Category: Leading Article

  • Photograph Source: Tony Webster – CC BY 2.0

    On November 27, Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, announced that he is seeking an arrest warrant against Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the head of Myanmar’s military junta, for his role in the commission of crimes against humanity against his country’s Rohingya minority.

    This announcement comes at an awkward moment for American politicians of both parties who have been promising to impose sanctions on the ICC, its Prosecutor, its judges and their families as punishment for the ICC’s “outrageous” issuance of arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for their roles in the continuing atrocities in the occupied State of Palestine that the International Court of Justice has ruled evidence a “plausible” case of genocide.

    Senator Tom Cotton has threatened, in accordance with genuinely outrageous American law, to invade the Netherlands to rescue any Israeli taken into ICC custody, and Senator Lindsey Graham has said, “So to any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, if you try to help the ICC, we’re gonna sanction you. We should crush your economy.”

    However, the U.S. State Department has formally called the Myanmar regime’s atrocities against its Rohingya minority a genocide.

    Logically, the U.S. government, which praised the ICC for issuing an arrest warrant against President Vladimir Putin, should now praise the ICC Prosecutor for seeking this arrest warrant against Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and urge the relevant panel of judges to issue it promptly.

    However, this new arrest warrant request is seriously problematic for Israel’s loyal and obedient servants in Washington, risking, should they either praise it or proceed to sanction the ICC or both, a truly dazzling demonstration of hypocrisy on steroids and a vivid confirmation of Rule No. 1 of the American-dictated “rules-based order“: “It is not the nature of the act that matters but, rather, who is doing it to whom.”

    While the timing of the ICC Prosecutor’s announcement is clearly awkward for American politicians, it may well have been strategic for the ICC.

    It is worth noting that the ICC commenced its investigation of the Myanmar/Rohingya case in 2019, after its judges had ruled in 2018 that, although Myanmar is not an ICC member state, the court had jurisdiction over crimes that were “completed” on the territory of a member state, Bangladesh, where many Rohingya took refuge.

    It is also worth noting that, with the sole exception of the Prosecutor’s announcement in May that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the ICC has only made public announcements regarding arrest warrants when it has issued them.

    In the context of the institutional and personal threats emanating from Washington after the Israeli arrest warrants were issued, it would have made sense for the ICC to seek some way to make it awkward for Washington to carry out these threats, and the Myanmar/Rohingya case may have served as a conveniently ripe, low-hanging fruit to pick for this purpose.

    Indeed, Chris Gunness, former UNRWA spokesman and current Director of the Myanmar Accountability Project, has written that the Prosecutor’s announcement is “a masterstroke of timing that exposes the U.S.’s double standards”.

    The degree to which the ICC takes these threats seriously was made clear when the President of the ICC, Tomiko Akane, addressed the annual Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on December 2. She warned that “International law and international justice are under threat. So is the future of humanity. The International Criminal Court will continue to carry out its lawful mandate, independently and impartially, without giving in to any outside interference” and detailed how “the court has been subjected to attacks seeking to undermine its legitimacy and ability to administer justice and realize international law and fundamental rights: coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage”.

    This new arrest warrant request has so far been greeted with a stunned silence by the American political class, which, ideally, might now prudently reconsider whether it is really desirable to further embarrass and disgrace the United States by sanctioning the ICC and its personnel, as Russia has already done, for trying to apply international law, in accordance with its mandate from its 124 member states, independently and impartially and without fear or favor.

    The post A Strategically Timed ICC Arrest Warrant Request appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

    “Trump could surprise on the upside,” writes Edward Luce, who claims to know “what Trump most cares about.” Lacking intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the president-elect’s personal thoughts, us non-pundits are relegated to looking at other indicators.

    We can try to decipher Trump’s abysmal cabinet picks. “If Trump has nominated second-tier establishment types for powerful positions that is partly because so many of the more accomplished practitioners have migrated to the Democrats,” according to a London Review of Books commentator.

    But the very best predictor of what Trump would do is to look at the current trajectory of US policy. That will tell us more than anything else about what to expect. The two major parties have a reciprocal relationship as seen with the Ukraine War as well as with the existential threats of global warming and nuclear conflict, described below. Meanwhile, the two-party duopoly as a system trudges further and further to the right.

    Victoria’s Secret

    A thread of commonality, running through the partisan bickering around the ever-escalating US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, is exemplified by the role of neoconservative war hawk Victoria Nuland. Back before President George W. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney were rehabilitated by the Democrats, Nuland served these war criminals as US ambassador to NATO among other assignments, promoting the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The neocons migrated to the Democratic Party as it became the new party of war under President Barack Obama, with Nuland playing a prominent part as assistant secretary of state in devastating Libya and Syria. She also became a key architect of Washington’s Ukraine policy, where she was involved on the ground during the Euromaidan coup.

    Although Trump in his first term in office passed over Nuland for neocons of his own choosing, President Joe Biden jumped to promote her to undersecretary of state, continuing her pivotal part boosting the proxy war against Russia.

    Chicken Kiev is not on the menu

    Now, the new president-elect has pledged to “get the war with Russia and Ukraine ended.”  Recall, though, former President Richard Nixon’s “secret peace plan” to end the Vietnam War, which meant continuing the carnage.

    For all of Trump’s posturing about ending the war, his pick for national security advisor, Mike Waltz, has already said that he’s “working hand-in-glove” with the Biden team on Ukraine. So, much for a change in course for the imperial agenda!

    In other words, Biden’s recent escalating the conflict in Ukraine collaborates with Trump in the goal, evidently shared by both parties, of weaking Russia.

    Donald “America First” Trump is not about to willingly abide by any diminution of the US strategic posture nor accept conciliation with Moscow. In his first term in office, Trump shifted the US foreign policy posture to “great power rivalry” with his 2017 National Security Strategy and his 2018 National Defense Strategy.

    On the left, economists Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson hold out hope for a peace initiative in Ukraine that guarantees Russia’s security. They bank on a declining US empire that can no longer prevail. Perhaps, but the alternative may end up looking more like Haiti, Afghanistan, and Libya, under Uncle Sam’s beneficence.

    Unlike those deliberately failed states, Russia has the bomb, as Donald Trump pointed out in his debate with Kamala Harris. Antiwar.com reports officials from the US and the EU have discussed giving Ukraine nuclear weapons. And that raises the looming prospects for nuclear war and the related existential threat of global warming.

    Cold comfort on global warming

    While the planet teeters at the tipping point of no return from human-caused global warming, the Red Team whistles “drill baby drill.”

    The Blue Team weaponizes science as a cudgel against their rivals, without trying to reverse the march to climate catastrophe. Rather, temporary team captain Kamala Harris giggled approval of fracking. She knew that sycophantic liberals would still support her.

    This pitiful record reveals that neither team has any intention of solving the problem. Both are dedicated to keeping the US as the world’s leading oil producer and serving the energy lobby.

    Back in 1997, then US Vice President Al Gore jetted to Kyoto, Japan. There he negotiated an exemption from greenhouse gas emission reductions for the US military, the world’s single largest consumer of fossil fuel. Despite a lot of political invective about the Red Team being climate deniers, the Blue Team never even tried to put the Kyoto Protocol to a vote by the US Senate.

    Oil production temporarily declined during oilman George W. Bush’s watch. With the Democrat’s return in 2008, Barack Obama saw US oil production grow by a reported 77%. He   boasted “we’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some.”

    The trend of ever-expanding US oil production, through the Trump and now the Biden years, was largely independent of who was in the White House. In the absence of any exercise of political will to address the issue, fossil fuel production continues to increase.

    Nuclear winter is not a desirable solution to global warming

    Apocalypse from an over-heated planet is getting to look like a lot like a best-case scenario. Our kind should survive so long, given the risks of nuclear war, which both Blue and Red teams are lurching into.

    The offensive use of nuclear weapons is a bipartisan position enshrined in a “first-use” policy. While the US has not dropped another A-bomb since World War II, it has continually used atomic weapons in the same way that a robber uses a gun held to the head of a victim to force its way. This is in violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Republican George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and initiated modernization of the US nuclear triad of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.

    President Obama embraced and extended his Republican predecessor’s nuclear modernization with life-extension programs for existing stockpiles augmented by increased spending.

    The handoff to President Trump saw further nuclear expansion of low-yield weapons, more nuclear submarines, bombers, and missile systems, and development of a new warhead for Trident missiles. In 2019, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and left the Open Skies Treaty the next year.

    President Biden continued and expanded the nuclear war fighting arsenal with modernization of Columbia-class submarines, B-21 bombers, and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent missile system.

    The bipartisan rush to Armageddon makes one nostalgic for Ronald Reagan. He had worked to reduce nuclear arms with the INF Treaty of 1987. His Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was finalized in 1991 under fellow Republican George H.W. Bush’s presidency.

    From an historical perspective

    Given the larger picture of an ever more aggressive and dangerous US imperium, the nuances of a Biden to Trump transition look more like details than strategic shifts. Behind the theatrical façade of partisan politics is a bedrock consensus on US empire and fealty to the ruling elites. Besides, there is the enduring and permanent apparatus of the state.

    No, the opposing wings of the US duopoly are not the same. In fact, each succeeding administration is worse than the previous, irrespective of party. That is the reciprocally reinforcing rightward progression of the two-party system.

    It’s like when I was a kid, and my parents sent me off to summer camp. Toward the end of the season, we had week-long “color games.” Half the camp was in the Red Team, the other half in the Blue. After seven intense days of competition, where we zealously hated our rival bunkmates, we all hugged.

    Now the would-be grownups in Washington do the same. After the November 5th election, Biden warmly welcomed to the White House the person he previously likened to Hitler. That’s proof positive that we are being gamed.

    The post There’s No Upside to Trump appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photo by Marija Zaric

    I want the FBI to be disbanded.  Forever. I’ve wanted this to happen since 1970.  When the Senate hearings led by Franck Church revealed the extent of the FBI’s (and the CIA’s) infiltration of political and cultural organizations a couple years later, my hatred of the agency multiplied a hundredfold.  That being said, I don’t want the FBI to be replaced by a Donald Trump-run national police agency—a TBI, if you will. For those who don’t know and those who don’t remember, Richard Nixon tried to remake the FBI in his image back in the early 1970s.  He got very close to doing so.  According to what I’ve been able to parse over the years in my reading, conversation and other research, a big reason Nixon failed in turning the FBI into his own private police force was the presence of another powerful reactionary. That was the long time director of the Agency, J. Edgar Hoover, who only ended his directorship by dying.

    So yes, Nixon tried to centralize the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA under his command during his rule.  Although the agencies were mostly in agreement regarding their targeting of the Black liberation movement, the antiwar movement and the New Left, it was a combination of Nixon’s paranoia and his fascist tendencies that convinced him to have one of his aides—a squirrely young right wing zealot named Tom Huston—devise a plan that would have consolidated all of these agencies under the direction of the White House.  Nixon approved the plan on July 23, 1970 and it was rescinded five days later.  Maryland Senator Charles McMathias, a liberal Republican (when there was such a thing) described what happened in a January 22, 1974 editorial in the Los Angeles Times: “Many constitutional lawyers believe that for five days in 1970 the fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights were suspended by the mandate given the secret ‘Huston plan’,” during those five days the plan was approved, “authoritarian rule had superseded the constitution.”

    When Hoover downright rejected Nixon’s plan and convinced Nixon to give it up (one guesses this was done through blackmail and threats of various kinds), Nixon and his advisors came up with a Plan B.  This plan still gave Nixon plenty of power when it came to directing investigations against his perceived enemies.  It also resulted in the creation of the secret covert operations unit that would become known as the White House Plumbers.  These men, all of whom came from the black ops sections of the CIA and other agencies, broke into offices, intimidated opponents and otherwise waged a mostly illegal war on the aforementioned targets opposed to the Nixon agenda.  They were also involved in going after more mainstream personalities on Nixon’s personal enemies list.  The original plan proposed by Huston included a set of contingencies that included the construction and maintenance of concentration camps in the US desert for leftists, Black radicals and others deemed national security risks.

    Many folks in the popular Left movements in the early 1970s discussed the rumors we had been hearing about the camps.  Some of the conversations were in jest, but all of them had a serious and ominous undertone.  Living in western Germany at the time, where remnants and reminders of its recent Nazi past were everywhere, I couldn’t help but be reminded of that past and its similarities to the police state unfolding under Nixon and his palace guard.  When the investigations collectively known as Watergate began to uncover numerous illegal actions by the White House Plumbers, multiple police agencies, the FBI, CIA and NSA, those of us who were still involved in extra-parliamentary politics nodded our heads, confident that our instincts had been correct.  Of course, the surveillance and black ops against the antiwar and liberation movements didn’t stop for long.  By the time Reagan had made it through his first year in the White House, things were more or less back to how they were in 1974.  The difference was that a lot of the actions taken in the 1960s and 1970s by the police state were now legal, especially if the president committed them.  This trend has continued.  As for Nixon and Trump, the fact that Trump is serving a second term after being indicted for dozens of crimes and convicted of felonies in thirty-four instances kind of says it all.  Fascism is more than just a rumor and is quickly becoming fact in the United States.

    Which brings me to the Nazis and their Reich. Once they were handed power by the German chancellor and Bundestag, the Nazis and Hitler created lists of their enemies.  These lists, called Sonderfahndungslisten (Special search list—literal translation), were lists of people who were to be arrested by the SS once the Wehrmacht annexed a country.  The lists included citizens and (especially in Britain) European exiles from the Reich.  According to the SS commander who composed the list for Britain, it included 2820 names.  In an October rally in Wisconsin, Trump told the crowd he would go after what he called “the enemy from within.”  According to various news reports, these enemies include Democrats, members of the media and numerous others.  It does not include the millions of immigrants the Trumpists are hoping to detain and deport.  One assumes they are on other lists maintained no matter who is in the White House.  The effect of such lists is to silence the opposition.  I fear this may already be happening among the liberal opponents of Trump.

    Another aspect of Trump’s return is his determination to decimate the federal bureaucracy as it currently exists; what trumpists like to call the deep state. This includes the Pentagon.  The positions that would remain after this purge would be filled only with those loyal to Trump and his policies.  It’s reasonable to assume that if those remaining are not considered loyal, they will be replaced by others who are.  In other words, the deep state would remain, except its allegiance would be to Trump and the forces he represents.  One can see this already happening if they look at Trump’s picks for his cabinet and staff.  Some might argue that every president brings in their own people.  This is only true to a point.  What Trump is working towards is something more akin to what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung.  As I wrote in 2017, when Trump first took power,

    “A historian friend told me that he did not believe history repeated itself. Bearing that in mind, I asked him if he thought it still had lessons for us to draw on. He answered, yes of course. Keeping that under consideration, I decided to take a deeper look at the rapid changes Donald Trump and his “people” are trying to put in place in the United States. As I began my investigation, it was announced that Trump adviser Steven Bannon had replaced a General and an intelligence chief on the National Security Council. In essence, this move is another attempt by the Trump administration to upend the traditional chain of command (the professional class, if you will), with ideologues from outside that class.

    Upon hearing of this move, I was immediately reminded of similar moves by Adolf Hitler at the beginning of his regime. Known as the Gleichschaltung, this time period in the rise of Nazism involved (among other things) the replacing of various members of the German government with Nazi ideologues whose primary allegiance was to Hitler and the philosophy of Nazism. Essentially the process of bringing all elements of power, from the government to the military to the trade unions to the media, into line with the Nazi state, the Gleichschaltung began with the elimination of independent state legislatures. This was followed by the dismantling of trade unions, attacks on the independence of the churches (especially those opposed to the Nazis), the elimination of all political parties except for the Nazi party…. In addition, the private militias of the Nazis became official state military organizations with the task of enforcing allegiance to the Hitler wing of the Nazi party.”

    Repeating the point I made above, and after looking at those Trump has selected to work with him beginning in January, it’s quite clear that the strategy of Gleichschaltung is what the trumpists are engaging in.  Of course, not every element of the Third Reich’s takeover will be replicated in the US circa 2025, but then again it’s not Germany in the 1930s.

    So, yeah, I want the FBI to be dissolved.  And the CIA, DIA, NSA.  I don’t want a new surveillance state under the direction of trumpists, tech bro billionaires and their companies, the Israeli intelligence industry or the local police.  Unfortunately, the trend I detect as regards the contemporary surveillance state indicates that we will be getting exactly what I (and millions of others) don’t want.  Indeed, much of it is already in place and currently working.  There are very few modern politicians from either corporate party that vote against the intensifying panopticon and even fewer who speak loudly against it.  The corporate sector is on board and putting in bids to get their piece of it as I write.  Given the ongoing privatization of public agencies, if the trumpists succeed in shutting down the FBI, one possible replacement might be a mostly privatized national police agency.  If they don’t succeed in shutting it down, one can be reasonably sure that the FBI with trumpist management would remove any agent, clerk, forensic expert, etc, not on board with the FBI becoming another tool in the trumpist vendetta against those “enemies within” that they seem to fear so much.  Those FBI employees who are forced out would be replaced by fellow trumpists ready to do their leader’s bidding.  In other words, the Trump version of Nixon’s dream might be fulfilled.

    The post The Trumpist Bureau of Investigation? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Getty Images and Unsplash+.

    Give him credit. As a start, for that first surprise victory in 2016.

    No, I didn’t fully get it at the time, but I kind of get it now (since, like the rest of us, I’ve lived through it all, including his close loss in 2020). Still, twiceHimconvicted felon, no less! And yes, I do think italics are all too appropriate under the circumstances.

    Two times as the president of these increasingly disunited states of America? Holy cowpie!

    Perspecting (No, That’s Not a Typo) Donald Trump

    This country actually did it — elected him (again!) — and so we deserve whatever we get, at least a little less than 50% of us do: Fox News… oops, sorry, Pete Hegseth to run the largest, best-funded, and least adept military on planet Earth? Robert Kennedy, Jr., to keep our health in check(mate?) or do I mean checkerboard red shape? Tulsi Gabbard overseeing what still passes for American “intelligence,” though in some sense it couldn’t have been dumber for endless years? Or Chris Wright, who denies that there’s any kind of a climate crisis on Planet Earth, to lead — yes, of course! — the Department of Energy. And that’s just to start down an endlessly expanding, mind-blowingly unnerving list.

    Yikes! You really couldn’t make this stuff up, could you? And I haven’t even mentioned Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security. Nor did I have time to put in Matt Gaetz at the Department of (In)Justice before he went down in an instant cloud of smoke and scandal. (The question is: Before we’re done with the madness of it all, will everything be, in some fashion, enveloped in that same cloudy firmament?)

    I suppose there’s no reason to be shocked, not really. After all, it’s a matter of history. Sooner or later, all great imperial powers go down the tubes — or do I mean the drain? — in some fashion, even if Donald Trump, the second time around, gives tubes and drains a new meaning. Just ask any of the emperors of imperial China or Winston Churchill or, for that matter, Mikhail Gorbachev about imperial decline. But to have almost 50% of the population vote to send this country directly (no stops along the way) whooshing down those tubes into the basement of history, well, that’s no small thing, is it? Or maybe, on a planet already going to hell in a climate-changed handbasket, it actually is a small thing. (And, yes, I just can’t seem to help myself when it comes to italics and him, though he’s all too literally not a small thing, not The Donald!)

    Who knows anymore? Who can make any real sense out of it when you’re not comfortably outside looking in, or in the present peering into the long-gone past, but right here, right now (and nowhere else), distinctly experiencing everything from the inside out — or do I mean, the outside in or even the inside in? That, in truth, may be the lesson Donald Trump(ed us all) has to offer when it comes to our ever stranger world. And perspective isn’t exactly available to us, is it? After all, when The Donald fills the screen 24/7, how can anyone perspect — if you don’t mind my making up a word to fit our ever-stranger world — anything?

