said in a statement:

    Young people will not accept a political system bought by weapons manufacturers, oil oligarchs and media barons. We deserve better. Young people all over the country are coming together to resist. Youth Demand will be taking action in Central London from the 13th-20th July.

    Join us at https://youthdemand.org.

    Featured image and additional images via Youth Demand

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is unhappy.  Not so much with the Palestinians, whom he sees as terroristic, dispensable and a threat to Israeli security.  Not with the Persians, who, he swears, will never acquire a nuclear weapon capacity on his watch.  His recent lack of happiness has been directed against the fatty hand that feeds him and his country’s war making capabilities.

    On June 18, the Israeli PM released a video decrying Washington’s recent conduct towards his government in terms of military aid.  It was “inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel.”  Having claimed such an idea to be inconceivable, Netanyahu proceeded to conceive.  He stated that US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken had “assured” him “that the administration is working day and night to remove these bottlenecks. I certainly hope that’s the case.  It should be the case.”

    The release coincided with efforts made by President Joe Biden’s envoy, Amos Hochstein, to cool matters concerning Israel-Hezbollah hostilities, a matter that threatens to move beyond daily border skirmishes.  It was also a pointed reference to the halt in a single shipment of 2000 pound (900kg) bombs to Israel regarding concerns about massive civilian casualties over any planned IDF assault on Rafah.

    The White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was uncharacteristically unadorned in frankness.  “We genuinely do not know what he is talking about.”  Discussions between US and Israeli officials were continuing.  “There are no other pauses – none.”  It fell to the White House National Security Communications advisor, John Kirby, to field more substantive questions on the matter.

    On June 20, Kirby admitted to being perplexed and disappointed at Netanyahu’s remarks, “especially given that no other country is doing more to help Israel defend itself against the threat by Hamas”.  As he was at pains to point out, the US military industrial complex had enthusiastically furnished “material assistance to Israel” despite the pause on the provision of 2,000-pound bombs.  The notion “that we had somehow stopped helping Israel with their self-defense needs is absolutely not accurate”.  Netanyahu, in other words, was quibbling about the means of inflicting death, a matter of form over substance.

    Blinken confirmed as much, stating that the administration was “continuing to review one shipment that President Biden has talked about with regard to 2000-pound bombs because of our concerns about their use in densely populated areas like Rafah.”  All other matters were “moving as it normally would move.”

    These remarks are unequivocally true.  Annual military assistance to Israel from US coffers totals $3.8 billion.  In April, President Joe Biden approved the provision of $17 billion in additional assistance to Israel amidst the continued pummelling of Gaza and the starvation of its thinning population.  The Biden administration has also badgered Democratic lawmakers to give their blessing to the sale of 50 F-15 fighters to Israel in a contract amounting to $18 billion.  But this, according to accounts from Israel’s Channel 12 and the German paper Bild, has been less than satisfactory for Israel’s blood lusting prime minister.

    The disgruntled video precipitated much agitation among officials in the Biden administration.  In an Axios report, three, inevitably anonymised, offer their views.  One found it “hard to fathom” how the video “helps with deterrence.  There is nothing like telling Hezbollah that the US is withholding weapons from Israel, which is false, to make them feel emboldened.”

    The interviewed officials all admitted to Netanyahu’s inscrutability.  A half-plausible line was ventured: running up points on the domestic front ahead of a visit to Washington from Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant.  Not that the strategy was working for opposition leader, Yair Lapid, who found Netanyahu’s effort damaging in its reverberating potential.  From Moscow to Tokyo, “everyone is reaching the same conclusion: Israel is no longer the closest ally of the US.  This is the damage Netanyahu is causing us.”

    Kirby’s remarks deserve scrutiny on another level. For one, they suggest a rationale that would have done much in flattening Israeli egos.  “The president put fighter aircrafts up in the air in the middle of April to help shoot down several hundred drones and missiles, including ballistic missiles that were fired from Iran proper at Israel.”