    And yet, let’s face it, if you try to take a step or two back, even if it’s into the deep doo-doo of the rest of this planet of ours — check out Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmarish version of Israel, for instance — Donald Trump isn’t just a strange (all-)American happenstance. Under the circumstances, however happenstantial, of a country in which there was already an increasingly greater (and still growing) space between the wildly wealthy (especially the rising number of all-American billionaires who have more money than half of the rest of the population combined) and the ever more pressed working and middle classes, what populace, already distinctly in trouble (or he never would have made a political appearance in the first place), wouldn’t have elected a “businessman” (and I’m only being socially truthful by putting that word in quotes) who claimed to be all in for them on his third presidential run (though, of course, you won’t actually see 78-year-old Donald Trump, the man who reputedly once urged soldiers on our southern border to shoot migrants in the legs, running anywhere). Whew, that was one long sentence! And no wonder, since he’s distinctly wound us up in an endlessly convoluted world.

    And this time around, the richest man on Planet Earth, Elon Musk, was ready to pay out millions of promotional dollars to potential voters to increase Trump’s vote totals in swing states — and don’t for a second think that was bribery! After all, in a country where keeping yourself afloat amid still rising prices is no small trick, why wouldn’t you find appealing a man who swore he spoke for you and whose claim to fame, in a sense, was his remarkable ability to keep himself (and no one else) on the (more or less) flat and level, or even the uphill incline, as he sent his own businesses distinctly downstream into failed or bankrupt states? Whew, again!

    And don’t be surprised, given his record, if, in his second term in office, he sends this country into his own version of, if not bankruptcy, at least ruptcy. After all, Donald Trump is — if you don’t mind my inventing another word — a distinctly remarkable (or do I mean smashing?) rupturist. His story (or do I mean history?) — since Kamala Harris lost, it certainly isn’t herstory — suggests that he’s likely to repeat his business “success” with this whole country the second time around, keeping himself on the flat and level or even the uphill incline as so much around him goes down, down, down. And don’t be surprised if he somehow manages to outlast that disaster, too. (Or do I mean two?) Oh, and since he’s already quipping about a third term in office, however jokingly — no joke there for the rest of us, of course — you should feel distinctly nervous (if, that is, the fate of this country means anything to you).

    You can undoubtedly understand his position when it comes to a third possible round in the Oval Office, right? I mean, to hell with that old amendment! (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”) If it were of any importance, it would obviously be the first, second, or third amendment, not the 22nd one, right?

    The Dis-United States of Trumperica

    Of course, none of this should truly surprise us. After all, historically speaking — and no, I don’t mean his story here, I mean the long, long story of humanity on this planet — great powers never seem to end up in particularly great shape toward the end of their ride. (And what a ride it’s been lately! Just ask… well, yes, Donald J. Trump!) As I like to remind TomDispatch readers, the country whose officials, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, touted it as the last superpower (or perhaps that should be in caps, The Last Superpower, or maybe even THE LAST SUPERPOWER) on Planet Earth, now seems to be in the process of transforming itself into the last super-basket-case on a planet that itself is becoming a basket case and heading downhill all too rapidly.

    And I write that as someone living in a city — New York — that until recently was in the midst of a historic drought, the worst since records began to be kept here in 1869, in a state in drought in a region in drought. My city, in other words, was anything but alone in a country 40% of which recently was considered to be experiencing drought conditions. Even New York City’s parks were burning — more than 230 brushfires in just two recent weeks — and smoke was regularly been in the air here. All of this on a planet where weather extremes — from devastating heat waves to devastating floods to devastating storms — are distinctly on the rise. It’s in that context, of course, that Donald Trump, the proud “drill, baby, drill” guy, who has long insisted that climate change is a “hoax,” plans to do anything he can to promote fossil fuels in the coming years. He’s also intent on reversing the Inflation Reduction Act of the Biden years, which has been “providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy” in a country that, in 2023, set a global record for the production of oil.

    In short, Donald Trump’s second (and third?) term(s) is (are) guaranteed to turn much in this country (though not its wealth disparities) upside down. In fact, as a preview of what’s coming, perhaps it’s time to think of this land as the Dis-United States of Trumperica.

    Imagine that, in the years to come, he will once again be inhabiting the place built during George Washington’s presidency and occupied by Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, among so many others. Need I say more when it comes to matters of decline and fall?

    In truth, it’s a rather straightforward fact that this country is now visibly going down in a potentially big-time fashion and that, domestically speaking, there’s far worse to come. Of course, sooner or later, great powers do go down in various ways and Donald Trump’s version of that (just like his version of going up) could mean a distinctly failed state for the rest of us, no matter what happens to him.

    Gaining Perspective on Donald Trump?

    Imagine this: I was born when FDR was still president. (I was eight months old when he died.) And 80 years later, “my” president is Donald Trump (again!). If that doesn’t count as a political lifetime, what does? Whether the 78-year-old Donald or the 80-year-old me will live to see the end of “his” presidency is, of course, beyond my knowing.

    But count on one thing: whatever we do see, it’s not likely to be pretty. In some sense, whatever chaotic version of guardrails were imposed on him in his first term will be largely removed this time around. From Pete Hegseth to Robert Kennedy, Jr., he’s already trying to appoint a crew of men (and yes, they are largely men) who would once have seemed inconceivable in this country — and not just because so many of them are rumored to have mistreated women.

    Imagine that, starting in January, Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, will be occupying the White House with “cat ladies” Vice-President J.D. Vance waiting in the wings. Fox News will be in the saddle (all too literally, given Trump’s appointments) and, this time around, President Tariff could essentially take the planet down with him. Yes, Matt Gaetz recently came up short (the earliest failed cabinet pick in modern history), but so many other nightmarish Trumpian figures won’t. They’ll be there doing their damnedest as “agents of his contempt, rage, and vengeance.”

    Gaining perspective on Donald Trump? In some ways, his greatest skill in life has been in making such perspective inconceivable. No matter what you think, you can never quite fully take him in or know what he’s likely to do.

    So, here we are, about to be Trumped once again. In fact, in the years to come, if things go as they now look like they might, with Elon Musk, Fox News, and him inhabiting the White House, it might be possible to think of this country (and even this planet) as Donald Trump’s last bankruptcy.

    This piece first appeared in TomDispatch.

    The post Going to Hell in a “Drill, Baby, Drill” Handbasket appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Pete Hegseth, Youtube screengrab.

    Much media coverage of Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Secretary of Defense has focused, understandably, on controversial things he has said or done, along with his complete lack of administrative experience relevant to running a federal government department with a $920 billion budget and a workforce of three million.

    But anyone in charge of the Pentagon also gets to oversee the Military Health System (MHS), which provides either private health insurance coverage or direct care for over 9.5 million service members, military retirees, and their families. As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin noted in a recent DOD National Defense Strategy report, the MHS mission is to ensure that active duty personnel and their dependents are well-served by a skilled cadre of “medical personnel in uniform,” who number nearly 170,000.

    Hegseth served as an ROTC-trained Army officer deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay and is a longtime critic of “government healthcare,” claiming that it “doesn’t work.” So if Hegseth succeeds Austin, Pentagon officials trying to end a failed experiment with MHA privatization may find themselves ordered to march backward.

    Rather than being upgraded and improved, the DOD’s network of military hospitals and clinics would remain under-resourced. And more of the MHA’s $61 billion annual budget would be spent on private insurance coverage that has failed to meet the needs of many service members and their dependents, particularly in rural areas.

    A White House Advisor 

    During the first Trump Administration, Hegseth was a White House advisor who pushed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to expand care outsourcing for nine million former service members. Trump’s first VA Secretary, a hold-over from Barack Obama’s administration, dragged his feet on implementing this ill-advised policy.

    As a result, Dr. David Shulkin, an experienced hospital system administrator in the private and public sectors, was fired by Trump in 2018 after keeping him around for over a year. In his memoir, It Shouldn’t Be This Hard to Serve Your Country, Shulkin blames his downfall on Hegseth, who “never worked at the VA, knew nothing about managing a healthcare system, and had little understanding of the clinical and financial impact of the policies he  was advocating.”

    Hegseth does have a background as “a capable midgrade officer” who earned two Ivy League degrees and Bronze Stars, plus media experience ranging from writing for the Princeton Tory, a conservative undergraduate publication, to opining about military and veterans’ affairs on Fox & Friends Weekend where he’s a host. In any other Republican administration, this resume would qualify him as a Pentagon press secretary.

    That Hegseth has instead risen to a cabinet pick is a testament to the continuing impact of the Koch Brothers-backed Concerned Veterans for America (CVA). After a failed bid to become the GOP nominee in a 2002 Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat in his native Minnesota, Hegseth became CVA’s first CEO and a leading advocate for turning veterans care over to private doctors and hospitals.

    CVA was an astroturf upstart in veterans’ affairs and an outlier in pushing VA privatization. Traditional Veterans Services Organizations (VSOs)—like Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, or Vietnam Veterans of America—represent millions of veterans. Their members pay dues and elect their leaders.  They have local chapters and national conventions. They have roots in the community and provide valuable services to individual veterans who need help filing disability claims for service-related conditions, which qualifies them for VA care.

    VSO lobbying victories include the passage of the PACT Act of 2022. This legislation made VA benefits and related medical coverage easier to obtain for nearly a million veterans, including many whose health was damaged due to burn pit exposure during post-9/11 wars in the Middle East. (Hegseth initially applauded and then criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a flip-flop characteristic of his career. As Iraq war veteran and VoteVets co-founder Jon Soltz says about him, “I have been debating Pete Hegseth for years, and I can’t tell you what he stands for other than himself and his own ambition.”

    An Astro-Turf Group 

    With few actual dues-payers, no VSO-style membership service programs, and a political agenda bankrolled by libertarian billionaires, CVA helped pass few bills that benefited the nation’s 19 million veterans. Instead, during the Obama era, the media-savvy group became a battering ram against tax-payer-funded healthcare in any form, a longtime bête noir of the Kochs.

    Hegseth became their most visible and effective mouthpiece in a wide-ranging campaign to discredit VA care and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In 2013, CVA ran video ads warning, in Hegseth’s words, that all Americans would soon “face long wait times, endless bureaucracy, and poor service” if Congress expanded health care access by subsidizing private insurance coverage. The result, he claimed, would be billions of dollars wasted on “a nationalized health care plan that will bring the same bureaucratic dysfunction to the larger U.S. healthcare market”–as if the VA were a model for “Obamacare,” which it certainly wasn’t.

    A year later, this propaganda offensive, closely coordinated with right-wing Republicans on Capitol Hill, claimed the scalp of retired four-star General Eric Shinseki, the Vietnam veteran who was Barack Obama’s first VA Secretary. Shinseki became the fall guy for a localized scandal involving misconduct by a few VA hospital managers in Phoenix. Their doctoring of data on medical appointment wait times—to earn bonus payments—led to CVA-amplified false claims that 40 Phoenix area vets had died due to delayed care. The result was that mainstream media packed journalism at its worst, and there was growing pressure for more out-sourcing of VA care despite its higher quality, lower cost, and greater accessibility than private alternatives.

    On Capitol Hill, bi-partisan majorities passed the VA Choice Act of 2014 and, four years later, the VA MISSION Act. Both opened the floodgates for increasingly costly and disastrous privatization of the nation’s most extensive public healthcare system. CVA helped engineer the passage of each measure. After stepping down as CEO of Concerned Veterans of America ten years ago and becoming a Fox News commentator, Hegseth continued to advise President Trump on veterans’ affairs; other CVA alums served in official positions at the White House or VA headquarters in Washington.

    Hegseth’s return to the conservative media eco-system of his college years has paid handsome rewards; he has become a multi-millionaire (despite two divorces) as a Fox & Friends talking head, paid speaker, and bestselling author of The War on Warriors, a critique of what he calls a “woke military.” Like other high-paid former military officers, his benefit package in the private sector leaves Hegseth unlikely ever to need the VA, federally subsidized insurance coverage obtained through the ACA, or, when he retires, Medicare coverage. If confirmed, his pay as DOD Secretary will be a mere $246,000 per year, but with lucrative “revolving door” opportunities in the future, when and if he transitions back to the private sector from the Pentagon.

    Pentagon Cost Savings?

    Meanwhile, enlisted personnel and veterans from poor and working-class backgrounds bear the brunt of failed CVA-backed experiments with the privatization of the Military Health System and the VA. Under Trump and Biden, the DOD was flush with money for military aid, expensive new weapons systems, and base maintenance worldwide. Nevertheless, the Pentagon cut healthcare delivery costs for its workforce, retirees, and dependents.

    Military hospitals were closed, staff positions cut, and several hundred thousand more patients were shifted to TRICARE, a federally funded form of private insurance. Newcomers to the private sector soon reported having greater difficulty getting timely medical appointments or accessing care in areas of the country with a shortage of primary care providers and specialists.

    The Pentagon found that contracting out left its hospitals and clinics “chronically understaffed” and less able to “deliver timely care to beneficiaries or ensure sufficient workload to maintain and sustain critical skills. After reassessing the situation, the DOD launched an effort to “re-attract” patients back to the MHS. As studies have shown, in-house care produces better outcomes at lower cost, with fewer racial disparities—an essential advantage for a patient population of nearly 40 percent non-white.

    If Hegseth becomes DOD Secretary by recess appointment or Senate confirmation, he will undoubtedly stop bringing TRICARE beneficiaries back into the MHS. He will also halt efforts to rebuild the DOD’s in-house healthcare delivery capacity..

    And Hegseth will not be the only ideological foe of “government healthcare” in a high-level Trump Administration position. His fellow cabinet nominee, former Congressman Doug Collins, an Iraq War veteran from Georgia, will be eager to pick up where Robert Wilkie, Trump’s second VA secretary, left off with his privatization efforts in 2021. And, with the biggest impact, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the TV celebrity picked by Trump to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, will further undermine traditional Medicare by replacing it with for-profit Medicare Advantage plans, on a more universal basis.

    On all three fronts, these Trump appointees will weaken the public provision of healthcare that currently benefits more than 80 million people, making expanding such programs even more difficult.

    The post Trump Pick for Pentagon Chief Is Bad For Military Families and Vets appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Farm house, southeastern Kentucky. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    Film critic Pauline Kael, the epitome of New York sophistication, is often misquoted as having said that she didn’t know anyone who had voted for Nixon. Which is pretty funny. What she in fact said was that she knew “only one person who voted for Nixon,” that the rest of them were “outside my ken,” and that she could feel their presence only sometimes “when I’m in a theater.”[1] Which is no longer funny, just irritating. Kael’s willful ignorance cannot be maintained outside the rarified world of New York. Yet, as the Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild shows in her new book, the well-publicized contempt of the elites for those they consider “hillbillies” or “rednecks” significantly contributes to our current political malaise.

    The last election confirmed what many pundits had already feared but wouldn’t admit even to themselves—that Trumpism isn’t a fringe phenomenon but drifts squarely in the often toxic American mainstream. Perhaps one of the most sobering things about the most recent election was how quietly it unfolded—with none of the violence widely expected, without riots or mass protests. Afterwards it seemed as if even some of the winners were in a state of shock over what had actually happened—that a convicted felon more interested in victory for victory’s sake and in avenging himself on his foes than concrete policy proposals had been given a second chance to be President.

    Hochschild has long warned us that we ignore, at our own peril, the way people think and feel outside the nation’s urban centers. Stolen Pride is the powerful sequel to her Strangers in Their Own Land (2018), which was a finalist for the National Book Award, a record of conversations she had conducted, over a period of five years, with Louisianans living in the Tea Party stronghold of Lake Charles.[2] In Strangers she inaugurated the concept of the “deep story,” the nexus of feelings and perceptions underlying the way people see the political landscape and their own place within it. For the sequel, Hochschild traveled to Pike County, Kentucky, the “whitest and second-poorest congressional district in the country” (p. 271), not even a blip on the horizon of the national consciousness. Here a lethal combination of factors—the demise of the coal industry, the attendant loss of jobs, the mounting contempt for rural life that residents feel coming from the urban centers—has wreaked havoc on people’s lives. Thirty of the 1,265 people charged in the January 6 attack on the Capitol came from Kentucky.

    Hochschild is an unfailingly kind interviewer and adept storyteller, and her gallery of arresting characters, from both sides of the political divide, sticks with the reader. Managing to be both self-effacing and authoritative, she is remarkably successful in eliciting honest self-assessments from even the most reticent interlocutors. Evoking a landscape scarred by loss, with mountaintops sawed off in the quest for more coal, stores shuttered on Main Street, and trailers rusting across from well-kept homes, she also paints, with a novelist’s light touch, vivid portraits of the people who make their home here: the retired college administrator and ex-Governor of Kentucky, a praiser of his own past, ensconced in his wood-paneled office at the University of Pikeville; the half-Cherokee convict and KKK acolyte, who, delighting in his own “badness,” endorses white supremacy; the pony-tailed designer of scary online art who didn’t finish school and considers himself “antiracist” even as he wonders where exactly in the hierarchy of national grievances poor whites like him might fit.

    Strangers in Their Own Land came out when the first Trump presidency was already underway; the appearance of Stolen Pride coincides with the advent of—still hard to believe—Trump’s second term in office. The narrative thread holding the book’s various chapters together is a march of Neo-Nazis through Pikeville planned for April 2017. The leader of the parade: Matthew Heimbach, America’s most recognizable homegrown fascist, a strange bespectacled, round-faced, and jack-booted creature clad in black, his body covered with tattoos, a “virtual United Nations of the extreme right,” in Hochschild’s words (p. 49). None of the residents of Pike County, the Trumpists as well as the remaining handful of progressives, wants anything to do with Heimbach. Yet, when pushed to disclose the reasons for their disdain, they inevitably reveal their own disgruntlements. Drawing on concepts familiar from political science,[3] to which she adds a new psychosocial dimension, Hochschild demonstrates that Pikeville—and other communities like it—lingers in the grip of a “pride paradox”: “low opportunity coupled with the belief that the blame is on you if you fail” (p. 77). In Hochschild’s economy of pride, self-blame, somewhat contradictorily, goes hand in hand with righteous anger directed at others, mostly the affluent folks living in the cities, from Lexington, Kentucky to Washington, DC, who, undeservedly, seem to have it better than you.

    Alex Hughes, a resident of Prestonsburg, half an hour north of Pikeville, is a case in point. In his view, the stores he launched—a tattoo parlor and a computer store—failed not because of the economic downturn affecting the area but because he failed to read the writing on the wall. And while Hughes was eventually able to pull himself up by his bootstraps, attending a computer training program and learning how to code, the shame of his years of poverty still stings and manifests itself in visceral hatred of anything that smacks of governmental overreach. Hochschild’s interviewees want to be sure, as one of them disarmingly puts it, that when they die, people will say “nice things” about them (p. 158). But, as they don’t or can’t see, the odds are already against them: the “invisible hand” of capitalism (Adam Smith’s term) has an inclination to hit hardest the ones who most fervently believe in it (p. 33).

    An unsettling subplot in Hochschild’s book is the fate of Heimbach, a Maryland-born college graduate with parent issues, whose story of stolen pride is a narrative he consciously crafted. After being arrested for domestic abuse in Paoli, Indiana, Heimbach was expelled from his Traditional Workers Party, had to find a job, and thus became, in his own assessment, a transformed man. How deep that transformation went is anyone’s guess: “A lot of Jews were skilled,” the self-absorbed former Holocaust denier tells Hochschild over dinner. “But I am not sure about the gas chambers” (p.187). While Hochschild is careful not to reveal her personal preferences, the reader senses that she is more drawn to those Pike County residents who have turned genuine feelings of wounded pride into ways of helping their community—James Browning, for example, whose painful history of addiction makes him an effective healer at a local recovery center.

    Hochschild recreates these conversations without judgment or bias, keeping her editorial interventions to a minimum (in a rare moment of disagreement, she charges Wyatt Blair, the mixed-race convict, with having made a “confusing point,” p. 108). But she doesn’t mince words when explaining how Trump, with a real estate investor’s predatory instinct, has learned to exploit ordinary people’s “deep stories” for his own gain. In his four-step shame ritual (Hochschild’s terminology), he blithely violates the rules of political decorum by making an outrageous statement (“Mexicans… they’re rapists”; step 1), for which he promptly gets publicly shamed (step  2), which in turn allows him to pose as a victim (“Look what they are doing to me,” step 3), which then, in step 4, leads him to restate, without contrition or modification, the original provocation. Trump performs, and turns to his own benefit, what others have suffered. The lethal logic of Hochschild’s pride economy, in which self-blame and shame and anger alternate, prevents those caught up in it from realizing when someone who appears to speak their language merely imitates it. Like his occasional model Hitler (alternately embraced and then disavowed), Trump has a knack for condensing raw emotions—especially those he has never felt himself—into handy slogans, such as “Stop the Steal.” And he has coasted back into office on the idea that whatever has been stolen (your vote, the wages you deserve, the appreciation you need) will be magically restored, by him only, and maybe even on his first day in office.

    Hochschild’s own proposed solution for our current political predicament is to tout the benefits of the “empathy bridge,” an invitation to seek dialogue and understanding rather than confrontation and contempt. James Browning, the addict turned community healer, or Robert Musick, the optimistic chaplain of Pikeville University, have, in Hochschild’s opinion, shown the way. (Faced with the potential disruption of the 2017 march, Musick wanted to invite Heimbach to campus, a request denied by the university’s president). Stolen Pride in itself is such an empathy bridge, a remarkable testimony of Hochschild’s patience with views radically opposed to her own. She doesn’t fault her interviewees for thinking the way they do; for her, the source of the problems they experience lie in the persistent hold the “American Dream” has over so many low-income Americans, the “More Is Better” ideology that has already caused so much collateral damage.

    But Stolen Pride, for me one of the year’s most important books, also illuminates another path, increasingly endangered, to a better America. Note, for example, that James Browning’s turn from drug addict to healer came after attending classes at a community college. The “pride paradox” will lose its power over those who have learned to step outside of their personal bubbles to take a good long look at themselves and their country—the essence of civic education. Which is why the GOP, for much longer than most of us have realized, has striven to diminish and dismantle our educational system, from interfering with grade school curricula to sanitizing textbooks to restricting the freedom of expression for teachers and university professors.[4]

    When, at my own university, well over 90% of faculty declared their loss of confidence in our leadership, appointed by a Republican-leaning Board of Trustees, Indiana University President Pamela Whitten declared herself “stunned” and responded tartly that the views of her faculty on higher education differed “wildly from how we are viewed … by much of the general public.”[5] But public education shouldn’t simply reproduce and reaffirm the social consensus; if this were true, we’d still think that the sun revolves around the Earth and that humans, along with all other animals, were created by divine decree exactly the way they look today. “Thirst for learning,” the American essayist John Jay Chapman wrote more than a century ago, “is a passion that comes, as it were, out of the ground; now in an age of wealth, now in an age of poverty.”[6] As Arlie Hochschild’s Stolen Pride makes clear, we owe it to the residents of the Pikevilles everywhere, as well as to ourselves, to continue to nourish that passion and, by teaching the hell out of our classes, to resist, every single day, those who move to quash it. Lest we forget: every library book zealously removed from our classrooms and libraries is a further nail in the coffin of the “land tolerating all, accepting all” the poet Walt Whitman once envisioned.[7]

    Notes.

    [1] Quoted in Richard Brody, “My Oscar Picks.The New Yorker, February 24, 2011, November 27, 2024.

    [2] Arlie Russell Hochschild, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (New York: The New Press, 2018).

    [3] See David Keen, Shame: The Politics and Power of an Emotion, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023.

    [4] Jonathan Chait, “Indoctrination Nation,” New York, May 8, 2023, November 26, 2024.

    [5] Jack Forrest, “Shared governance, Expressive Activity Policy and More Discussed at IU Trustees Meeting,” Indiana Daily Student, June 16, 2024, https://www.idsnews.com/article/2024/06/iu-trustees-discuss-expressive-activity-policy-approve-budget-more-summer-meeting, accessed November 24, 2024; Pamela Whitten, “Reflections on Moving Forward Together,” email sent to Indiana University faculty, April 16, 2024; Marissa Meador, “Updated: Whitten Rebuked: IU Faculty Vote No Confidence in Whitten, Shrivastav, Docherty,” The Indiana Daily Student, April 17, 2024, https://www.idsnews.com/article/2024/04/whitten-rebuked-iu-faculty-vote-no-confidence-in-whitten-shrivastav-docherty, accessed November 26, 2024.

    [6] John Jay Chapman, “Learning” (1910), in An Introduction to John Jay Chapman’s Philosophy of Higher Education, ed. Alan L. Contreras (Eugene, Oregon: Cranedance, 2013) p. 62.

    [7] Walt Whitman, “Thou Mother With Thy Equal Brood” (1891), November 26, 2024.

     

    The post The Pride Paradox appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • I’m back in Jordan after eight days in Palestine. I was in Palestine as part of a delegation to be in solidarity with and learn from those engaged in Palestinian liberation. We visited and had dialogues with Palestinians and Israelis in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jerusalem, Nablus, Ramallah and Sderot. We sat, listened to and spoke with Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-believers. We went to the Gaza border.

    I get paid to talk about the political, military, and economic. The questions I asked, the notes I took, and the lenses through which I viewed the last eight days in Palestine were geopolitical. Of course, human reality and experience are never removed or divorced from those subjects; they are those subjects. Many in the governments, media and think tanks in DC, London, Brussels, et. al., forget or forsake that wisdom – a good explanation for how ruinous, counter-productive and failed Western foreign policy is.

    What I just wrote, so pseudo-intellectually in that previous paragraph, is pablum.

    What matters is that just two days ago, I shook hands with a man, Hassan Abu Nasser, who lost 130 members of his family in one single Israeli airstrike in Gaza. You’ve never felt so helpless as shaking such a person’s hand. Unless, of course, you are the one whose bloodline was nearly wiped out. I don’t know what else to say about it.

    Hassan Abu Nasser (on left). Photo: Matthew Hoh.

    Representatives from civil society groups we met with believe the death toll from the genocide in Gaza is between 100,000 and 200,000. Nearly all I spoke to in Palestine spoke of Gaza with a cold and numb tenor and tone, the affect of accepting a cruel and debauched reality.

    In the West Bank, according to UNRWA, since October 7th, 780 Palestinians have been killed, 174 children among them. Settlers have killed an additional 21 Palestinians. There have been more than 3,500 attacks and incidents from settlers, many of them beatings and burnings of agriculture and homes. American-supplied Israeli rifles and bombs have wounded more than 5,000 Palestinians in the last 13 ½ months. Notably, there have been more than 100 airstrikes; airstrikes had not happened in the West Bank in more than 20 years. 18 of the 168 killed by Israeli warplanes and drones have been children. Before October 7th, the Israeli military gunned down and killed, on average, more than one Palestinian a day. In the first ten months of 2023, Israeli soldiers murdered nearly 50 children in the West Bank. Yet, many in the US believe history started on October 7th, 2023.

    We cannot compare to Gaza, nothing can, but the violence against Palestinians in the West Bank is at its highest levels in more than 20 years and worsening.

    #UNMUTEGAZA campaign poster in Ramallah. Photo: Matthew Hoh.


    It matters that we sat with Fakhri and Amneh in a trailer next to a demolished home in Jerusalem. Their home and 15 others have been destroyed this year in their neighborhood of Silwan to make way for Israeli settlements. Their children and grandchildren had lived with them. That was the home where Fakhri was born. Now he and Amneh live defiantly in a trailer on that land, next to their home’s rubble and the desecrated trees, their children and grandchildren scattered and gone. The Israeli government served a $10,000 bill to pay the costs of their home’s destruction. If Fakhri doesn’t pay, he’ll be arrested and his bank account seized. A demolition order has been received for the trailer they live in now.

    Fakhri and Amneh in the trailer that sits next to their demolished home in Silwan, Jerusalem. Photo: Matthew Hoh.

    Fakhri and Amneh are attacked at night. The trailer has been raided by soldiers and settlers, their possessions destroyed, Fakhri arrested. Not once or twice, but continuously, most auspiciously, the day Trump was elected. They came at 3am. Their son was beaten. They took Fakhri. Seven homes in the neighborhood were demolished on US election day; anyone willing to wager that was a mere coincidence? More than 100 homes in Silwan have pending demolition orders. 1,500 people live in them.

    Since 1947, Israel has demolished 173,000 homes and structures in the West Bank. In 2023, nearly 1,400 buildings were razed. Demolition orders have increased 400% since January. In Jerusalem alone this year, 183 structures have been demolished, 33 in Fakhri and Amneh’s neighborhood. According to UNRWA, over the last 13 months, 5,000 Palestinians have been displaced from home demolitions, Israeli military operations and settler attacks in the West Bank. Coupled with the terrorism of the Israeli state through its American-financed military and settlers, the home demolitions are the means of ethnically cleansing the West Bank in preparation for eventual annexation. Most understand that October 7th gave Israel its best opportunity for ethnic cleansing, genocide and annexation in decades.

    What’s left of Fakhri and Amneh’s home. Photo: Matthew Hoh.

    Fakrhi speaks to us, Amneh doesn’t.

    They cannot sleep. They expect the soldiers and settlers every night. Fakhri says, more than once, he is physically and mentally tired and sick.

    “We live by paying fines and penalties, and spending time in jail. We have no hope, no sumud; nothing is sustaining us…only trying to keep our kids alive”, he says. It’s a hopelessness and exhaustion I heard throughout Palestine, most especially from those with children. I have witnessed the famed steadfastness of the Palestinians, and I have heard testimonies of radical acts of hope. Yet, I saw a fracturing of spirit and a fatalistic acceptance of reality I had not known before. More than one father told me what he wants is only to get his children to safety. 80 years of apartheid, annexation and annihilation will take their toll.*

    Countless representatives of governments, international organizations and NGOs have visited Fakhri and Amneh. I sat in the same spot on their couch where Hans Wechsel, the US Embassy’s Chief of Palestinian Affairs, sat. [It should be noted that Wechsel’s two previous postings before taking over Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem were advising US generals and directing Middle East counter-terrorism operations. Such a militarized and imperial view he brought into their home.]

    Of their many high-ranking visitors, Fakhri says: “They are all liars.”

    I didn’t hear anything more true during my nine days in Palestine.

    *Israel’s strategy of breaking Palestinian resistance through terror and brutality may work on individuals and specific families, but overall their occupation and subjugation will encounter only deepening resistance. For those who want a historical example, I recommend watching The Battle of Algiers.


    Of all of the people and places of these last nine days in Palestine, what matters most to me, what makes me break down sitting on this hotel bed in Madaba, the first time I have cried this week over Palestine, is the mother’s eyes I looked into in Ramallah. I’ve previously written and spoken of such eyes, specifically in Palestine. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq and the US as well, mothers’ eyes clouded with the betrayal of it all – humanity, life, God – and their bodies besieged with a pain whose depths cannot be comprehended until a part of it transfers to you when you hold them.

    Layan Nasir is a 24-year-old Palestinian Christian woman. I note her faith because many in the US and the West are unaware that Christians endure Israel’s apartheid, annexation and annihilation equally with Muslims. A student at Beirzeit University, Layan, has been held without charge for eight months. Her family has no idea why she was arrested, no explanation has ever been given, and if there was, certainly no evidence would be offered. They have not seen or heard from her. In December, again without explanation or charge, Layan’s detention can be extended.

    Layan Nasir. Photo: social media.Being held indefinitely without charge is called administrative detention. In this manner, more than 5,500 Palestinians in the West Bank are held in Israeli military prisons, including more than 350 children. Nearly 100 other women are in prison with Layan. In total, more than 12,000 Palestinians from the West Bank are in Israeli prisons, more than at any point since the First Intifada, which ended 31 years ago. Four imprisoned college students from Nablus are among those who actually have charges. As related to us by their friends at An-Najah University, the Israeli army arrested the four boys for posting about Gaza on Instagram. They have been in prison for four months now.

    In Gaza, thousands upon untold thousands of Palestinians have been kidnapped, detained, tortured and executed in Israeli prisons. This week, we learned that more than 310 doctors and nurses in Gaza have been detained, tortured and executed since October 7th. 1,000 more Palestinian doctors and nurses have been murdered by American-supplied bullets, bombs, shells and missiles, many in the hospitals and healthcare facilities where they cared for the sick, wounded and dying.

    Palestinian life in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is entirely under Israeli military control. Arrests, trials, with a 99.7% conviction rate, and prisons are all military. Palestinians live under more than 16,000 Israeli military laws and regulations – nothing else matters. The Oslo Accords’ demarcation of the West Bank into areas A, B and C is practically and ultimately meaningless. Such is occupation.

    Layan’s mother, Lulu, believes her daughter is well. That’s what she said to us. I want to believe her, but I cannot. The documentation from the UN, human rights groups, including the Israeli human rights group B’T Selem, journalists, and Palestinian testimony tells us otherwise. Israel conducts mass, deliberate and systematic torture, including rape and sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners. That didn’t start after October 7th; it has been Israeli state policy since Israel’s inception in 1948 – there’s even a Wikipedia page devoted to it.

    Lulu Nasir, Layan’s mother. Photo: Matthew Hoh.

    The night Layan was taken from her parents’ home, a soldier pointed his weapon at Lulu and said: “be quiet or we will shoot you.” When her father tried to protect his daughter, a rifle was put in his face. That was the last they saw Layan.

    Lulu’s final words to our delegation were: “My only daughter. She is my sister, my daughter, my everything.”

    If for no reason other than I met this woman and saw her pain, knowing that Layan is only one of more than 12,000 held and tortured in Israeli prisons, I ask every one of you to contact your governments and demand her release. They will most assuredly do nothing, especially if you are an American. But for a mother and to be in solidarity with all Palestinians, I ask you to speak out for Layan.

    Ofer Prison in the West Bank. The sign reads “Together we will win this war”. Only Israelis will see that sign as Palestinians are forbidden. How many thousands of Palestinians are held and tortured behind those walls I do not know. Photo: Matthew Hoh.


    It is important for people to travel to Palestine to be in solidarity with the Palestinian people. I say this for two reasons.

    First, it allows us to stand in defiance and dissent against our government’s policies.

    The second and more important is that it seemed as if every Palestinian we met with told us how important it was for people to come to Palestine. The solidarity shown to them means everything to them. It tells them they are not alone and not forgotten. It offers some protection for the Palestinians as well, as the Israeli military and settlers may be less likely to attack and harass Palestinians if international representatives are present. However, in the last year, the restraint shown by the Israeli military, border police and settlers towards internationals has greatly diminished.

    This originally appeared on Matthew Hoh’s Substack page

    The post Eight Days in Palestine appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • First part of a twelve-part series to commemorate forty years of the quest for justice for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims.

    Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Forty years of struggle for justice—Part 1

    The escape of noxious fumes from the premises of the pesticide factory operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and controlled by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC, a US-based multinational company, presently wholly owned by the Dow Chemical Company) on the night of December 2–3, 1984 exposed the people of the city of Bhopal to highly poisonous gases.

    Bhopal, the capital of Madhya Pradesh in central India, was then inhabited by nearly 900,000 people. The leakage occurred due to exothermic reactions that set off within a partially buried stainless steel tank containing about 42 tonnes of an extremely volatile and highly toxic chemical called methyl isocyanate (MIC), which was stored in liquid form.

    The equivalent of nearly 30 tonnes of MIC and its pyrolysis products reportedly escaped from the storage tank of the pesticide factory, which was located on the northwestern edge of Bhopal. Aided by a gentle breeze in the southeasterly direction, the burgeoning cloud of heavy lethal gases soon enveloped nearly 40 sq. km of the city, causing havoc in its wake before slowly dissipating in about two hours.

    Impact on life systems

    As exposure to MIC is extremely dangerous, the impact of the disaster was staggering on all life systems, including flora and fauna. Official sources estimated the immediate human death toll to be about 2,500, while according to other sources (Delhi Science Forum’s Report) the figure may have been at least twice as much.

    A report of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India’s premier institution for medical research, titled Technical Report on Population-Based Long Term Epidemiological Studies (1985–94) (2004) had further noted as follows:

    Based on the mortality figures of the first four days, i.e., during December 3–6, 1984, the 36 wards [of Bhopal] were subdivided into severely, moderately and mildly affected areas.” (Para 5, p. 44)

    In other words, 36 of the 56 municipal wards of Bhopal were officially declared as gas-affected— implying that nearly 600,000 of the then approximately 900,000 residents of the city were exposed to the toxic gases to some degree or the other.

    As a result, the morbidity rate was also found to be very high. In December 1984, the morbidity rate in the severely affected wards of Bhopal was 98.99 percent; in the moderately affected wards it was 99.5 percent; and in the mildly affected wards, it was 99.54 percent. At the same time, in the control area (non-exposed area), the morbidity rate was merely 0.17 percent. (Table no. 31, p.76)

    Mystery over antidote

    Top managers of the UCC and the UCIL were very well aware that MIC is a highly poisonous chemical and that on thermal decomposition it could release equally deadly compounds such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.

    Therefore, Union Carbide officials and their agents systematically conducted a campaign of misinformation and disinformation regarding the probable chemical composition of the toxic emission from its Bhopal plant and the toxic effects of MIC and its poisonous derivatives on life systems and the environment.

    By misleading Indian authorities on the question of the persistence of toxins and the role of antidotal therapy in the treatment of the gas victims, Union Carbide became liable for the increased mortality and chronic suffering of hundreds of thousands of gas victims.

    Thus, as several activists on the ground have repeatedly pointed out, the trauma and travails faced by the gas victims were compounded by the chaos, indifference and directionlessness prevailing in matters relating to medical relief, rehabilitation, documentation and research. Since the UCC/UCIL had remained totally silent regarding the best possible antidote to MIC-related poisoning and had staunchly opposed the administration of sodium thiosulphate as an antidote, Dr Sriramachari, a leading ICMR scientist had later succinctly observed as follows:

    The moment the Bhopal gas disaster took place, the Union Carbide Company adopted a policy of suppressio vari and suggestio falsi [suppression of truth and suggesting falsehood]. Concerted efforts were made to spread the message of disinformation.” (p. 916)

    Treatment subverted

    Since the very first day of the disaster, autopsies performed by Dr Heersh Chandra and his team from the Medico-Legal Institute attached to the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College at Bhopal revealed characteristic ‘cherry red’ colour of the blood and internal viscera such as the lung and the brain, so there was a strong suspicion about the possibilities of death being caused by hydrogen cyanide (HCN) poisoning. [Figure 3.9, p.15 (2010)]

    These observations were confirmed by the tests conducted Dr Max Daunderer, a German clinical toxicologist, who had arrived in Bhopal on December 4, 1984, to assist with the relief work.

    Dr Daunderer was an expert in handling cyanide poisoning and he had suspected that many of the Bhopal victims may have been victims of acute cyanide poisoning and, therefore, had brought along with him to Bhopal several thousands of vials of sodium thiosulphate as an antidote to treat gas victims.

    Dr Daunderer and Dr Chandra soon confirmed that intravenous injection of sodium thiosulphate solution to seriously injured gas victims led to the excretion in urine of high levels of thiocyanate resulting in detoxification of the body.

    ICMR’s own observations in this regard are pertinent: “Soon the use of sodium thiosulphate (NaTS) injections as an antidote was not only postulated by the visiting German toxicologist, Dr Max Daunderer, but strongly advocated by Prof Heeresh Chandra.

    In fact, even the Union Carbide in its earlier message suggested that in case cyanide poisoning was suspected, NaTS injections could be given in the standard manner, i.e., along with sodium nitrite.