    Here arises an important omission: the intervention by the US was part of a coordinated, choreographed plan enabling Iran to show force in response to the April 1 Israeli strike on its ambassadorial compound in Damascus while minimising the prospect of casualties.  Accordingly, Tehran and Washington found themselves in an odd, unacknowledged embrace that had one unintended consequence: revealing Israeli vulnerability.  No longer could Israel be seen to be self-sufficiently impregnable, its defences firmly holding against all adversaries.  In a perverse twist on that dilemma, a strong ally providing support is bound to be resented.  Nothing supplied will ever be, or can be, enough.

    The post Quibbling About Killing: Netanyahu’s Spat with Washington first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The party responsible for a war crime—or any act of mass violence—is important information and something that should be named at the forefront of any news documenting said war crime or act of mass violence. This much seems obvious, but the “War in Gaza” has created a particularly grimy editorial genre of Natural Disaster-izing mass death. Specific episodes of mass killing, disease, and displacement at the hands of Israel as it carries out siege, occupation, and bombing are all too often covered like one would a deadly volcano or earthquake: The party responsible is not a specific government or military but a mysterious, agency-free “war,” “disaster,” or “humanitarian crisis.”

    Israel’s responsibility is often mentioned or alluded to––typically in scare quotes––in the text further down the page, but it is not centered or made obvious, thus meaningfully reducing any political urgency around their guilt. 

    The most egregious practitioner of this grim editorial genre is the New York Times, which has obscured who is killing tens of thousands in Gazans with new lows of confusion and hand-wringing. Here are just a handful of headlines published over the past eight months which one could read, and re-read a dozen times, and still not be sure who is killing whom:

    Reading these headlines, it’s impossible to know who is responsible for these human tragedies. 

    Take one May 6 report in the New York Times detailing how Israel’s assault has completely destroyed the education system of Gaza. “With Schools in Ruins, Education in Gaza Will Be Hobbled for Years,” read the headline. The subheadline continued, “Most of Gaza’s schools, including all of its universities, have severe damage that makes them unusable, which could harm an entire generation, the United Nations and others say.”

    Not until paragraph seven does the New York Times mention who actually destroyed the schools and, even then, it’s framed as an accusation by UN officials and Palestinians. Repeatedly, both in framing and text, the cause of the annihilation of Gaza’s education system is presented as a vague, agency-free, symmetrical “war.” As if there are two equally powerful armies facing off in some type of a Napoleonic battle with unfortunate civilians on both sides caught in the middle, rather than a virtually one-way bombing, siege, and occupation of the most powerful military in the Middle East against a people with no modern defense systems. 

    One nonsensical New York Times social media post from Feb. 22 reads like a parody:

    Deadly strikes in Rafah, in southern Gaza, flattened the Al-Farouk mosque, seen here, on Thursday, residents and the Palestinian Authority’s news agency said. Only Israel, which declined to comment on the attacks, carries out airstrikes in Gaza.

    So why not just say it was Israel? Clearly it was. It’s the obvious implication of this language, which is at war with itself. But, alas, the New York Times can’t spell out the obvious, lest they offend the crybully pro-Israel media watchers and their right-wing “liberal media”-complaining confederates.

    During just one 24-hour period in June, the New York Times ran three responsibility-absolving headlines and subheadlines that capture the agency-removing ethos of the paper:

    “War” has “killed” Palestinians. “Dire Conditions in Gaza” created “a multitude of amputee” Palestinians. Gaza is the world’s deadliest place for aid workers because of some abstract “devastation.” Who is causing all this suffering? Reading the headlines and subheadlines, one would have no idea. Contrast this with how the Times covers Russian war crimes. Here, agency is clear upfront, as are the deadly consequences of the guilty party’s actions. 

    It is possible that the New York Times has a policy similar to that of CNN, which does not ascribe responsibility to the IDF until after Israeli officials formally confirm it. We know that CNN’s policy exists thanks to reporting from the Intercept in early January. An anonymous CNN staff member told the Intercept’s Daniel Boguslaw, “Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as ‘blasts’ attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed.”