    However, for unknown reasons, very soon this message was withdrawn through the official channels (Mr Dasgupta and Dr Nagu), even though NaTS was not a harmful treatment… Dr Ishwar Das, then health secretary, government of Madhya Pradesh, was a witness to this miraculous therapy. Even then, at the government level, he did not support the treatment.” (Para 3, p. 69)

    Vile ploy

    There were definite motives behind raising objections to the use of sodium thiosulphate as an antidote for treating gas victims. Union Carbide was intent on denying the presence of hydrogen cyanide as one of the pyrolysis products of MIC because the calamitous impact of cyanide poisoning was well known to the public at large since World War II.

    The UCC succeeded in its vile ploy with the aid of the pro-UCC lobby in the government (among whom reportedly were the then director of health services, Dr M.N. Nagu, and the then health secretary Dr Iswar Das, some senior doctors and, of course, their political bosses).

    According to Dr N.R. Bandari (the then medical superintendent of the State-run Hamidia Hospital attached to Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal), as reported in the executive summary (p.5) of Krishna Murti Commission Report, July 1987: “UCC’s medical director initially supported mass administration of thiosulphate but, in another telex message three days later, forbade it.

    Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Forty years of struggle for justice—Part 1
    Soon, Union Carbide’s ally in the state bureaucracy and health services director Dr M.N. Nagu sent a circular to all doctors warning them that they would be held responsible for any untoward consequence. This effectively stopped any further administration of thiosulphate.”

    The literal ban on the use of sodium thiosulphate was imposed despite “a highly level meeting convened by the director of health services in New Delhi on December 11, 1984, and attended by many experts from abroad and home recommending that blood of severely affected cases should be examined for the presence of cyanide and those found positive should be given injection of sodium thiosulphate.”

    Even before the issuance of the said controversial circular by Dr M.N. Nagu on December 13, 1984 (which was in gross violation of the recommendations of the said high-level meeting convened by the directorate of health services on December 11, 1984), Dr Max Daunderer had been hastily deported from India at the behest of the UCC.

    As a result, the gas victims were deprived of a timely and critical treatment that was readily available, which would have not only saved thousands of lives but also arrested aggravation of injuries. Such was the influence of the UCC and the pro-multinational corporation lobby over those at the helm of affairs in India from that time till now!

    Nevertheless, Dr Sriramachai and a dedicated team of doctors from the ICMR did undertake a study to understand the efficacy of sodium thiosulphate therapy. In this regard, in his letter to the Supreme Court of India dated October 5, 1988 in his capacity as chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee that was appointed to look into medical relief and other matters relating to gas victims, Dr Sriramachari has disclosed as follows: “The ICMR undertook the first double blind study towards the end of January 1985.

    There was clear-cut statistically significant evidence that concomitant with clinical improvement there was marked elevation of urinary thiocyanate following the administration of sodium thiosulphate injections. These findings were statistically significant. This evidence constitutes the bedrock for the use of sodium thiosulphate and also a guideline for its subsequent use later as per the press release dated February 12, 1985.” (Para 26, p.87)

    Despite irrefutable evidence that sodium thiosulphate therapy could provide substantial relief to gas victims, and despite the ICMR issuing specific guidelines through its notification dated February 12, 1985, the ICMR found itself helpless in countering the influence of the powerful pro-UCC and anti-sodium thiosulphate therapy lobby within the government.

    Therefore, Dr Sriramachari could only meekly submit as follows: “There were persisting controversies in the medical circles to give or not to give the drug. Certainly, the ICMR can only lay down the guidelines but not impose itself to give or take injections.” (Para 28, p. 87)

    Dr Sriramachari may have later regretted taking such a ridiculous stand! If the ICMR found the therapy to be effective, why did it not take a firm stand regarding its use?

    Not only did the government of Madhya Pradesh fiercely desist from following the guidelines issued by the ICMR regarding sodium thiosulphate therapy but also the state government took punitive action against voluntary organisations (such as forcibly closing down the Jana Swasthya Kendra in Bhopal and arresting its volunteers including doctors on June 24, 1985) for daring to render sodium thiosulphate treatment and other medical aid to gas victims.

    The extent to which the Union and state governments willingly succumbed to UCC’s pressure is just unbelievable!

    Callous attitude

    Production of MIC commenced at Bhopal in February 1980. On December 25, 1981, plant operator Mohammed Ashraf Khan died after being exposed four days earlier to a leak of phosgene gas (a highly toxic chemical used for producing MIC). On February 7, 1982, another phosgene gas leak caused 16 workers to struggle between life and death for several days.

    Due to rising incidents of accidents, a ‘safety week’ was organised from April 14 to April 21, 1982 at the Bhopal plant during which at least 10 accidents were reported. Following the spate of accidents that had taken place previously, the UCC (US) was forced to send a team of safety experts to India to carry out an operational safety survey.

    In their confidential report, the UCC team, which carried out the survey in May 1982, had warned that a leak could occur due to “equipment failure, operation problems or maintenance problems.

    Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Forty years of struggle for justice—Part 1

    But UCC’s ‘safety survey’ team did not comment on the basic design defects of the safety systems that the UCC had installed at the Bhopal plant or question operational irregularities such as keeping the refrigeration unit shut off most of the time and operating it only intermittently during production of MIC and transfer of the same from the storage tank into the Sevin pot.

    In fact, irrefutable evidence was provided by defence witness no. 8, T.R. Raghuraman, who deposed before the court of the chief judicial magistrate, Bhopal, on February 22, 2010 that it was on January 07, 1982 that Warren Woomer (from UCC, US), the then works manager at the UCIL, Bhopal, took the decision to shut off the refrigeration system and to operate it only intermittently.

    According to the said witness, this was evident from the technical instruction note (document no. 37 dated January 12, 1982, exhibit no. 46), which the prosecution has submitted as evidence before the court of the chief judicial magistrate.

    The said witness has also revealed that the UCC’s inspection team that prepared the operational safety survey report in May 1982 had not opposed this decision. Neither accused no. 5, J. Mukund, who succeeded Warren Woomer as works manager at the UCIL, Bhopal, nor any of the other accused officials of the UCIL did anything to reverse the shocking decision, which left huge quantities of MIC (85 tonne) in the storage tanks not at 0o Celsius, as stipulated by UCC’s brochure, titled, Mythyl Isocyanate Manual (F-41443A) (July 1976), and UCIL’s operation safety manuals, but at ambient temperature, which always ranged between 15o Celsius and 40o Celsius.

    Early warnings ignored

    The manner in which UCC officials as well as governmental authorities had totally ignored prior warnings about a potential disaster in Bhopal due to mass storage of ultra-hazardous toxic chemicals at the UCIL is shocking, to say the least.

    Two years before the disaster, Rajkumar Keswani, a Bhopal-based editor and publisher of a Hindi weekly titled Rapat, had sounded the earliest clear warning of an impending catastrophe in Bhopal.

    In the lead article titled “Please Save This City”, which was published on September 17, 1982, Keswani tried to warn the residents of Bhopal of the imminent danger from the UCIL plant and about the possibility of a genocide being unleashed at Bhopal.

    Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Forty years of struggle for justice—Part 1

    Two weeks later, on October 01, 1982, Keswani published yet another warning in the same weekly with the headline: “Bhopal You Are Sitting on the Mouth of a Volcano!”

    But, because the UCIL had such pervasive influence in Bhopal at that time, very few people were willing to heed Keswani’s unequivocal warnings. Yet the alarm that Keswani had raised was timely.

    On October 05, 1982, MIC did escape from a broken valve and seriously injured four workers. People living in nearby colonies also experienced a burning sensation in the eyes and had breathing trouble, because for the first time toxic gases had leaked into their homes. The residents ran away to save their lives and returned only after several hours, as reported in Nav Bharat, Bhopal, on October 7, 1982. Luckily, the leak was controlled in time before it caused further damage.

    Soon after this incident, UCIL’s workers’ union printed hundreds of posters with the following warning: “Beware of fatal accidents. The lives of thousands of workers and citizens are in danger because of poisonous gas. A spurt of accidents in the factory; safety measures deficient.”

    The posters were pasted in the residential areas near the UCIL plant. Keshwani too, in his weekly on October 08, 1982, again sounded an alert: “If you don’t understand, you all shall be wiped out.” These warnings were callously ignored by the authorities.

    The rising sense of insecurity forced Shahnawaz Khan, a Bhopal-based lawyer, to serve a notice to the UCIL management on March 4, 1983, complaining about the danger that the UCIL plant posed to the lives of the workers at the plant, to the population living in the nearby areas and to the environment.

    In his written reply dated March 29, 1983 to the notice sent by Shahnawaz Khan, UCIL’s works manager, J. Mukund, had made tall claims:

    1.) That “all precautions are taken for the safety of persons working in the factory as also those living in the vicinity”; and

    2) That “your allegation that the persons living in the various colonies near to the industrial area remain under constant threat and danger, is absolutely baseless.

    Despite making such self-righteous assertions, Mukund, who is accused no. 5, along with production manager, S.P. Chaudhary, accused no. 7, had the temerity to keep shut all three critical safety systems of the MIC unit at Bhopal.

    They not only kept the refrigeration system shut at the peak of summer, but they also shut off the vent gas scrubber in October 1984 soon after the MIC unit had stopped production after 85 tonnes of highly toxic MIC were stored in the MIC storage tanks. Mukund and Chaudhary then ordered the dismantling of the flare tower for repairs.

    These highly callous and criminally irresponsible steps were taken in deliberate violation of all prescribed safety norms for handling MIC. Although the under-designed safety systems— even if they were in working order— could not have prevented a disaster if the stored MIC had got highly contaminated, the refrigeration system— if it was in operation— would have considerably slowed down the reaction process, thereby providing ample time to the residents near the plant to escape to safety.

    According to a report in the New York Times, January 28, 1985: “If the refrigeration unit had been operating, a senior official of the Indian company said, it would have taken as long as two days, rather than two hours, for the methyl isocyanate reaction to produce the conditions that caused the leak. This would have given plant personnel sufficient time to deal with the mishap and prevent most, if not all, loss of life, he said.”

    Shutting off the refrigeration system was an unpardonable criminal act.

    The post Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Forty Years of Struggle for Justice—Part One appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • RAN’s incredible banner drop at the WTO protest in Seattle. Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

    Twenty-five years ago this week, the streets of Seattle erupted into the kind of militant protest rarely seen in the US. Over the course of five days, thousands of street activists counterpunched the global managers of neoliberalism in the face at their own confab, humiliated Bill Clinton and took the ruling class entirely off guard. The battle in Seattle became a kind of operational template for the popular protests of the both the right and left that followed in its wake: Code Pink’s anti-Iraq war demos, the Occupy Movement, the Tea Party, Black Lives Matter and, even, MAGA. The populist right certainly absorbed more lessons from the Battle of Seattle than the liberal elites of the Democratic Party–to their peril and ultimate doom.

    I was a reluctant observer. Alexander Cockburn and I had just signed a contract to write a biography of Al Gore and our impossible deadline was fast approaching. A week in Seattle promised to be a real setback. But at the last minute I hopped in the old Subaru (27,0000 miles and counting) and headed north. I wouldn’t return the same. For one thing, I come home nearly deaf. What dozens of nights near the speakers at CBGB’s listening to the Romones, the Dictators and Television hadn’t destroyed, two days of concussion grenades exploding a few feet above my head finished off. 

    This diary has undergone several iterations. The wifi at the Kings Inn (at $60 a night, an authentic relict of Seattle Grunge) was down all week. So, I called Cockburn every night and dictated my daily dispatch. He was the fastest two-finger typist I ever knew. Later, a fuller version was published in New Left Review. The following year, it appeared in book form, Five Days That Shook the World: Seattle and Beyond, along with a piece Cockburn and I wrote on the DNC protests in LA and JoAnn Wypijewski’s vivid firsthand account of the World Bank/IMF demonstrations in DC, where the now fully-militarized police had been authorized to shoot to kill.

    It’s a Gas, Gas, Gas

    Seattle has always struck me as a suspiciously clean city, manifesting a tidiness that verges on the compulsive. It is the Singapore of the United States: spit-polished, glossy, and eerily beautiful. Indeed, there is, perhaps, no more scenic setting for a city set next to Elliot Bay on Puget Sound, with the serrated tips of the Olympic Mountains on the western skyline and hulking over it all the icy blue hump of Mt. Rainier.

    But Seattle is also a city that hides its past in the underground. It is built on engineered muck layers, like a soggy Ilium. The new opulence brought by the likes of Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, and REI is neatly segregated from the old economic engines, working docks, and the steamy mills of south Seattle and Tacoma chemical plants. It is a city that is both uptight and laid back, a city of deeply repressed desires and rages. It was the best and the worst of places to convene the WTO, that Star Chamber for global capitalists. This week, Seattle was so tightly wound that it was primed to crack. The city, which practiced drills to prepare itself against possible biological or chemical warfare by WTO opponents, was about to witness its own police department gas its streets and neighborhoods. By the end of the week, much of Seattle’s shiny veneer had been scratched off, the WTO talks had collapsed in futility and acrimony and a new multinational popular resistance had blackened the eyes of global capitalism and its shock troops, if only for a few raucous days and nights.

    Sunday, I arrived in Seattle at dusk and settled into the King’s Inn, my ratty hotel on Fifth Avenue two blocks up from the ugly Doric column of the Westin, the HQ of the US trade delegation, and on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the high-rise hovel of Bill Clinton. On the drive up from Portland, I decided to forego the press briefings, NGO policy sessions, and staged debates slated at dozens of venues around Seattle. Instead, I was determined to pitch my tent with the activists who vowed last January to shut down Seattle during WTO week. After all, the plan seemed remotely possible. The city, with its overburdened streets and constricted geography, does half the job itself. And, in an act of self-interested solidarity, the cabbies, who held festering grudges against the city on a variety of claims, had just announced plans to time a taxi strike to coincide with the protest.

    Around 10 p.m., I meandered down to the Speakeasy Café in the Belltown District, which I’d heard was to be a staging area for grassroots greens. On this warm late November night, there were stars in the Seattle sky, surely a once-in-a-decade experience. I took it as an omen but was clueless about its portent.

    The Speakeasy is a fully-wired redoubt for radicals: it serves beer, herbal tea, veggie dishes, and, for a $10 fee, access to a bank of computers where dozens of people check their email and the latest news, from Le Monde to the BBC, from WTOWatch.com to the New York Times. I ran into Kirk Murphy, a doctor who teaches at the UCLA Medical School. I’d gotten to know Murphy slightly during the great battles to fight DreamWorks and its ill-fated plan to bury the Ballona Wetlands in Los Angeles under acres of concrete, glass and steel. The doctor was wearing an Earth First! T-shirt and drinking a Black Butte Porter, the microbrew of choice for the radical environmental movement. Dr. Murphy knows a lot about treating victims of police brutality and he had prepared a handbook for protesters on how to deal with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and concussions. Hundreds of copies had been printed and would be passed out to volunteer medics and protesters before the big march on Tuesday.

    “Do you think it will come to that?” I asked.

    “Well, I hope not,” Murphy said. “But if it doesn’t, we probably won’t have accomplished much, eh?”

    Murphy told me that the direct action crowd was assembled at a warehouse on East Denny, up toward Seattle Community College. It was a 20-minute walk, and I arrived at midnight to a scene of controlled chaos. The Denny Street warehouse was far more than a meeting place; it was part factory, part barracks, and part command and control center. Later, it would become an infirmary.

    Inside affinity groups were planning their separate direct actions; others were constructing giant street puppets bearing the likeness of corporate titans and politicians, such as Clinton and Charles Hurwitz; and another group, led by Earth First!ers from Eugene, was constructing what one referred to as the Trojan Horse, a twenty foot-tall, armored siege tower on wheels, capable of holding 14 people. It was meant to be rolled up near the convention center, allowing the people inside to climb out a hatch in the roof and scale over the Metro buses, which the security forces had parked as barricades near the building. I knew the chief architect of this creation and asked him if he wasn’t wasting time and money on such an easy target as Saddam Hussein had done with his giant, billion-dollar cannon destroyed in the first air strike of the Gulf War. “Just wait,” he said, a spark of mischief in his eye.

    WTO poster.

    Monday.

    And the revolution will be started by sea turtles.

    At noon, about 2,000 people massed at the United Methodist Church, the headquarters of grassroots NGOs, for a march to the convention center. It was Environment Day, and the Earth Island Institute had prepared more than 500 sea turtle costumes for marchers. The sea turtle became the prime symbol of the WTO’s threats to environmental laws when the WTO tribunal ruled that the US Endangered Species Act, which requires shrimp to be caught with turtle excluder devices, was an unfair trade barrier.

    But the environmentalists weren’t the only ones on the street Monday morning. In the first demonstration of new solidarity, labor union members from the steelworkers and the longshoremen showed up to join the march. In fact, Steelwoker Don Kegley led the march alongside environmentalist Ben White. (White was later clubbed in the back of the head by a young man who was apparently angry that he couldn’t complete his Christmas shopping. The police pulled the youth away from White, but the man wasn’t arrested. And White played later down the incident.) The throng of sea turtles and blue-jacketed Union folk took off to the rhythm of a chant that would echo down the streets of Seattle for days: “The people united will never be divided!”

    I walked next to Brad Spann, a burly Longshoreman from Tacoma, who held up one of my favorite signs of the entire week: “Teamsters and TurtlesTogether At Last!” Brad winked at me and said, “What the hell do you think old Hoffa thinks of that?”

    The march, which was too fast and courteous for my taste, was escorted by motorcycle police and ended essentially in a cage, a fenced-in area next to a construction site near the convention center. Hours earlier, a small stage had been erected there, and Carl Pope, the director of the Sierra Club, had been called to give the opening speech.

    I’d never met Carl Pope before and was surprised by what I encountered. He is a tiny man with a shrill, grating voice who affects the look and hair-flipping mannerisms of RFK circa 1968. Nearing 90, Dave Brower still has the look of a mountain climber; Pope looks as if the only climbing he does is on a StairMaster. I couldn’t follow much of what Pope had to say, except that he failed to utter the names of Clinton or Gore. The speech was delivered with a smugness that most of the labor people must have heard as confirmation of their worst fears about the true nature of environmentalists in suits.

    Standing near the stage, I saw Brent Blackwelder, the head of Friends of the Earth. Behind his glasses and somewhat shambling manner, Blackwelder looks ever so professorial. And he is by far the smartest of the environmental CEOs. But he is also the most radical politically, the most willing to challenge the tired complacency of his fellow green executives. I told him: “Brent, you’re the Chomsky of the environmental movement.” He chuckled, evidently pleased at the comparison.

    He was slated to give the next talk, and I asked him what he thought of following Carl Pope, a Gore promoter, whose staffers had just plunged a few knives in Blackwelder’s back following Friends of the Earth’s endorsement of Bill Bradley over Al Gore. He shrugged. “We did our damage,” Blackwelder said. “Our endorsement of Bradley stung the Sierra Club almost as much as it did Gore.” But Blackwelder isn’t under any illusions about Bradley, either. “Bradley’s a free trader,” Blackwelder said. “We pleaded with him to at least make a strong statement opposing the US position on the timber tariff issue. But he wouldn’t budge. There was a real opportunity for him to stick it to Gore and prove himself as the better green.”

    Blackwelder’s speech was a good one, strong and defiant. He excoriated the WTO as a kind of global security force for transnational corporations whose mission is “to stuff unwanted products, like genetically engineered foods, down our throats. ” Afterwards, I asked Blackwelder what would happen if Clinton announced some environmental sideboard. “The plague of Clinton is to say one thing and do another,” Blackwelder said. “He talked this line before with NAFTA. But even with the sideboards, everything we said about NAFTA has come true, only worse.” I told Blackwelder that I had heard Clinton was going to meet in Seattle on Wednesday with the heads of the National Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club. “That’s what I hear, too,” Blackwelder said. “But he won’t meet with us because he knows we’d call his bluff.”

    After the speechifying, most of the marchers headed back to the church. However, a contingent of about 200 ended up in front of McDonald’s, where a group of French farmers mustered to denounce US policy on biotech foods. Their leader was Jose Bove, a sheep farmer from Millau in southwest France and a leader of ConfAedAeration Paysanne, a French environmental group. In August, Bove had been jailed in France for leading a raid on a McDonald’s restaurant under construction in Larzac. At the time, Bove was awaiting trial for destroying a cache of Novartis’ genetically engineered corn. Bove said his raid on the Larzac McDonald’s was in response to the US’s decision to impose a heavy tariff on Roquefort cheese in retaliation for the European Union’s refusal to import American hormone-treated beef. Bove’s act of defiance earned him the praise of Jacques Chirac and Friends of the Earth. Bove said he was prepared to start a militant worldwide campaign against “Frankenstein” foods. `These actions will only stop when this mad logic comes to a halt,’ said Bove. “I don’t demand clemency but justice.”

    Bove showed up at the Seattle McDonald’s with rounds of Roquefort cheese, which he handed out to the crowd. After a rousing speech against the evils of Monsanto, its bovine growth hormone and Round-Up Ready soybeans, the crowd stormed the McDonald’s, breaking its windows and urging the customers and workers to join the marchers on the streets. This was the first shot in the battle for Seattle. Moments later, the block was surrounded by Seattle police, attired in full riot gear. Many arrived in armored personal carriers, a black military truck referred to affectionately by the TV anchors on the nightly news as “the Peacekeeper.” But this time, cops kept their distance, ensuring no one had been injured. They cordoned off the block until the crowd dispersed on its own in about an hour. At this point, there was still lightness in the air. A big Samoan cop cracked a smile as a protester waved a hunk of stinky cheese in front of his face.

    I returned to my hotel early that night. Too exhilarated and exhausted to sleep, I fell back on the bed and flipped on the television. A newscaster was interviewing Michael Moore, the pudgy-faced director of the WTO. “I’ve always been on the side of the little guy,” Moore proclaimed.

    Seattle WTO protest poster.

    Tuesday

    Less than 12 hours later, Seattle was under civic emergency, a step away from martial law. National Guard helicopters hovered over downtown, sweeping the city with searchlights. A 7 PM curfew had been imposed and was being flouted by thousands–those same thousands who captured the streets, sustained clouds of tear gas, volleys of rubber bullets, concussion grenades, high-powered bean cannons, and straightforward beatings with riot batons. The bravery of the street warriors had its tremendous triumph: they held the streets long enough to force the WTO to cancel their opening day. This had been the stated objective of the direct action strategists, and they attained it.

    At dawn on Tuesday, the predicted scenario was somewhat different. There was to be the grand march of organized labor, led by the panjandrums of the AFL-CIO, with James Hoffa Jr. in a starring role. Labor’s legions–a predicted 50,000–were to march from the Space Needle to the Convention Center and peacefully prevent the WTO delegates from assembling.

    It never happened. Instead, the labor chieftains talked tough but accepted a cheap deal. They would get a Wednesday meeting with Bill Clinton, with the promise that at future WTO conclaves, they would get “a seat at the table.” So instead of joining the crowds bent on shutting down the opening of the WTO, the big labor rally took place at noon around the Space Needle, some fifteen to twenty blocks from the convention center where the protesters on the front lines were taking their stand. When the labor march finally got underway around 1 PM, its marshals directed most of the marchers away from the battle zones down by the convention center.

    For the direct action folks, the morning began in the pre-dawn hours, in a steady rain. Over 2,000 people assembled in Victor Steinbrueck Park, on the waterfront north of Pike’s Place market. Once again, steelworkers and Earth First!ers led the way, carrying a banner with the image of a redwood tree and a spotted owl. The march featured giant puppets, hundreds of signs, the ubiquitous sea turtles, singing, chanting and an ominous drumming.

    As the sky finally lightened, I found myself next to a group of black men and women trailing a white van. They turned out to be one of the more creative groups in the march, a collection of hip-hop artists from across the country. The van, dubbed the Rap Wagon, carried a powerful sound system capable of rocking the streets. The rappers were led by Chuckie E from New York, who improvised a rap called “TKO the WTO.” Walking with me up Pine Street to the Roosevelt Hotel was an 18-year-old from South Central LA named Thomas. I asked him why he was here. “I like turtles, and I hate that fucker Bill Gates,” he said. Thomas and I held hands, forming a human chain at the intersection of 7th and Pine, intent on keeping the WTO delegates from reaching their meetings.

    A British delegate was prevented from entering the convention center after he left the Roosevelt Hotel. He tried to bust through the human chain and was repulsed. Angered, he slugged one of the protesters in the chest and ran down the block toward where we were standing. When he reached the corner, a tiny black woman confronted him, shouting in his: “You hit somebody! I saw you.” Whack. The delegate punched the black woman in the face, sending her sprawling back into Thomas and me. The scene could have turned ugly as protesters rushed to protect the woman. But the lead organizer at the corner took control, ushering the delegate outside the protest area.

    Meanwhile, a block down the street, another frustrated WTO delegate pulled a revolver from his coat pocket and aimed it at protesters blocking the entrance to the Paramount Hotel, where the opening ceremonies were scheduled. The police rushed in with their clubs and pushed the protesters away from the gun-wielding man, who was neither detained nor stripped of his weapon.

    Around 10 AM, my friend Michael Donnelly and I found ourselves at 6th and Union, the site of the first major attack by police on protesters. This was hours before any acts of vandalism had occurred. A band of about 200 protesters had occupied the intersection and refused to move after the police gave an order to disperse. About ten minutes later, a Peacekeeper vehicle arrived. Tear gas canisters were unloaded and then five or six of them were fired into the crowd. One of the protesters nearest the cops was a young, petite woman. She rose up, obviously disoriented from the gas, and a Seattle policeman, crouched less than 10 feet away, shot her in the knee with a rubber bullet. She fell to the pavement, grabbing her leg and screaming in pain. Then, moments later, one of her comrades, maddened by the unprovoked attack, charged the police line, Kamikaze-style. Two cops beat him to the ground with their batons, hitting him at least 20 times. As the cops flailed away with their three-foot-long clubs, the crowd chanted, “The whole world is watching, the whole world is watching.” Soon, the man started to rise, and he was immediately shot in the back by a cop who was standing over him, cuffed, and hauled away.

    By now, another five or six cans of tear gas had been thrown into the crowd, and the intersection was clotted with fumes. At first, I was stunned, staring at the scene with the glazed look of the freshly lobotomized. Then my eyes began to boil in my head, my lips burned and it seemed impossible to draw a breath. When it’s raining, the chemical agents hug close to the ground, taking longer to dissolve into the air. This compounds the tear gas’ stinging power, it’s immobilizing effect. I staggered back up 6th Avenue toward University, where I stumbled into a cop decked out in his Star Wars stormtrooper gear. He turned and gave me a swift whack to my side with his riot club. I fell to my knees and covered my head, anticipating a tumult of blows. But the pummeling never came, and soon I felt a gentle hand on my shoulder and a woman’s voice say, “Come here.”

    I retreated into a narrow alley and saw the blurry outline of a young woman wearing a Stetson cowboy hat and a gas mask. “Lean your head back so I can wash the chemicals out of your eyes,” she said. The water was cool and within a few seconds I could see again.  “Who are you?” I asked. “Osprey,” she said, and disappeared into the chemical mist. Osprey.the familiar, totemic name of an Earth First!er. Thank god for Edward Abbey, I said to myself.

    But the battle going on at 6th and University was far from over. The police moved in on a group of protesters from Humboldt County who had locked themselves down, and thus immobilized themselves in the middle of the intersection. They were ordered to evacuate the area, which, of course, they couldn’t and wouldn’t do. Suddenly, the cops attacked ferociously, dousing them in the face with spurts of pepper spray and then dropping tear gas canisters almost on top of them. Then, the valiant police fell upon the helpless protesters with their batons. Two of the dozen or so protesters were knocked unconscious, but the group held its ground for hours, and by 2 PM, the cops had backed off. The University intersection had been held.

    Who were these direct-action street warriors on the front lines? Earth First!, the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment (the new enviro-steelworker alliance), the Ruckus Society (a direct action training center), Food Not Bombs, Global Exchange, and a small contingent of Anarchists, dressed in black, with black masks, plus a hefty international contingent including French farmers, Korean greens, Canadian wheat growers and British campaigners against genetically modified foods. A group of Britons cornered two Monsanto lobbyists behind an abandoned truck carrying an ad for the Financial Times at the very moment of the police onslaught, and, at last glimpse, the Monsanto men were covering their eyes with their neckties and fleeing back to their hotels.

    Even in the run-up to WTO week in Seattle, the genteel element-foundation careerists, NGO bureaucrats, and policy wonks were all raising cautionary fingers, saying that the one thing to be feared in Seattle this week was an active protest. The Internet was thick with tremulous warnings about the need for good behavior, the perils of playing into the enemies’ hands, and the profound necessity for decorous, i.e., passive-comportment. Their fondest hope is to attend–in a mildly critical posture — not only the WTO conclave in Seattle but all future ones. This, too, is the posture of labor. In answer to a question from CNN’s Bernard Shaw, whether labor wanted to kill the WTO, James Hoffa Jr. replied, “No. We want to get labor a seat at the table.”

    By noon, around the convention center, the situation was desperate. The Seattle police, initially comparatively restrained, were now losing control. They were soon supplemented by the Kings County sheriff’s department, a rough mob, which seemed to get their kicks from throwing concussion grenades into crowds, with the M-80-like devices often exploding only inches above the heads of people.

    As the day ticked away, the street protesters kept asking, “Where are the labor marchers?” expecting that at any moment, thousands of longshoremen and teamsters would reinforce them in the fray. The absent masses never came. The marshals’ for the union march steered the big crowds away from the action, and the isolation of the street protesters allowed the cops to get far more violent. Eventually, several phalanxes of union marchers skirted their herders and headed up 4th Avenue to the battlegrounds at Pine and Pike. Most of them seemed to be from the more militant unions, the Steelworkers, IBEW and the Longshoremen. And they seemed to be pissed at the political penury of their leaders. Randal McCarthy, a Longshoreman from Kelso, Washington, told me: “That fucker, Sweeney. No wonder we keep getting rolled. If he were any dumber, he’d be in management.”

    By darkness on Tuesday, the 2,000 or so street warriors had won the day, even though they were finally forced to retreat north and east out of the center. Suppose 30,000 union people had reinforced them? Downtown could have been held all night, and the convention center sealed off. Maybe even President Bill would have been forced to stay away.

    Oh, yeah, what about that siege tower? Well, it turned out to be an excellent diversionary tactic. When the Seattle police’s SWAT teams converged to disable the Earth First! ‘s strange contraption, it gave the direct action groups time to secure their positions. They successfully encircled the convention center, the nearby hotels, and the WTO venues. Oddly, it may have been a key to the great victory of the day.

    Seattle WTO protest poster.

    Wednesday

    Wednesday was the turning point of the week. After the vicious crackdown of Tuesday night, during which even Christmas carolers in a residential area were gassed, many of us wondered who would show up to confront the WTO, Bill Clinton, the police, and the National Guard the next morning. More than a thousand, it turned out. And the numbers grew as the day wore on. The resistance had proved its resilience.

    The morning’s first march headed down Denny Street from Seattle Community College toward downtown. The 250 marchers were met at about 7 am by a line of cops in riot gear at 8th Avenue. A sobering sign that things had become more serious was the sight of cops armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Some brave soul approached one of the deputies and asked, “Do those shoot rubber bullets?” “Nope,” the cop replied through a Darth Vader-like microphone embedded in his gas mask. “This is the real thing.” Dozens of protesters were arrested immediately (more than over the entire previous day), placed in plastic wrist cuffs, and left sitting on the street for hours.

    I can’t extend enough praise to the National Lawyer’s Guild, which sent dozens of legal observers to Seattle to record incidents of police brutality and advise demonstrators on how to act after being arrested. On Denny Street that morning, I met Marge Buckley, a lawyer from Los Angeles. She wore a white t-shirt with “NLG Legal Observer” printed across the front and furiously wrote notes on a pad. Buckley said she had filled several notepads on Tuesday with tales of unwarranted shootings, gassings, and beatings.

    “Look!” Buckley said as we trotted down the sidewalk to catch up with the marchers who had abandoned Denny Street, seeking another entry point into the city center. “How weird. The people are obeying traffic signals on their way to a civil disobedience action.” A few moments later, I lost track of Buckley when the police, including a group mounted on horses, encircled the marchers at Rainier Square. I slipped through the line just as the Seattle police sergeant yelled, “Gas!” Someone later said she had been arrested.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Buckley had been nabbed. The police had begun targeting the “command-and-control” of the demonstrators–people with cellphones, bullhorns, the known faces, and suspected organizers, medics, and legal observers. Several plainclothes cops at the Denny Street encounter had photos in their hands and were scanning them to identify the lead organizers. As the marchers occupied the intersection singing “We Shall Overcome,” about 20 police formed into a wedge and quickly attacked the protesters, seized a bald-headed man talking on a cellphone (it seemed nearly everyone in Seattle had a cellphone and a camera), and dragged him back to the police line. The man was John Sellers, director of the Ruckus Society.

    On Wednesday afternoon, I encountered Kirk Murphy, the doctor. His Earth First! T-shirt had been replaced by a business suit and a rain jacket. I raised my eyebrows at him. He said, “I’m trying hard not to look like part of the support team. They’ve arrested a lot of our medics, and I need to stay out of jail to help the injured.”

    These targeted arrests may have been meant to turn the protests into the chaotic mess the city’s pr people were characterizing it as to the media. But it didn’t happen. The various groups of protestors, sometimes in the hundreds, huddled together and decided their next course of action by a rudimentary form of consensus. Everyone was given a chance to have a say, and then a vote was taken on what to do next, and, usually, the will of the majority was followed without significant disruptions. The problem was that it slowed down the marches, allowing the police and National Guard troops to box in the protesters, most tragically later Wednesday evening at Pike’s Place Market.

    As the march turned toward the Sheraton and was beaten back by cops on horses, I teamed up with Etienne Vernet and Ronnie Cummings. Cummings is the head of one of the feistiest groups in the US, the PureFood Campaign, Monsanto’s chief pain in the ass. Cummings hails from the oil town of Port Arthur, Texas. He went to Cambridge with that other great foe of industrial agriculture, Prince Charles. Cummings was a civil rights organizer in Houston during the mid-sixties. “The energy here is incredible. Black and white, labor and green, Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians arm-in-arm. It’s the most hopeful I’ve felt since the height of the civil rights movement.”

    Vernet lives in Paris, where he is a leading organizer for the radical green group EcoRopa. At that very moment, the European Union delegates inside the convention were capitulating on a critical issue: the EU, which had banned the import of genetically engineered crops and hormone-treated beef, had agreed to a US proposal to establish a scientific committee to evaluate the health and environmental risks of biotech foods, a sure first step toward undermining the moratorium. Still, Vernet was in a jolly mood, lively and invigorated, if a little bemused by the decorous nature of the crowd. “Americans seem to have been out of practice in these things,” he told me. “Everyone’s so polite. The only things that are burning are dumpsters filled with refuse.” He pointed to a shiny black Lexus parked on Pine Street, which the mass of protesters had scrupulously avoided. On the windshield was a placard identifying it as belonging to a WTO delegate. “In Paris, that car would be burning.”

    Somehow, Etienne and I made it through four police barricades all the way across town to the International Media Center, a briefing area hosted by Public Citizen in the Seattle Center, a cramped Greek Revival-style structure. I was there to interview my old friend, Dave Brower and Steelworker David Foster. The two Daves were late and I sat down in front of a TV to pass time. Bill Clinton was speaking at the Port of Seattle. His verbal sleight-of-hand routine was in masterful form. He denounced Tuesday’s violence but said the WTO delegates should listen to the “legitimate” protesters. He said he disagreed with most of their views but said that they should at least be permitted to observe the proceedings. Later that day, Clinton met with the obeisant green leaders, including National Wildlife’s Mark van Puten, the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, and World Resources Institute chairman William Ruckleshaus. Ruckleshaus is also a longtime board member of Weyerhaeuser, the Seattle-based transnational timber company. On Thursday, environmentalists held a large demonstration outside the downtown offices of the timber company’s realty wing. Needless to say, Carl Pope didn’t show up for that one.

    Clinton talked about having the WTO incorporate environmental sidebars into its rulemaking. But then the administration didn’t back away from its Global Logging Amendment, an accelerated reduction in tariffs on the global timber trade. George Frampton, head of the Council on Environmental Quality and former head of the Wilderness Society, appeared at a press conference later in the day and stiff-armed the greens. “Knowledgeable environmentalists shouldn’t have anything against the measure,” Frampton said, his voice reeking with condescension. This was the one issue on which all the big groups were united in opposition to the US position.

    “This follows the tried and true Clinton formula: kiss ‘em, then fuck ’em over,” Steve Spahr, a bus driver and computer repairman from Salem, Oregon, told me.

    Clinton called the events outside his suite in the Westin “a rather interesting hoopla.” The president expressed sympathy for the views of those in the streets at the very moment his aids were ordering Seattle Mayor Paul Shell (who people took to calling “Mayor Shellshocked”) to use all available force to clear the streets. There is now no question but that the most violent attacks by the police and the National Guard came at the request of the White House and not the mayor or the police chief. And, in fact, CNN has reported that Clinton has once again transgressed the Posse Comitatus Act by sending in a contingent from the US military to the scene. More than 160 members of the Domestic Military Support Force were sent to Seattle on Tuesday, including troops from the Special Forces division. Clinton, of course, was quite happy to blame Mayor Schell, the Seattle police, and the WTO, itself, for both the chaos and the crackdown, while offering himself as a peacemaker to the very battle he provoked.

    Eventually, Clinton shut up and Brower and Foster walked into the room. Brower was again breaking new ground by pulling together a new group of trade unionists and greens. At 87 years old, Brower, the arch-druid, is finally beginning to show his age. He walks with a cane. A pacemaker regulates his heartbeat. He is fighting bladder cancer. And he can’t drink as many dry martinis as he used to. But his mind is still as agile as an antelope, his intellectual vision startlingly clear and radical. “Today, the police in Seattle have proved they are the handmaidens of the corporations,” said Brower. “But something else has been proved. And that’s why people are starting to stand up and say: we won’t be transnational victims.”

    Brower was joined by David Foster, director for District 11 of the United Steelworkers of America, one of the country’s most articulate and unflinching labor leaders. Earlier this year, Brower and Foster formed an unlikely alliance, a coalition of radical environmentalists and Steelworkers called the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, which had just run an amusing ad in the New York Times asking “Have You Heard the One About the Environmentalist and the Steelworker.” The groups had found a common enemy: Charles Hurwitz, the corporate raider. Hurwitz owned the Pacific Lumber Company, the northern California timber firm that is slaughtering some of the planet’s last stands of ancient redwoods. At the same time, Hurwitz, who also controlled Kaiser Aluminum, had locked out 3,000 Steelworkers at Kaiser’s factories in Washington, Ohio, and Louisiana. “The companies that attack the environment most mercilessly are often also the ones that are the most anti-union,” Foster told me. “More unites us than divides us.”

    I came away thinking that for all its promise this tenuous marriage might end badly. Brower, the master of ceremonies, isn’t going to be around forever to heal the wounds and cover up the divisions. There are deep, inescapable issues that will, inevitably, pit Steelworkers, fighting for their jobs in an ever-tightening economy, against greens, defending dwindling species like sockeye salmon that are being killed off by the hydrodams that power the aluminum plants. When asked about this potential both Brower and Foster danced around it skillfully. But it was a dance of denial. The tensions won’t go away simply because the parties agree not to mention them in public. Indeed, they might even build, like a pressure cooker left unwatched. I shook the thought from my head. For this moment, the new, powerful solidarity was too seductive to let such broodings intrude for long.