    Who did what to what? Impossible to tell from reading the headlines. In all these reports, much further into the article, Israel’s potential culpability is mentioned buried in the text

    That CNN Natural Disaster-izes Gaza is thus evident in their headlines, which routinely obscure Israel’s role in the carnage being reported on. Here are a handful of the worst examples from the past few months:

    Who did what to what? Impossible to tell from reading the headlines. In all these reports, much further into the article, Israel’s potential culpability is mentioned buried in the text, but typically attributed to “Hamas-run” ministries or “Gaza officials,” reducing the horrific sights to a he-said-she-said situation, despite Israel being the only party remotely capable of carrying out the attacks in question. An otherwise useful, detailed analysis of how Israel systematically destroyed the healthcare system in Gaza is framed by CNN as “How Gaza’s hospitals became battlegrounds.” 

    This isn’t “hospitals” “becoming battlegrounds”—this is Israel attacking hospitals. 

    Battlegrounds? Were there battles in these hospitals? No, there weren’t. For the most part, the IDF shelled them, bombed them, cleared them out to make life unsustainable, pursuant to their Oct.r 13 evacuation order of Northern Gaza. Occasionally, Palestinian fighters would attack IDF convoys as they approached hospitals, but at no point was there anything like a “battle” inside any hospital. Nor did CNN’s report show anything like this. It showed Israel attacking hospitals to clear them out, then they’d move on. This isn’t “hospitals” “becoming battlegrounds”—this is Israel attacking hospitals. 

    Again, contrast this Fog of War, who’s-to-say-who-did-what framing with how CNN covered Russian attacks on hospitals in a straightforward way. “Deadly Russian strikes obliterate Dnipro medical facility in central Ukraine,” read one headline from May 2023. “Anatomy of the Mariupol hospital attack,” read one March 22 headline. “Medical facilities and workers have been repeatedly hit by Russian forces since their invasion of Ukraine, despite this being against the rules of war.” the subhead stated. “Russian missile strike on Zaporizhzhia maternity hospital kills newborn baby,” a November 2022 CNN headline reads.

    When it comes to Ukraine, responsibility is clear, the nature of the crime apparent and the moral implications are obvious. With Israel’s repeated war crimes against Gaza, agency is removed and the human suffering is framed like the result of a mudslide or earthquake. 

    Another recent example: Last week the Associated Press did a deep dive investigation into entire Palestinian families being wiped out by Israel, and even then framed the culprit not as a military, a government, or even a leader of Israel, but as a nebulous “war.” “The war in Gaza,” the headline read, “has wiped out entire Palestinian families. AP documents 60 who lost dozens or more.”

    A different AP report from Wednesday read, “the war has largely cut off the flow of food, medicine and other supplies to Palestinians who are facing widespread hunger.”

    But “war” didn’t wipe out entire Palestinian families, nor did “war” cut off food and medicine to Palestinians in Gaza—Israel did. And we know this because, as several genocide scholars and the International Court of Justice clearly documented, Israeli officials kicked off their revenge campaign on Oct. 7 with explicitly genocidal intent. While the AP has been better at framing stories of mass death with a responsible party than the New York Times and CNN, they too often fall into the agency-removal trap. 

    Polls show over half of Americans frequently don’t read past the headline, so how our news is framed for the passing media consumer is of tremendous importance

    Another reason for the widespread Natural Disaster-izing of Gaza is that pro-Israel pressure groups are constantly working the refs, whining to editors, reporters, and media owners that the media is being too hard on Israel. This crybully campaign escalated to great effect after the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing on Oct. 17 where, allegedly, a single Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket killed over 200 people (despite approximately 1,800 Hamas/PIJ rockets landing in Israel and killing only 15 people in the first three months of war, but this is a different article). After this incident, headline writers became uniquely allergic to assigning Israel blame for anything, lest they be subject to the faked outrage of those seeking to make the Times and CNN look like Hamas mouthpieces. 

    Obviously, there is more to news reporting than headlines, subheadlines, and framing. But polls show over half of Americans frequently don’t read past the headline, so how our news is framed for the passing media consumer is of tremendous importance, politically. This is why pro-Israel media bullies put so many resources into attacking outlets that center Israel’s responsibility for the daily atrocity they are reporting on. They know it matters. And it matters that a deliberate, well-documented strategy of mass killing, displacement, and very likely genocide by a specific party that has repeatedly express genocidal intent, is obscured and removed from the reporting. And, instead, the suffering that appears on people’s TV screens and social media timelines is given the “Oh, Dearism” treatment, something with no author, no cause. Because, after all, if it’s not the US and its allies doing the killing, what can be done about it other than generally feeling bad and moving on? 

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The U.S. military may be permanently dismantling its pier in Gaza soon, The New York Times reports, after the pier has delivered little but a series of embarrassing failures and an amount of aid so paltry that it has done essentially nothing to address the spread of famine across the region. According to a Times report this week, military officials are telling aid groups that they may have to stop…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A group of nearly 70 Democrats is calling on the Biden administration to move to accept Palestinians fleeing Israel’s genocide in Gaza as refugees if they have family living in the U.S., an action praised by advocates who say that it is a small but crucial step toward saving Palestinian lives. In a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The corporate media has dodged reporting on a bombshell revelation about Israel from Jeremy Corbyn.

    In an interview with Declassified co-founder Matt Kennard, former Labour leader Corbyn revealed that potential UK prime ministers are expected to unconditionally support Israeli military action.

    Corbyn: “I will give no such undertaking” over Israel

    Corbyn said:

    During one extremely hostile meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party Committee they confronted me and said will you give a blanket undertaking that you, as party leader and potentially prime minister, will automatically support any military action Israel undertakes?

    And I said no, I will give no such undertaking… because the issue of Palestine has to be resolved and Palestinian people do not deserve to live under occupation, and the siege of Gaza has created such incredible stress.

    Current Israeli military action amounts to a ‘plausible’ genocide, according to the International Court of Justice. Since 7 October, Israel has killed 37,980 Palestinian people including over 15,000 children.

    Corbyn’s revelation suggests Keir Starmer, should he become prime minister, would be even less likely to take steps to end the genocide. Starmer’s Labour has already refused to ban arms sales to Israel or advocate sanctions on the state.

    The Labour leader has also repeatedly sidestepped the question of whether he would enforce International Criminal Court arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.

    “It’s a war crime”

    In the interview, Kennard asked Corbyn whether he was “surprised” that Starmer said Israel has the right to withdraw water and electricity from Gaza. Corbyn said:

    I was totally shocked by that reply. It’s absolutely clear in every aspect of law, never mind morality, that you don’t bomb schools, you don’t destroy water supplies, you don’t cut off electricity. And he said that’s legitimate self defence. It’s not. It’s a war crime.

    But he also said he wasn’t surprised at Labour’s general support for Israel. He said that’s because the “pressure” from the Israeli government on Labour is “huge”. He continued:

    Many countries do a great deal of lobbying… Israel has been an ever present lobby for Israel’s military needs as they put them. And attempts always to justify Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank

    Corbyn also pointed out the lack of power of the Palestinian Authority in the Israeli occupied West Bank. He said he asked the founder of the Palestinian National Initiative, Mustafa Barghouti, what he’d do if he became president of the Authority:

    He said ‘well I wouldn’t be able to do anything – I don’t control the borders, I don’t control security, I don’t have an army, I only have money that comes in by the largesse of Israel. I’m not sure I’d have any authority to do anything. We are not an independent functioning state, we are a place under occupation’.

    The former Labour leader later summed it up when he said “there’s a very colonial mentality that still pervades parliament”.

    After Starmer purged him, Corbyn is running as an independent in Islington North. It’s imperative we return him as an MP.

    Watch the full interview:

    Featured image via A/POLITICAL – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Night Won’t End, a new documentary from Al Jazeera English, takes an in-depth look at attacks on civilians by the Israeli military in Gaza and the United States’ role in the war. The film follows three Palestinian families as they recount the horrific experiences they have endured under relentless Israeli assault, including the family of 6-year-old Hind Rajab, the young Palestinian girl who…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Candidate in the general election Jon Ashworth has joined the prestigious ranks of being a member of the occasional Canary series “Labour politicians running from the public” – this time, exposing himself as the party’s answer to Alan Partridge.

    On a serious note, though, and the former shadow cabinet stooge was seemingly intimidated by some Muslim uncles – as they asked just why he abstained in parliament on the vote for a ceasefire in Gaza.

    Labour politicians running from the public: a Canary miniseries

    As the Canary’s James Wright previously wrote, Labour candidates do not like being asked about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. For example, a voter asked the candidate for Bethnal Green and Stepney, Rushanara Ali, if he could ask her a question. But like shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves did earlier this year when asked questions on Palestine, Ali promptly ran away.