    But if anything could anneal the alliance together it was the actions of the Seattle cops and National Guard, who, until Wednesday afternoon had displayed a remarkable reluctance to crackdown on unionists. The Steelworkers had gotten permission from the mayor for a sanctioned march from the Labor Temple to the docks, where they performed a mock “Seattle Steel Party”, dumping styrofoam steel girders into the waters of Elliot Bay, then, showing their new-found green conscience, they fished back out almost immediately ).

    When the rally broke up, hundreds of Steelworkers joined other protesters in an impromptu march down 1st Avenue. As the crowd reached Pike Place Market, they found paramilitary riot squads waiting for them and were rocked with volleys of military-strength CS gas, flash bombs, and larger rubber bullets, about a half-inch in diameter. The carnage was indiscriminate. Holiday shoppers and Metro buses were gassed. In an effort to jack up the intimidation, the cop squads were marching in an almost goose-stepping fashion, smacking their riot clubs against their shin guards to create a sinister sound with echoes back to Munich. This was the most violent of the street battles that I witnessed, involving hundreds of police and more than 20 tear gas attacks.

    There is a particular species of pacifist (often out of the Quaker tradition) who finds any outward expression of outrage embarrassing. Thus it was that demonstrators at nearly every corner and barricade were being cautioned “not to retaliate” against police attacks. They were even warned not to throw the tear gas cans back toward the police lines. But, of course, that was the safest place for them. They weren’t going to hurt the cops, who were decked out in the latest chemical warfare gear.

    That night near Pike Place Market, a can of tear gas landed on my feet. Next to me were a young woman and her four-year-old son. As the woman pulled her child inside her raincoat to protect him from the poison gas, I reached down, grabbed the canister and heaved it back toward the advancing black wall of cops. The can was so hot it seared by hand. Expecting to be shot at, I dove behind the nearest dumpster and saw a familiar face. It was Thomas, one of the rappers I’d walked with on Tuesday morning. We huddled close together, shielding our eyes from the smoke and gas. “Now all these muthafuckas up here have a taste of what it’s like in Compton nearly every night,” Thomas screamed.

    When the cops are on the streets in force, black people always pay the price. As Thomas and I were ducking flash bombs and rubber bullets, Seattle police were busy harassing Richard McIver, a black Seattle City Councilman who was on his way to a WTO reception at the Westin Hotel. Even though McIver flashed the police with his embossed gold business card identifying him as a councilman, the police denied him entry. They roughly pulled him from his car and threatened to place him in handcuffs. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat, witnessed this scene from Ohio. “I’m 58 years old,” McIver said. “I had on a $400 suit, but last night I was just another nigger.”

    Later that night, in the Capital Hill residential district, a Seattle cop accosted a man on the sidewalk, poked him in the chest with his baton, kicked him in the groin and then, for good measure, shot him in the neck with a rubber bullet. The man wasn’t a WTO protester but a resident who had been gassed out of his home. The image, which was caught on television cameras, helped turn the tide against the police and, by extension, the WTO itself.

    Seattle police said they responded aggressively only when their officers were hit with rocks and bottles. Well, frankly, this is bullshit. Seattle isn’t Beirut. There’s no rocky rubble on the streets of the Emerald City. In fact, there weren’t any glass bottles, either. In the eight or nine confrontations I witnessed, the body-armored cops were at most hit with a few half-full plastic water bottles and some feather-weight sticks that had been used to hold cardboard signs.

    In the end, what was vandalized? Mainly the boutique shops of Sweatshop Row: Nordstrom’s, Adidas, the Gap, Bank of America, Niketown, Old Navy, Banana Republic and Starbucks. The expressions of destructive outrage weren’t anarchic but extremely well-targeted. The manager of Starbucks whined about how “mindless vandals” destroyed his window and tossed bags of French Roast onto the street. But the vandals weren’t mindless. They didn’t bother the independent streetside coffee shop across the way. Instead, they lined up and bought cup after cup. No good riot in Seattle could proceed without a cup of espresso.

    These minor acts of retribution served as a kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident. They were used to justify the repressive and violent onslaughts by the police and the National Guard. Predictably, the leaders of the NGOs were quick to condemn the protesters. The World Trade Observer is a daily tabloid produced by the mainstream environmental groups and the Nader shop during the convention. Its Wednesday morning edition contained a stern rebuke of the direct action protests that had shut down the WTO the day before. Pope repudiated the violence of the protests, saying it delegitimized the position of the NGOs. He did not see fit to criticize the actions of the police.

    But even Carl Pope was outdone by Medea Benjamin, the diminutive head of Global Exchange, who sent her troops out to protect the facades of Niketown and the Gap from being defaced by protesters. Benjamin told the New York Times: “Here we are protecting Nike, McDonald’s, The Gap, and all the while I’m thinking, ‘Where are the police? These anarchists should have been arrested.’” Of course, Nike is used to police intervening to protect its factories from worker actions in places like Indonesia and Vietnam and it’s depressing to see Benjamin calling for such crackdowns in Seattle.

    The assault on Niketown didn’t begin with the anarchists but with protesters who wanted to get a better view of the action. They got the idea from Rainforest Action Network activists who had free-climbed the side of a building across the street and unfurled a giant banner depicting a rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with the slogan, “Don’t Trade on Me.”

    Occupying the intersection in front of Niketown was a group of Korean farmers and greens; several wore multicolored traditional robes and hats. It’s no secret why they picked this corner. For decades, Nike has exploited Korean workers in its Asian sweatshops. These folks cheered wildly and banged their copper kettles when a climber scaled the façade of Nike’s storefront, stripped the chrome letters off the Niketown sign, and tossed them to the crowd as Nike store managers in the window a floor above eating their lunch. The action should have warmed the hearts of nearly everyone, even the Seattle Downtown Beautification Association. For one brief moment, the city of Seattle had been rid of an architectural blight. As Harper’s magazine reported a few years ago, the black-and-silver neo-noir stylings of Niketown outlets bear an eerie resemblance to the designs concocted by Albert Speer for the Third Reich.

    That night, I went to sleep with the words of Jack Goodman, a locked-out steelworker from Spokane, ringing in my head. “The things I’ve seen here in Seattle, I never thought I’d see America.”

    Cover of the anarchist newsletter The Shadow.

    Thursday and Beyond

    By Thursday morning, I was coughing up small amounts of blood, 600 demonstrators were in jail, the police were on the defensive over their tactics and the WTO conference itself was coming apart at the seams. Inside the WTO, African nations showed the same solidarity as the street protesters. They refused to buckle to US demands, much to the irritation of US Trade Rep. Charlene Barshevsky: “I reiterated to the ministers that if we are unable to achieve that goal, I fully reserve the right to also use an exclusive process to achieve a final outcome. There’s no question about my right as a chair to do it or my intention to do it, but it is not the way I want this to be done.” Despite the heavy-handed bluster, the African delegates held firm and the talks collapsed.

    Beyond the wildest hopes of the street warriors, five days in Seattle have brought us one victory after another. The protesters were initially shunned and denounced by the respectable “inside strategists,” scorned by the press, gassed and bloodied by the cops and National Guard:  Shut down the opening ceremony prevented Clinton from addressing the WTO delegates at the Wednesday night gala,  turned the corporate press from prim denunciations of “mindless anarchy” to bitter criticisms of police brutality; forced the WTO to cancel its closing ceremonies and to adjourn in disorder and confusion, without an agenda for the next round.

    In the annals of popular protest in America, these have been shining hours, achieved entirely outside the conventional arena of orderly protest and white paper activism and the timid bleats of the professional leadership of big labor and environmentalists. This truly was an insurgency from below in which all those who strove to moderate and deflect the turbulent flood of popular outrage managed to humiliate themselves. Of course, none of this seemed to deter the capitalists. On the week, the Dow shot up more than 500 points.

    I walked out to the street one last time. The sweet stench of CS gas still flavored the morning air. As I turned to get into my car for the journey back to Portland, a black teenager grabbed my arm. Smiling, he said, “Hey, man, does this WTO thing come to town every year?” I knew immediately how the kid felt. Along with the poison, the flash bombs and the rubber bullets, there was an optimism and energy and camaraderie on the streets of Seattle that I hadn’t felt in a long time. It was the perfect antidote to the crackdown by the cops and to the gaseous rhetoric of Clinton, Carl Pope and John Sweeney.

    Aftermath

    The mostly young people who poured up Interstate 5 from Oregon, California, and other states were the green street warriors who had managed in a few days of intense and combative protests to paralyze downtown Seattle and shut down the opening ceremonies of the WTO conference. These same young people made up the core organizers of Ralph Nader’s Green Party candidacy, which helped deny Al Gore the crucial margin in Florida and New Hampshire. They formed the ideological and strategy basis of both the Occupy Movement and Tea Party that would haunt Obama’s presidency and the BLM movement that would confront Trump and Biden and even streams of the MAGA movement that would doom Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris.

    As the WTO delegates abandoned Seattle in defeat at the end of that tumultuous week in late autumn of 1999, illusions were almost as thick as the tear gas along Pike St. Exulting in the humiliation of the free traders in the Clinton-Gore administration, many on the left hailed the coming of age of a new coalition. Among its supposed components: the militant greens in the form of Earth First!, Rainforest Action and Direct Action Network; more mainstream green groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth; Ralph Nader’s citizen’s trade campaign; labor’s legions mustered in Seattle under the banners of the AFL-CIO.

    Amid the general euphoria, there were those who pointed out that labor leaders such as AFL-CIO chieftain John Sweeney had, in fact, played a very prudent role, ensuring that their members stayed at a safe distance from the turbulence of downtown. Indeed, months earlier, Sweeney had told his Seattle subordinates that the AFL-CIO had no interest in shutting down the WTO but wanted to make enough noise to guarantee Big Labor a seat at the table.

    Similarly, while the 650,000-strong Sierra Club sponsored a police-approved “Turtles and Teamsters” parade the day before the WTO was scheduled to convene officially, the Club’s executive director, Carl Pope, rushed to condemn what he decried as the “violence” of the street protesters. Pope had no such condemnation for the indiscriminate brutality of the Seattle police.

    With the advantage of hindsight, we can now see that those (present author included) who questioned the notion of a broad-based anti-WTO coalition were on the money. These intervening years offer us a political parable of a very different nature, a parable about the ability of a relatively small number of militant people to shake the system by sticking to their principles.

    After all, what happened to Sweeney’s labor legions after the WTO was run out of Seattle? It was not long before the Clinton administration thumbed its nose at the AFL-CIO by pushing through Congress permanent trade normalization status for China, a campaign led by then-Commerce Secretary William Daley, now Al Gore’s campaign manager. Big Labor fumed, but the fuming was impotent, as Clinton and Gore had reckoned from the start it would be. After getting a sound kick in the teeth over China (and precious little else over the preceding eight years), the AFL-CIO threw itself into the doomed task of electing Al Gore.

    For their part, the established mainstream green organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters
    knew well enough (though they would sooner die than admit it) that the Clinton-Gore years had mostly been a bust in terms of environmental achievement.

    It took a lifelong rebel like David Brower to say as much categorically on the record. But like Sweeney’s AFL-CIO, the big green groups rallied to the Gore campaign, demanding nothing in return.

    The ties between mainstream environmentalism and the Democratic Party are so enduring that even Friends of the Earth, which vigorously opposed Gore in the Democratic primaries and which endorsed Bill Bradley, came crawling back into the fold. By late October, FOE’s executive director, Brent Blackwelder, was touring the Pacific Northwest, urging Nader supporters to back Gore.

    But after Seattle, a vast gulf  separated the official leaders of America’s green groups from activists across the country. Carl Pope could get his board to commit the Sierra Club’s financial resources to Gore’s reelection, but that didn’t mean that the Club’s activists obeyed Pope’s call to fall into line and abandon Nader. The young folk on those Seattle streets who locked down and awaited the gas, pepper spray, concussion grenades, and batons were not in the mood to be intimidated into support of the Democrats by furious sermons from Pope, Blackwelder, or Gore’s Hollywood surrogates such as Ted Danson, Barbara Streisand, and Robert Redford.

    Seattle announced a new breed of green: people who had come of age during the Clinton-Gore years and who had cut their teeth as activists fighting projects that had been given the okay by Gore’s people at EPA or by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt or by Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck. These were militants who had gone to jail protesting the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in Ohio, or who dangled from redwood trees in northern California.

    After Seattle, these green militants went on to protest against the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC, in April. And then they decided it was essential to organize protests at both political conventions, first against the Republicans in Philadelphia, then against the Democrats in Los Angeles.

    One would have thought that Al Gore and his strategists might have scented danger as the LA police trampled green activists with horses and sprayed them with gas and rubber bullets. But they never woke up until it was too late because they had been operating so long under the assumption that these green activists had nowhere but the Democratic Party to turn to, regardless of how far to the right that Party might have drifted.

    Later, the Democrats gnashed their teeth as they looked at those 95,000 green votes in Florida that went to Nader. In a southern state like Florida this defection was as inconceivable to Democratic party regulars as was the prospect to the mayor of Seattle of having the WTO meeting shut down the previous year.

    The leaders of the Democratic Party and their friends at the top of the big green outfits had done business amiably for so long that they entirely missed the reality of a new generation for whom these accommodations were entirely repugnant.

    Twenty-five years have now passed since Seattle and they remain deluded. One of the corporate environmental movement’s top lobbyists later warned Nader’s supporters that he’d be looking for them “on the front lines in DC” when the right holds power. But the front lines aren’t in Washington, DC. They’re in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, in the chemical plants and oil refineries of Cancer Alley, in the wildlands of Montana, and in the strip mines of Appalachia. Here are the battlefields and training grounds for the direct action movement that humiliated the organizers of the WTO in Seattle.

    The post Seattle Diary: 25 Years After appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • “You can! You must. When those few are the best. Deny the best its right to the top – and you have no best left. What are your masses but mud to be ground under foot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?”

    – Ayn Rand, We the Living, 1936

    John Galt, a multi-billionaire hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, is on strike until the “masses of the mud” bend to the will of The Best. And, government needs to get the hell out of the way of those few who are the best.

    When it comes to spouting truly despicable horseshit – “selfishness is a virtue’ –Rand reeks. But she’s got followers in high places: “Rand’s controversial “objectivist” ideas have been invoked by generations of conservatives, from Reaganites to the Tea Party, and now Donald Trump.”

    Right now, a multi-billionaire regime is being set up by electing just one man, and this done by popular vote, by those Rand would call masses of mud. You need only scan those President-Elect Donald Trump has given key governmental positions: Private Predators, on and offline, with an animus to laws and the bureaucracy that enforces them. This subjugation of the many by the few comes as no surprise as such has always been part of “winning” in “The American Dream” as well as the force behind “American Exceptionalism.” Egalitarianism has always been the soft and fuzzy dream of useful idiots, in the eyes of the Winners. Do you think we might be deceived into thinking Donald Trump cares about the people he will “make great again”? In what ways is he, himself, great?

    It seems pretty clear that this country has made Ayn Rand’s dream come true. What “Make America Great Again” means is not picking up the thread again that might lead to an egalitarian democracy but being free to sow the whirlwind of anger, hatred, greed, vengeance and crushing domination. The “masses of the mud” need be ground under foot. Says Ayn Rand whose “thought” was pre-“trickle down.” The neo-liberal supply side trickle-down economics cannot be so un-Beatitudes because Christians are a key bloc of the Republican Party.

    Not that President-Elect Trump bends his will to either Ayn Rand or neo-liberal Reaganomics, or the will of Congress, of The Constitution, or trials by jury, or the Trump Bible he’s selling, or Reason. “Get the Hell Out of My Way” does capture the whole of his ideology.

    He’s won a popular vote promising to pave with gold the road ahead for Rand’s “masses of the mud.” Contemporaneously, he wants to pave the road ahead for those who have won in the Capital competitive arena, protecting and expanding his own stake in the game. At what point will this contradiction become obvious to his MAGA supporters?

    There’s clearly danger ahead in dismantling government services that obstruct The Best in their profit-making because such services benefit “the masses” who rely upon them. When you can afford private health care, or, are a shareholder/owner in this profiteering industry, cutting Medicare and Medicaid is not fearful but profitable for you. When your retirement pension is your dividend paying stock portfolio, Social Security is unimportant to you. The wealthy don’t pay FICA taxes beyond 168K, which, if they did, would keep SS solvent. There is no incentive here for the Best to do so. The fastest track Trump could take to losing his MAGAs is here, and it seems likely that his newly appointed Department of Government Efficiency run by two multi-billionaires (The Best) will jump on this track.

    When the thrill of “cleansing” and tearing down, of prosecuting the prosecutors (aka destroying trial by jury for instance) wears off and the Many realize that they are under plutocratic rule, the way back to a Constitutional democracy may already be forgotten, or the rule of Just Get Out of the Way may lead to a clash different than imagined before Trump’s victory. This is a rule that historically shows us that the multitude often doesn’t “get out of the way.” They storm a Bastille. Or, they get absorbed by The Borg, or a TV autocrat they love.

    Few would doubt that right now we no longer have the best of what is in us, the better angels of our nature, willing to “get along with each other.”. Not seen, but Lincoln hoped they existed. Perhaps this is so because both our political parties have openly supported, as is the case of Republicans, or cowardly acquiesced, as is the case of Democrats, to the belief that it is inevitable that the “artificial state” will rise, that human labor will be replaced and become extinct, that the Capital class, the multi-millionaires who pay homage to Trump, have always been the destiny of the country, that somehow deranged self-interest is in all our best interest, pace The Golden Rule of self and others. (See, Jill Lepore, “The Artificial State,” The New Yorker, Nov. 11, 2024)

    At the bottom of all this remains the still fundamental struggle between Labor and Capital, between workers and owners, although the so-called party of the working class, the Democrats, have long ago ceased acknowledging this struggle.

    However, Capital has not forgotten and remains furious over the New Deal, a time when the Democratic Party’s president, FDR mobilized a country and its mindset on the side of Labor in the Labor/Capital struggle. But as that Democratic party leaned away from struggle and leaned into the side of Capital, as if there was a “third way” in a knife fight in a phone booth, there’s not been much getting in the way of The Best. From that perspective, one regulation is too much, one NLRB vote on the side of labor is too much. Not to say that it’s been easy to put up a fight when money is speech and the Best have it now at obscene levels, and the discourse their money pays for drives deep into the zeitgeist.

    How long does it take to sidle minds away from thoughts like egalitarianism, redistribution to achieve modest wealth equity, profit goals as not synonymous with democratic goals, progress not zero-sum at all, labor deserving a fair share of profits, the support of anti-autocratic discourse, practices and institutions, and Market Rule as not a political platform in a Constitutional democracy?

    The two existential issues, the wealth gap and global warming, that should have been upfront in the recent election, were absent, in the same way Labor has been absent from the Democratic Party’s interests. Recuperation of this party does not lie in finding somehow who grabs media attention and can channel the passions: anger, hatred and a plan of revenge. Both Clinton and Obama channeled hope, not a passion but a promise of the future.

    By the 2024 Presidential Election, it was clear to everyone, including the Democrats, that the promise was unfulfilled and that anger had grown. The passion Democrats can rekindle is that of agon, of a fight, a struggle against being ground under the feet of the Best. There is a history to this struggle that Democrats have walked away from.  Revisit the words and actions of key figures in labor history (from Chavez to Debbs and Reuther, Harry Bridges, Kshama Sawant, Mother Jones and Emma Tenayuka, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, A.O.C., and Sherrod Brown) because these are the words and actions that will sustain a party tugging against plutocratic and autocratic power, the so-called Best.

    It very well may be that the Democratic Party cannot make this transformation and a new party representing those Rand calls “masses of mud” is required. Either Democrats are too committed to the “artificial” state that they accept and won’t fight, or too long committed to matters that are marginal in the lives of 80% of the population, or both, the fact remains that neither the wealthy nor the majority are with them.