    Then there’s shadow secretary for culture, media and sport Thangam Debbonaire, candidate for Bristol Central. Earlier in June, Owen Jones tried to asked her whether she supports an arms embargo on Israel amid its genocide against Palestinian people in Gaza. But she ran off too.

    In February, Labour’s Rochdale candidate Azhar Ali marked another instance of Labour people trying to run the country without answering questions. Ali sped away in his car when reporters from 5 Pillars asked him “is Labour a party of genocide?”

    Now, Ashworth has also joined these ranks

    Jon Ashworth: ‘stop bullying me!’

    Community activist Majid Freeman and some locals bumped into Jon Ashworth and his Labour Party stooges on the campaign trail in Leicester South. As Freeman noted:

    Elderly Muslim uncles who previously supported Jon came out to ask why he abstained from the Palestine ceasefire vote so he resorted to playing victim by saying we were bullying & intimidating him.

    Yes indeed. Apparently, members of the public asking questions is “bullying”:

    Ashworth was filming on his mobile – although it is not clear for what purpose. However, what was clear is there was just a smidgen of… something distinctly racist… as Ashworth said:

    If you want THESE people [emphasis as per Ashworth’s tone] to win this election… the bullies and the loudmouths… you’ve got to come out and vote against this.

    Against what, Ashworth? People asking you questions over Gaza, Palestine, and genocidal Israel?

    Clearly, the Labour candidate IS intimidated by the public asking him questions he doesn’t want to answer – as towards the end of Freeman’s video Ashworth does some weird, Partridge-style yoga shit – seemingly in an effort to look calm and in control. Watch from 1:40:

    Lynn! LYNN!

    It all feels very… well… this:

    This:

    This:

    And this, Jon Ashworth:

    Ashworth Labour

    Consider yourself in the Canary Hall of Fame.

    There is of course a broader point to be made, here.

    Jon Ashworth and Labour: gaslighting the public

    Jon Ashworth and other Labour candidates’ reactions over the serious question of Israel, Gaza, and their position reeks of an extreme arrogance – but also complete lack of accountability to the public. More and more, we’re seeing the Labour Party present itself as somehow unanswerable to the public – many of whom have genuine concerns over its stance on Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and its wider apartheid across the Occupied Territories.

    Hiding behind accusations of bullying and intimidation betrays Labour candidates true motivations: that they will happily wring their hands over Israel’s killing of tens of thousands of people if it means a whiff of power for them. However, when questioned on it, their own consciences cannot lie. Therefore, they gaslight the public by claiming they’re the ones being threatened.

    This is sick in the extreme, and shows the moral void that exists in the Labour Party now.

    Politicians like Ashworth awkwardly being caught on camera is funny – but the underlying issue is deadly serious.

    Featured image via X – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ian Parmeter, Australian National University

    Among the many sayings attributed to Winston Churchill is, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

    This sentiment seems appropriate as Israel potentially appears ready to embark on a war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said this week a decision on an all-out war against Hezbollah was “coming soon” and that senior commanders of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had signed off on a plan for the operation.

    This threat comes despite the fact Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is far from over. Israel has still not achieved the two primary objectives Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put forth at the start of the conflict:

    • the destruction of Hamas as a military and governing entity in Gaza
    • the freeing of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas (about 80 believed to still be alive, along with the remains of about 40 believed to be dead).

    Why Hezbollah is attacking Israel now
    Israel has cogent reasons for wanting to eliminate the threat from Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been launching Iranian-supplied missiles, rockets and drones across the border into northern Israel since the Gaza war began on October 8.

    Its stated purpose is to support Hamas by distracting the IDF from its Gaza operation.

    Hezbollah’s attacks have been relatively circumscribed – confined so far to northern Israel. But they have led to the displacement of some 60,000 residents from the border area. These people are understandably fed up and demanding Netanyahu’s government takes action to force Hezbollah to withdraw from the border.

    This anger has been augmented this week by Hezbollah publicising video footage of military and civilian sites in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, which had been taken by a low-flying surveillance drone.

    The implication: Hezbollah was scoping the region for new targets. Haifa, a city of nearly 300,000, has not yet been subject to Hezbollah attacks.

    The most far-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have openly called for Israel to invade southern Lebanon. Even without this pressure, Netanyahu has ample reason to want to neutralise the Hezbollah threat because residents of northern Israel are strong supporters of his Likud party.

    US and Iranian interests in a broader conflict
    The United States is obviously concerned about the risk Israel will open a second front in its conflicts. As such, President Joe Biden has sent an envoy, Amos Hochstein, to Israel and Lebanon to try to reduce tensions on both sides.

    In Lebanon, he cannot publicly deal directly with the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, because the group is on the US list of global terrorist organisations. Instead, he met the long-serving speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, who as a fellow Shia is able to talk with Nasrallah.

    But Hezbollah answers to Iran — its main backer in the region. And it’s doubtful if any Lebanese leader can persuade it to desist from action approved by Iran.

    Iran’s interests in the potential for an Israel-Hezbollah war at this time are mixed. It would obviously be glad to see Israel under military pressure on two fronts. But Iranian leaders see Hezbollah as insurance against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.

    Hezbollah has an estimated 150,000 missiles and rockets, including some that could reach deep into Israel. So far, Iran seems to want Hezbollah to hold back from a major escalation with Israel, which could deplete most of that arsenal.

    That said, although Israel’s Iron Dome defensive shield has been remarkably successful in neutralising the rocket threat from Gaza, it might not be as effective against a large-scale barrage of more sophisticated missiles.

    Israel needed help from the US, Britain, France and Jordan in countering a direct attack from Iran in April that involved some 150 missiles and 170 drones.


    Israel and Hezbollah conflict: escalating cross-border tensions. Video: ABC News

    Lessons from previous Israeli interventions in Lebanon
    The other factor – especially for wiser heads mindful of history – is the country’s previous interventions in Lebanon have been far from cost-free.

    Israel’s problems with Lebanon started when the late King Hussein of Jordan forced the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), then led by Yasser Arafat, to relocate to Lebanon in 1970. He did that because the PLO had been using Jordan as a base for operations against Israel after the 1967 war, provoking Israeli retaliation.

    From the early 1970s, the PLO formed a state within a state in Lebanon. It largely acted independently from the perennially weak Lebanese government, which was divided on sectarian grounds, and in 1975, collapsed into a prolonged civil war.

    The PLO used southern Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, leading Israel to launch a limited invasion of its northern neighbour in 1978, driving Palestinian militia groups north of the Litani River.

    That invasion was only partially successful. Militants soon moved back towards the border and renewed their attacks on northern Israel. In 1982, then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided to remove the PLO entirely from Lebanon, launching a major invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut. This eventually forced the PLO leadership and the bulk of its fighters to relocate to Tunisia.

    Despite this success, the two Israeli invasions had the unintended consequence of radicalising the until-then quiescent Shia population of southern Lebanon.

    That enabled Iran, in its early post-revolutionary phase under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to work with Shia clerics in Lebanon to establish Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic), which became a greater threat to Israel than the PLO had ever been.

    Bolstered by Iranian support, Hezbollah has become stronger over the years, becoming a force in Lebanese politics and regularly firing missiles into Israel.

    In 2006, Hezbollah was able to block an IDF advance into southern Lebanon aimed at rescuing two Israeli soldiers Hezbollah had captured. The outcome was essentially a draw, and the two soldiers remained in captivity until their bodies were exchanged for Lebanese prisoners in 2008.

    Many Arab observers at the time judged that by surviving an asymmetrical conflict, Hezbollah had emerged with a political and military victory.

    For a while during and after that conflict, Nasrallah was one of the most popular regional leaders, despite the fact he was loathed by rulers of conservative Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

    Will history repeat itself?
    This is the background to discussions in Israel about launching a war against Hezbollah. And it demonstrates how the quote from Churchill is relevant.

    Most military experts would caution against choosing to fight a war on two fronts. Former US President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003 when the war in Afghanistan had not concluded. The outcome was hugely costly for the US military and disastrous for both countries.

    The 19th century American writer Mark Twain is reported to have said that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Will Israel’s leaders listen to the echoes of the past?The Conversation

    Dr Ian Parmeter, research scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.