    Think of the situation as a tug of war in which the tugging is back and forth, Capital is running from the New Deal and Labor is complacent, resting on past strike victories, not broad but self-serving, until Reagan slaps them aside and gets away with it in 1981. No longer playing defense, Capital rushes offense with Reagan’s supportive economics of the Best as the path to global power. By the time Democrats regain the presidency with Bill Clinton, the switcheroo from material well-being made for all to increasing the prosperity of those at the top is established. Obama is so far removed from the Labor/Capital tug of war when he walks into the Great Recession that he, a Democrat, automatically wants Capital to clean up the mess Capital has created.

    The winners of global competitiveness are already positioned at the top and everyone else is a welfare petitioner who should get a job. It’s suddenly the “reality” of the way things work, an inevitable movement of Capital. Bend to NAFTA without considering Labor. Globalized Capital is an untouchable future. This is a mythos that has caught hold. The newest spin of Capital is AI which is touted to transform the world although “the likely effect of AI will make an already broken political system even worse.” (Lessig, quoted in Lepore)

    If you place alongside this 16 years of Democrat presidential residence, which moves the Labor needle not a centimeter, with Republicans, staying up at night reading Ayn Rand, and so pulling the Capital end of the rope, what you get is no struggle at all. A man with no historical sense, no interest in competing ideologies, and amused by the Constitutional foundations of the country walks into power because the lines of opposition to such had disappeared almost a half century before.

     The omissions of the Democratic Party were there for all to see for a half century. This Party makes its own switcheroo by building platforms for whoever and whatever is on the marginal fringes while at the same time pushing out of sight that percentage of wage earners who are not invested, are not dividend recipients and are clearly not owners, regardless of the “independent contractor” flimflam. And they are not in any marginalized grouping struggling for identity. They are not subaltern. They are what Hillary called your “Everyday Americans.” How many are thought to be pushed out of sight? Enough to win the popular vote for Trump.

     Meanwhile, back in the mud of the masses, things ain’t going so well. Why? Sit down for an all-nightMonopoly game to find your answer. It’s an economics that will leave one guy with all the paper money and all the property, old money and newly gentrified. In the second quarter of 2024, the bottom 50% of Americans held 2.5% of the total wealth. The wealth gap before the French Revolution was not nearly as bad as what it is in the U.S. today. Masses in the mud stormed the Bastille. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Reign of Terror, Napoleon. We’ve done no revolution. Why? Our Napoleon, or more precisely the guy in the asylum who thinks he’s Napoleon, has stepped in as the answer to all those masses in the mud. Think of it as Trump grabbing the dropped end of the rope and now pulling for those masses in the mud. But he’s not. He’s pulling for himself.

     Now, Trump doesn’t have the erudition to fill any kind of important position but like a carny spiel man, he doesn’t have a knowledge base to pull a crowd into a tent. He established himself as a powerful man in TV world. That spin and spectacle leached into real political life. So established, he doesn’t have to prove he knows anything. He need only assert. He’s the smartest epidemiologist around. Listen to his advice and not Dr. Fauci. He’s more savvy than Putin, former head of the KGB. He knows that global warming is just changeable weather and human actions don’t affect the weather. NATO is what weak countries, not the U.S. needs. And so on. How much a threat is power in the hands of someone like this?

     He’s enchanted enough voters to win the popular vote. He’s a cult master, whether the enchanted are drinking the Kool Aid or waiting for comet transport, his raw selfishness in some kind of symbiosis with center stage exuberant deranged charisma has pre-empted blood in the streets twice. If Trump had not appeared, The Best would have pushed the mud masses closer to bloody revolution, and the Democratic Party would have been busy with bathroom legislation.

     If Trump had not won the 2024 Presidential election, his Jim Jones disciples would have bloodied the streets in his name. Because the so-called defenders of the mud masses, the Democratic Party, had lost the respect of the MAGAs, their power to calm violence is nil. Positioning yourself on the side of “basic rights” for the marginalized when the “masses of mud” are screaming about the price of bread, is and has been poor political positioning by a political party. “Basic Rights,” which didn’t seem to show up from 1787 to 1868, seem afterward to be capriciously and arbitrarily basic, given the fact that humans are fractious when it comes to who the Celestial Disseminator of Basic Rights might me.

    On one hand, visions of greatness in the past are visionary, but on the other hand we see in the past one wage earner per household on a union won salary and retirement pension and health benefits. Ironically, Trump’s promise to renew the greatness of the past has nothing to do with Labor but all to do with widening the distance between the finances of Labor and those of Capital. Whatever financial security existed in the past he will work to destroy, not serving Ayn Rand’s crackpot “philosophy” but his own brand of self-serving derangement. He also has no interest in awakening the past to its blindness to those not inside the white male centrism club.

    So, if Trump can only make the financial lives of the masses in the mud worse and also not nurture humanitarian impulses, his own life it seems devoid of any humanity, what is it that works here in the Trump/Labor bond?

    From the side of Capital, he’s the Judas goat that leads the laboring classes to vote for Capital. He offers a prominence he has in his own success achieved for them. He can save them by returning the past to them. Workers paid a share of profits, workers receiving secure wages in secure positions had been since the so-called Information Age, scheduled for extinction. There has been no political party defending them from this. But Trump has given Labor a renewed sense of importance simply by recognizing that workers exist. That’s what he’s doing at his rallies.

    The Best cannot fathom what is going on at Trump’s rallies because he is engaged with those who, The Best, of wealth and meritocracy, have erased from their lives. One touted perk of being wealthy is to be able to live away from those who are not wealthy. Hillary admitted to having lost touch with all those working class people who clearly saw she didn’t see them. But Trump sees them. He’s a user and abuser but on the very important level of recognition, however he manages this, he makes them feel that he sees them.

    In a plutarchic order, wage earners fade while dividend recipients claim ownership of the country. The new Vanishing Americans: the wage earners. AI and robotics may totally extinguish that part of us that seeks recognition and so, in that Brave New World fashion, lobotomize our need to be seen as who we are.

    Amendments: Regarding Joe Biden and Donald Trump

    Biden did more to move the needle toward Labor than any president since, perhaps LBJ but certainly FDR. Making those moves in a world already owned by The Best, the owners and not the wage earners, were legislative moves that were surely going to meet with all the opposition money could buy. Could the Biden regime have done more to publicize the boldness of what he was doing? I believe even the best effort wouldn’t have caught on. Half the country is too far removed from valuing what he did and the other half knows what he was about and pulled out all the plugs to stop him.

    Also, there was no Biden regime. Still far too many leaning into Capital, afraid of ringing an anti-Capital note. The Party sabotaged its own anti-Capitalists (I have Bernie in mind) and their ignoring labor did not assist Sherrod Brown, surely the one Biden should have endorsed for the presidency back in 2021..

    Donald J. Trump does not have a regime of power, regardless of how many subjects who will declare fealty. So far, Trump’s nominees should be in jail not in Washington. His is not a structured derangement. If Mao had the sort of misfit posse Trump is gathering, his Cultural Revolution wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. Ditto Stalin who could efficiently round up hordes and deport them to Siberia. Trump’s immigration roundup will go up to the moment “the Border Czar” tactics, seemingly a roughneck promising roughneck tactics, make headlines.

    Trump doesn’t measure up as the sort of autocrat/dictator to get anything done beyond some tirades on Truth Social. His minions, if they survive review, have all the qualifications needed for immediate disaster in whatever post they’ve been given. And if investigative reporters “follow the money” thy will surely be led to Trump misappropriations.

    None of that will escape exposure. Claud Cockburn, the father of Alexander Cockburn, a co-founder of CounterPunch, believed that most effective “is to tell truth to the powerless so they have a fighting chance in any struggle against the big battalions.” (Patrick Cockburn, Believe Nothing Until It is Officially Denied: Claud Cockburn and the Invention of Guerrilla Journalism, Verso.) Journalism, Jill Lepore writes in The NewYorker, “is as eager as it ever was to perform its essential accountability function, but it is also impaired by financial struggle, declining trust, and disruptive new technologies.” I would add that the finances of Capital are being deployed now more than ever to subvert investigative journalism as well as its witnessing of the facts. Certainly, this is because Trump is so vulnerable in every direction to exposure.

    Neither the Republican Party, which has signed its soul over to Trump, nor Capital which needs to see the laboring, wage earner class in Trump’s pocket, which this election has shown is where it has chosen to be, wants Trump taken down, as Nixon was, by the Press. Surely, the lesson Trump has learned from Nixon was two-fold: don’t get caught and take down the Press before it takes you down.

    It’s late in the game of Labor vs. Capital with Capital owning the field, but it’s also too late for Trump & Friends to shut down the Press, online and offline There is absolutely no legacy that can emerge from this Commedia dell’arte. J.D. Vance will at some point turn on Trump to save himself. However, Musk will be the first to rocket off followed by other multi-millionaires who will fade as Trump fades. Ayn Rand, and her disciple Margaret Thatcher, didn’t believe society existed, only the individual. Well, you don’t create an ongoing regime from a beginning like that.

    In an unrelenting storm of rants, idiotic conspiracies and personal threats and attacks the new technologies have managed to obscure those facts revealed by investigative journalism. This is a foul and degenerate use of cyberspace, once billed as a democratizing venue, a liberation of every citizen’s voice, voices that we now see were best left screaming in basements.

    Given this state of chaos, it is more than strange than so many voices enamored of hearing themselves have heeded Trump’s voice, rabid in echoing and hurrahing his deranged “weave,” a one man destruction of language and meaning. In a politics celebrity driven and wealth worshipping within a culture that has 188 major Protestant denominations and untold evangelical and Pentecostal and Holiness, plus Judaic and Catholic no moral sense seems to exist. From a solely Judaic-Christian moral view, Trump should not get a vote of support. But given the charade of a moral mission in the U. S., Trump should have been expected decades ago.

    The key question at this point is how will Capital save or salvage the Trump regime?

    At what point will he be abandoned by the globalist Capitalists who long ago gave up American labor for cheap labor wherever it can be found? And it could be found. At what point would Trump’s destruction of international defenses against wealth redistribution nation states, against those who see U.S. “free enterprise” as predatory, as no more than exploitation and imperialism that power practices as it hides behind its democratic and humanitarian front, compel Capital to do what Labor cannot do: defeat him.

    The post Get the Hell Out of My Way appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Brooklyn brownstone. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    With over 2,300,000 renters in New York City, it’s a good bet most of them had to pay exorbitant brokers’ fees to land their apartments. Those brokers charged a fortune – natch, because with a 2023 city rental vacancy rate of 1.41 percent, they could set their fees sky high. But on November 13, the city council approved a new law with a veto-proof majority to make landlords fork over those fees. According to the New York Times that day, “the fee is typically more than one month’s rent, and right now the median rent is roughly $3,4000.” So up-front costs to get a new place in Gotham were often over $10,000. How ‘bout them apples?

    Make no mistake: this new law protects tenants, as the screams of outrage from their predators attest. Those screams were duly recorded in a second Times article November 16, though the article did note that “New York City is one of only a few cities in the United States where tenants pay for a broker they do not hire themselves.” That didn’t stop said brokers from absurdly alleging to the newspaper that this win for renters will in fact harm them and from one agent shedding crocodile tears that “it’s an absolute mess for tenants.” Why? Because, he claims rents may rise, so tenants will avoid those supposedly life-saving brokers and thus “have to do all the dirty work themselves.” Of course, he sagaciously omits that those altruistic brokers will therefore lose their fees.

    Outside the big apple, how agents get paid saw changes this year. “A group of homeowners in Missouri successfully sued the National Association of Realtors,” the Times reports, “and some of the nation’s largest brokerages.” This ruling and the new city council act have engendered much frantic hyperbole from brokers: “It feels like we’re under attack,” one hyperventilated to the Times. “I feel like people are overlooking what we actually do on a daily basis.” Yeah, like gouge them for thousands of dollars.

    These brokers shrieking and tearing their hair also like to preen over how they “suppress” rents and how this new law means those rents will rise. They might, maybe, in an alternate universe run by real estate moguls and their fixers. And that’s a big maybe. NYC councilman Chi Osse, who sponsored the bill, views it differently: “It will place downward pressure on rents…As tenants will be free to leave their current unit without encountering a large forced broker fee in a new unit, they can negotiate for better terms.” The Times even quoted one broker who fully agreed. So wiping out brokers’ fees for tenants does NOT necessarily lead in a straight line to higher rents, those middlemen’s mendacious howls of dissent notwithstanding.

    And at a time when credit card debt soared to a record $1.7 trillion, tenants NEED cheaper rents. Credit card debt jumped 8.1 percent over the past year, while overall, according to the Washington Post November 15, “mortgages, auto and student loans and credit card debt – increased by $147 billion to $17.94 trillion.” Rents skyrocketed under Joe “War Is My Legacy” Biden, but to be fair, they rose rapidly for decades before he fulfilled his lifelong dream of reaching the oval office and embroiling the U.S. in a potentially nuclear war with Russia. My point? He’s not concerned with high rents or average Americans dispossessed by inflation, due to his sanctions and the billions he so profligately ships to his proxy war. Nevertheless, whether he cares or not, household expenses are exploding. And they could get worse, as Trump’s likely head of Medicare, Mehmet Oz, may want to ditch it. Fortunately, he has indicated interest in at least hanging on to Medicare Advantage. That’s not great, but it’s better than nothing.

    But if Oz entirely erases Medicare, the average elderly prole can just forget going to the doctor. And if he or she has a car accident or stroke, they better avoid the hospital, too. Your ordinary citizen can’t afford American medicine, because it’s a bankruptcy mill: hospital stays and medical treatments – you know, frivolous stuff like chemo – boot Americans into destitution tout de suite and in large numbers. If Oz really goes this route, those numbers will balloon, with lots of impoverished senior citizens.

    So the 50 percent of Americans who can’t afford a sudden $1000 expense are looking down the barrel of a gun: the cost of medicine could skyrocket and rents are not affordable. That’s why an occasional good law, like the one on brokers’ fees in New York City, is a breath of fresh air. So, not surprisingly, mayor Eric Adams has “concerns” about it. Of course he does. He’s closely linked to real estate bigwigs, though he claims this bill will hurt small landlords.

    “The bill requires whoever hires a broker to pay the fee. Landlords and their agents would be required to disclose fees in listings and rental agreements…” the Times reported November 13. “The new rules apply to market-rate rentals and to rent-stabilized apartments.” Now there’s something most Americans can only dream about: rent stabilization. Or, even farther beyond their wildest fantasies – rent control. A better, more enlightened era put both in place in New York City, and the real estate industry has denounced and chipped away at them ever since. But elsewhere in Amurica, no such sanity exists. The miserable realm of providing and finding shelter abides by the law of the jungle, which is why we have over three million homeless people and roughly 15 million empty homes – empty because even uninhabited they are a good investment for the wealthy few who need some place to park excess cash.

    When domiciles become these sorts of investments, that boosts rents, because it squeezes actual, available, affordable housing out of the market. And as rents soar, hordes of people lose a roof over their heads. If Trump really wants to help solve this crisis, the federal government should back building about seven million townhomes. Those are cheaper than single family dwellings, even though mortgage rates remain high. In other words, the millions of people who can’t afford a starter home, maybe could purchase a townhome. That, in turn, would free up apartments for those too strapped for cash to buy. If apartment vacancy rates rose, rents just might fall.

    The other advantage of building townhouses is that they cost less to construct than big apartment buildings, and also less than tracts of unattached dwellings. The Washington Post put forth this notion of mass construction of townhomes October 21, as a way to plug the hole in middle class housing. It would have ripple effects, benefitting those drowning in the lower economic depths, as it saves Americans from the pernicious plutocratic practice of snapping up abodes and then leaving them empty.

    Of course, this townhouse remedy does not apply to a dense, already built-up city like New York. But there they’ve evidently got some decent people on the city council, politicians looking out for their constituents instead of their donors – now there’s something you don’t see every day, certainly not in our bought and paid-for inside the Beltway government. But with any luck, real-estate tycoon Trump will find a mass housing construction plan of interest when he moves to the white house. Voters would be grateful, because everybody knows – the American housing mess is a national scandal.

    The post A Win for Renters appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Wheel of Fortune, woodcut, by Sue Coe.

    Fresh water is critical to the survival of ecosystems and living beings worldwide. However, as much as we all depend on water, some industries are notorious for their unsustainable water usage and rising contribution to water pollution. Factory farms are a prime offender.

    Groundwater—underground water in sand, soil, and rock—is a vital source of fresh water, comprising 99 percent of such water supply. “Groundwater provides almost half of all drinking water worldwide, around 40 percent of the water used in irrigation and about one-third of the supply required for industry,” according to UNESCO, which hosted the world’s first UN-Water summit in December 2022.

    The importance of groundwater was the main topic of discussion during the summit. Two issues of particular concern were overexploited aquifers, which could lead to water shortages, loss of ecosystems, and land subsidence, and polluted aquifers, which would have disastrous consequences for people, animals, and crops.

    With such a valuable natural resource quite literally underfoot, what happens above ground can have a significant effect—for better or worse. Factory farms dense with animal life sustain high levels of surface water usage and contribute to water pollution through runoff. Considering that factory farms exploit and pollute groundwater aquifers, their overall environmental effects are devastating.

    “The National Water Quality Assessment shows that agricultural runoff is the leading cause of water quality impacts to rivers and streams, the third leading source for lakes, and the second-largest source of impairments to wetlands,” points out the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    Factory farming touches every aspect of our planet, from emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to contaminating the groundwater, rivers, lakes, and streams we rely on for fresh water. Factory farms house animals in crowded and often filthy conditions, subjecting millions of cows, chickens, and pigs to the worst forms of abuse for the entirety of their short lives. Driven by the demand for cheap eggs, meat, and dairy, the animal agriculture industry has disastrous consequences for the planet. This must change.

    Assessing Water Risk

    Agricultural runoff from barnyards, feedlots, and cropland carries pollutants like manure, fertilizers, ammonia, pesticides, livestock waste, toxins from farm equipment, soil, and sediment to local water sources. According to a February 2022 article by the Public Interest Research Groups, the factory farming industry is one of the leading causes of water pollution in the United States. The animal agriculture industry is also a front-runner for water risk, which makes it an environmentally unsustainable practice.

    Scientists assess “water risk” by evaluating the possibility of water-related issues like scarcity, flooding, drought, or water stress. A Ceres report called “Feeding Ourselves Thirsty,” which looked at public disclosures by companies until June 2021, identified four industries with the highest exposure to water risks: agricultural products, beverages, meat, and packaged foods.

    “Agricultural products” refer to items made by farming plants or animals. The International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that agricultural production is “highly dependent on water and increasingly subject to water risks.” The OECD also highlights agricultural production as a major source of water pollution.

    Why is this a problem? Water is vital in factory farming—from growing crops to feeding livestock to cleaning facilities. It’s also an essential resource for every living being. So, while agricultural organizations must ensure their water use remains in the realm of sustainability, a 2022 report by the Investigate Midwest suggests that’s not happening.

    “Most large companies have policies to reduce water use and pollution. But some of the largest meat companies in the U.S. lack measures such as water reduction targets, watershed protection plans, and incentives for suppliers to conserve water,” wrote Madison McVan of Investigate Midwest, citing the Ceres analysis.

    Further, Ceres reports that Pilgrim’s Pride, one of the largest global poultry producers, set a public goal to decrease its water use intensity (or the amount of water used to produce a pound of chicken) by 10 percent by 2020. Instead, it self-reported that it had increased its water use in its U.S. operations by 5 percent

    From 2019 to 2022, the company said it had increased its water use by 12 percent. To complicate matters, in February 2024, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against JBS (which owns Pilgrim’s Pride, among other meat companies), accusing it of greenwashing its product and misleading consumers about its impact on the environment.

    Water Scarcity

    It is increasingly critical for the agricultural industry to join water conservation efforts. As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicates, water scarcity remains a pressing global concern. Just 3 percent of our planet’s water is fresh, including water frozen in glaciers (which accounts for about 2 percent). Because fresh water is a limited natural resource, the animal agriculture industry’s high water use is a growing concern.

    In 2024, animal agriculture accounted for almost a third of freshwater use globally. The Meat Atlas 2021 states that animal feed from arable crops requires about 43 times more water to produce than feed like grass or roughage that animals could access if they were allowed to graze. In 2014, more than 67 percent of crops in the U.S. went to animal feed. In 2020, WWF estimated that almost 80 percent of the world’s soybean crops were used in animal feed. In the same year, in the U.S., 38.7 percent of corn was used to feed animals.

    A 2020 study by the Animal Legal Defense Fund shows that just one slaughterhouse in Livingston, California, used approximately 4 million gallons of water daily in the live-shackle slaughter of chickens—accounting for about 60 percent of the city’s water usage. That’s equivalent to using about 2 billion gallons of water annually.

    Moreover, in January 2022, the New Roots Institute stated, “Every day, 2 billion gallons of water are withdrawn from freshwater resources for the farming of land animals in the U.S.”

    The slaughterhouse used some water in electrified stun baths and some in scalding tanks to de-feather chickens. Because this inhumane approach to slaughter is so terrifying for chickens, slaughterhouses also use vast amounts of water to clean feces and vomit from the chickens’ bodies after live-shackle slaughter.

    Water Use Is One of Many Harms Caused by Factory Farming

    The tremendous amount of water needed to grow crops for feed, clean facilities, raise animals, and slaughter them puts immense pressure on Earth’s limited freshwater resources. Evidence suggests most meatpacking organizations don’t ensure sustainable water practices in their supply chains. This does not bode well for the planet’s long-term impact on humans, animals, and ecosystems.

    Factory farming not only causes endless and unnecessary animal suffering but also uses an excessive amount of environmental resources, pollutes the planet, and consumes vast amounts of freshwater supplies. But animal agriculture impacts much more than freshwater: Meat-based diets harm the environment, nonhuman animals, and human health.

    We must work together as concerned citizens, consumers, and voters to end factory farming and repair our broken, cruel, damaging, and unsustainable food system. Activists worldwide are advocating for change, and plant-based diets are steadily increasing. According to the Plant Based Foods Association, the number of U.S. citizens choosing plant-based diets increased to 70 percent in 2023 from 66 percent in 2022. Moving to a world without animal suffering or environmental degradation is possible. But it requires all of us to change how we eat and live to make it happen.

    This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

    The post How Animal Agriculture Threatens Freshwater Supplies appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Engraving depicting the attack on the Pequot fort at Mystic, from John Underhill Newes from America, London, 1638.

    It’s Thanksgiving once again. That day, every year, when we are all gluttonous to celebrate the fact that ‘Pilgrims and Indians’ had a harmonious meal — at least that is how it has been framed historically.

    Let’s be honest. Every year on the last Thursday of November, we celebrate the beginning of a European invasion that ends with the death, land dispossession, and relocation of millions of native people. While many (Christians) have tried to redefine the meaning of Thanksgiving into a time wherein we cultivate a sense of gratitude, the undeniable truth is that the blood of natives stain the genesis of the holiday.

    The colonial origins of Thanksgiving (or what many natives often refer to as Thankskilling or Thankstaking) is not something to celebrate. While we cannot pinpoint the original “Thanksgiving” celebration, President Abraham Lincoln made it a national holiday in 1863. The now ubiquitous “Pilgrims and Indians” weren’t included in the tradition until 1890. The national mythos surrounding this holiday does not take into consideration the long and violent history of contact between European settlers (in this case English pilgrims – puritans) and the Indigenous populations that already inhabited the land (the Wampanoag people.) It is in these forgotten histories that we see the history of this holiday for what it truly is: English pilgrims, unprepared to survive on the land, stranded on Turtle Island. Yet, those who did survive those early winters would ultimately engage in a brutal campaign of colonialism and genocidal activity.

    It is important that we think clearly and honestly about how the beatified pilgrims saw the natives. Five-time Plymouth County Governor William Bradford said the natives were “savage people, who are cruel, barbarous, and most treacherous.” Clearly not the people you would like to feast with; however, the national narrative surrounding this holiday celebrates the first Thanksgiving as a moment of harmonious bridge building.

    This is clearly not the case…especially when we learn about the Pequot Massacre of 1637. This was just one in a multitude of genocidal tactics employed against the indigenous peoples of this land since white Europeans arrived in 1492. Of the massacre, Governor Bradford said:

    Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.

    The occupiers celebrated the genocidal act… and thanked God for the victory. Immediately following the Pequot Massacre, the occupiers worked diligently to whitewash history. The name of the tribe was erased from the map. The Pequot River became the Thames, and the geographic space the Pequot inhabited became known as New London.

    The whitewashing and erasure of Indigenous histories is not unique to this holiday, but it is, perhaps, one of the most ironic instances of indigenous mass murder in service of white European colonial expansion. The idea that we celebrate the notion that Indigenous peoples and the white European occupiers who sought their extinction were able to put their differences to the side long enough to sit down and eat in relative peace and harmony is deeply problematic. Even more so is the idea that it was the white European occupiers who had to teach and demonstrate “civility” to these “barbarous savages.” With the Pequot massacre in mind, it is clear which group in the Thanksgiving picture were the real “barbarous savages” and who were the ones practicing civility.

    The language and the rhetoric surrounding the holiday erases the true history of settler-colonialism. The Pequot Massacre is just one mere instance in the long history of evil acts that began with the white European occupation of Turtle Island. This is also not the first time we have seen the descendants of the occupiers attempt to create a new civic identity by whitewashing history and silencing Indigenous voices while erasing Indigenous bodies. We see this unfolding in Oklahoma (Okla-humma, Choctaw for “Red People”), where non-native occupiers see no shame in calling themselves “Sooners” (those who stole land prior to the Oklahoma Land Runs — a territory that was, by treaty, set aside specifically and solely for tribal communities “so long as the rivers run and the sun shines ” This is also happening in the Fertile Crescent where Israelis are violently settling and colonizing Palestinian lands. We remain witness to the same themes of genocide, erasure, dispossession, and replacement in real time. There are real consequences to complicity in settler colonial and imperial programs, wherein Indigenous peoples across the globe are targeted).

    However, we will not stand idly by as those who continue to employ colonial and, ultimately, genocidal tactics against our communities, rewrite, and revise history to justify both their actions and the actions of their ancestors. We must thoughtfully and intentionally intervene because while “Boomer Sooner” and “Thanksgiving” may seem inconsequential to some, the historical context that gave rise to these terms and celebrations contribute to real life consequences that still impact native people in this country.

    Native women are the group most likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, and upwards of 80% or more of these cases are perpetrated by non-native males. There are 2,000 reports of missing and murdered Indigenous Women from Turtle Island, and suicide in native communities far surpasses the national average for every age group. Natives have the shortest lifespan of any group living in the United States, and this rate is even lower for those living on reservations. Historical or intergenerational trauma is literally embedded in native DNA, and many of our parents and grandparents were stolen from their families and forced into boarding schools that had the expressed mission to “civilize the savage” and “kill the Indian but save the man.”

    Whitewashing history and developing rhetoric that celebrates the creation of a new civic identity for European occupiers—these all contribute to the oppression of Indigenous peoples and tribal communities. The stories like those taught about the Indians and Pilgrims at Thanksgiving ingrain a false sense of truth into the mind of the public. These stories tell the populace that “everything is okay,” and, in fact, the “Indians owe a lot to the Pilgrims.” A closer examination of the real history behind these stories,  will negate these ideas and enable the public to see how (and more importantly why) these stories—Columbus, Thanksgiving, Boomer Sooner—are told the way they are.

    These stories are extensions of colonialism and are genocidal tactics. By erasing and replacing the true stories with those of “Thanksgiving,” the occupier continues to remain complicit in genocide.

    So enjoy that turkey…but remember that you are doing so in a land that was stolen.

    Ash Nicole LaMont comes from the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Oglala & Sicangu Lakota nations. She is a lifelong Oklahoman living on the frontline of the climate crisis and fossil fuel extraction. Her expertise is the intersection between political economy, environment, and race.

    The post Thanksgiving and the Whitewashing of History appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • More than a decade ago, I spent a week working in Gatineau, a city on the southern edge of Québec, with the Cree Board of Health and Social Services. I was helping train researchers to interview Iiyiyiu elders about traditional birthing knowledge, so they could develop resources for soon-to-be parents and health care workers.

    Throughout our workshop, my colleagues in the Cree Nation of Iiyiyiu Aschii shared their excitement about a “great journey” their youth were undertaking: the Journey of Nishiyuu. A group was traveling 1,000 miles on foot in the dead of winter – all the way from their homes in Whapmagoostui First Nation, on the shores of Hudson Bay, to Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the capital of Canada.

    For Indigenous activists, walking the land can take on powerful spiritual and political significance. It has been, and continues to be, an important way Indigenous nations pursue healing, environmental stewardship and diplomacy across Turtle Island, the name many Indigenous groups use to refer to North America.

    I am a Canadian scholar whose ancestry stems from Western Europe. I now teach in San Diego, on Kumeyaay territory. My scholarship focuses on Indigenous spiritualities and social movements. Over the past several years, I have worked with Whapmagoostui First Nation – a remote, fly-in community in northern Québec – on research about the Journey of Nishiyuu.

    Healing journey

    The Journey of Nishiyuu – which translates to”human beings” or “new people” – took place from January-March 2013. More broadly, that season was known as the winter of Idle No More, a movement in support of First Nations’ rights in Canada.

    Led by Indigenous women, Idle No More arose when the Canadian government passed C-45, legislation that they feared would reduce environmental protections and weaken consultation with Indigenous communities. The winter of 2012-13 was also when Theresa Spence, the chief of Attawapiskat First Nation, held a hunger strike near Parliament Hill – an effort to hold the government accountable for its treaty obligations and to address the inadequate living conditions in northern reservations.

    The Nishiyuu walkers announced that they were walking the land to demonstrate that the Iiyiyiuch are still “keepers” of their “language, culture, and tradition,” and honoring their ancestors. Many individual walkers also spoke about the experience as a healing journey.

    “For the youth here there is no better place to be than out on the land,” said David Kawapit, the young walker who initiated the journey, when I interviewed him in Whapmagoostui.

    The walkers started off their journey in snowshoes, traveling along traditional trap lines and trading routes. As they moved farther south, the trail turned to highways, and walkers exchanged moccasins and snowshoes for boots and running shoes. Throughout the journey, walkers were hosted by other Iiyiyiu, as well as other Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, where they shared stories, food and prophecies with one another.

    When the group set off in January, it consisted of only six young walkers from Whapmagoostui and their elder guide, the late Isaac Kawapit. By the time they reached Parliament Hill, however, the movement had grown to approximately 270 people of many ages and cultural backgrounds.

    This was not just a walk for the Cree Nation. The journey was also intended to strengthen inter-Indigenous relations across Canada during Idle No More. The Nishiyuu walkers embarked on their journey to emphasize the important role land plays in shaping their sense of well-being, their culture and their communities’ political autonomy.

    The Journey of Nishiyuu.

    Walking land and lakes

    The Journey of Nishiyuu is one of many Indigenous-led social justice movements that engage in walking the land. In 1978, for example, the American Indian Movement led a 3,000-mile walk from Alcatraz Island in San Francisco all the way to Washington, D.C.

    Activists who participated in this “Longest Walk” did so to hold the U.S. government accountable to its treaty obligations. The United States signed approximately 374 treaties with Indigenous nations from 1778 until 1871, but Native American groups argue the government has often eroded rights these treaties were meant to protect.

    The Longest Walk helped prevent the passage of 11 bills in Congress that would have restricted Native communities’ jurisdiction and social services and diminished their land and water rights, among other consequences.

    In 2008, Indigenous activists embarked on a second Longest Walk and once more made the long journey from Alcatraz to Washington. This time, the walkers called attention to the need to respect sacred sites, protect the environment and create better futures for young people.

    Other walks have brought together Indigenous activists from Canada and the U.S., such as the Mother Earth Water Walkers. The late Josephine Mandamin, an Anishinaabe Grandmother and member of Wikwemikong First Nation, initiated the first Water Walk on Easter morning in 2003. She walked the entire perimeter of Lake Superior, on the U.S.-Canada border – an act of prayer and an effort to live out her obligations to care for and heal the waters.

    Mandamin was joined by other “water walkers” who have kept her traditions and teachings alive. They have continued to walk around numerous bodies of water, including Lake Ontario in 2006, Lake Erie in 2007 and the Menominee River in 2016. Their walks embody an Anishinaabe perspective that water is a sacred medicine, and also aim to educate the public on the importance of Indigenous peoples’ access to water and jurisdiction over their ancestral waterways.

    Affirming freedom

    When Indigenous activists walk the land, they are restoring their firsthand knowledge of place and reknitting their relationships with plants, animals and other human beings. They are also revitalizing traditional forms of governance and diplomacy through visits with other Indigenous nations along the way – and sometimes inviting non-Indigenous people to walk with them. These invitations offer non-Indigenous walkers opportunities for reconciling their own relationships to land and to the Indigenous peoples whose territories they inhabit.

    Part of such walks’ significance stems from history. For centuries, the United States and Canada attempted to control Indigenous peoples’ freedom of movement – often with support from religious institutions. In the U.S., the reservation system segregated Indigenous nations and allocated them to small portions of land. In Canada, the pass system mandated that Indigenous people present a travel document to an appointed Indian agent in order to leave and return from their reservations.

    Boarding schools in the United States and residential schooling in Canada separated children from their lands, families and communities. Federal relocation programs encouraged or forced Indigenous people to move to cities and urban centers in an attempt to assimilate them.

    While these social movements commemorate history, and try to heal from it, they are also a reminder that the past is present.

    By walking the land, Indigenous people assert their sovereignty and carry out their sacred obligations to care for their lands and waters – which I believe can inspire a more just and beautiful future.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post Activism on Foot: When Indigenous Activists Walk the Land to Honor Their Past and Reshape Their Future appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photo by Hannah Tu

    “The International Court is putting the elected leaders of a democratic country with its own independent judiciary in the same category as dictators and authoritarians who kill with impunity.”

    – The Washington Post, editorial, November 25, 2024

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant for conducting a genocidal military bombardment against the Palestinian residents of Gaza.  The Post argues that these warrants have undermined the ICC’s credibility and given “credence to accusations of hypocrisy and selective prosecution.”  The fact that Israeli Defense Forces have made no effort to limit civilian harm, and that more than 15,000 children in Gaza have been killed is not central to the Post.

    Former defense minister Gallant was issued an arrest warrant because he is using starvation as an additional tool in Israel’s genocidal campaign.  President Biden has joined the Post in denouncing the ICC’s request for arrest warrants, arguing that “there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas.”  But as Nicholas Kristof has noted in the New York Times, there is a moral equivalence between an “Israeli child and a Palestinian child,” and that “they all deserved to be protected.”  An ICC arrest warrant may not have improved the situation in Gaza, but it puts the world on notice regarding the savagery and brutality of Israeli actions.

    The fact that Gazans have suffered horrific wounds, but that very few victims have been permitted to leave Gaza is not relevant to the Post.  The fact that nearly all of the 2 million residents have Gaza have been displaced is similarly not mentioned in the Post editorial.  The fact that those remaining residents are being subjected to starvation and continued bombing, even in those areas declared safe havens by the Israelis, seems to have little resonance with the Post.

    The Post editorial simply believes that the “ICC is not the venue to hold Israel to account.”  This is reminiscent of the confrontation in the Pentagon in Dr. Strangelove, where the character played by Peter Sellers orders “please, no fighting in the war room.”  The United States is similarly hypocritical.  It has encouraged the ICC to make a case for Russian war crimes in Ukraine, but has regularly used its veto in the United Nations to prevent a resolution  supporting a cease-fire in the Middle East.  The Post seems to be arguing that Netanyahu cannot be a war criminal because he was elected in a democratic election, and therefore the ICC doesn’t have a role to play.

    The Post editorial argues that “Israel’s vibrant, independent media will do its own investigations,” and therefore there was no need for the ICC to make an effort to hold Netanyahu and Gallant accountable.  The Post has not reported that the Israeli government approved a proposal that ordered all government-funded organizations to cease communications with Haaretz, and to withdraw advertisements from the newspaper.  The Post seems to be arguing that Israel is supposedly a democracy, so it can’t be committing war crimes

    Haaretz, of course, is the only major Israeli paper that has been critical of Netanyahu’s genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza.  In explaining its actions, the Israeli government said the decision was prompted by “many articles that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self-defense.”  The government has been particularly critical by Haaretz’s publisher, Amos Schocken, who called for sanctions against Israel.  Schocken previously faced criticism from the Israeli government for referring to Palestinians as “freedom fighters.”

    In trying to silence a critical, independent newspaper such as Haaretz, Netanyahu is putting himself in the same camp as his friends in Russia (Vladimir Putin), Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdogan), and Hungary (Viktor Orban).  And in ordering the genocidal bombardments in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu is putting himself in the same camp as Myanmar (General Min Aung Hlaing), Sudan (General Mohamed Hamdan), and Syria (Bashar al-Assad).  The Post can talk about Israeli self-defense, but the fact is that Israel’s war aims have been achieved.  Hamas’s military structure has been dismantled, and Hezbollah has been forced back from the border with Lebanon.

    The Post believes that the appropriate time to hold Israel accountable is “after the conflict’s end,” when “there will no doubt be Israeli judicial, parliamentary, and military commissions of inquiry” to do the job.  It argues that the ICC should only become involved “when countries have no means or mechanisms to investigate themselves,” which “is not the case for Israel.”  There is no mention of Netanyahu’s efforts to continue the wars in Gaza and Lebanon in order to avoid the political and judicial risks he faces when these wars end as well as his continuing plans to undermine the independent judiciary.

    The Post doesn’t note that the arrest warrant for Netanyahu begs serious questions about U.S. complicity.  After all, President Joe Biden’s has given complete support to the Israelis for their bombardment campaign.  Moreover, nearly all of the weapons misused by Israel are supplied by the United States without cost.  The Biden administration has threatened to deny such weaponry if the Israelis don’t allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, but Netanyahu has ignored Washington’s so-called demands.  Now, Netanyahu knows that the election of Donald Trump will allow Israel more time to prolong the war, which offers the Israeli prime minister more time to evade any accountability from the Israeli people and their institutions.

    U.S. hypocrisy is now a matter of record.  The Biden administration condemns Russian and its president for using weapons to destroy Ukraine’s people and its infrastructure, but it supports Israel and supplies the weaponry that Netanyahu and Gallant used to conduct a military campaign of terror on their borders with Gaza and Lebanon.

    The post The Washington Post Excoriates the ICC for Issuing Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photo by Sean Ferigan

    There are a number of certainties about the coming Trump administration. One is that it will be bad for the climate. Another is that it will be bad for American democracy. A third is that it will be largely bad for minorities and for women.

    But when it comes to many other matters, like foreign policy, the key word is unpredictability, for Trump, as the world learned during his first term in office, is unpredictability personified. Observing this caveat when it comes to what to expect in terms of concrete actions and policies, one can nevertheless discern what are likely to be the fundamental thrusts of Trump 2.0. This is as much the case in the area of foreign policy as in domestic policy.

    Liberal Internationalism as “Grand Strategy”

    To use a common phrase these days, the coming Trump presidency will not only be an “inflection point” for U.S. domestic politics but for U.S. foreign policy as well. This should not be surprising since it is domestic priorities and domestic public opinion that, in the last instance, determine a country’s stance towards the outside world—what is called its “grand strategy.” The last time the United States experienced the kind of transformative event in foreign affairs that is coming on January 20, 2025, is 83 years ago when President Franklin D. Roosevelt brought the United States into World War II. FDR had a hell of a time overcoming isolationist sentiment and may well have failed had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor and changed public sentiment overnight from isolationism toward global engagement.

    The grand strategy that Roosevelt inaugurated can best be called “liberal internationalism.” Following the end of World War II and the beginning of the competition with the Soviet Union, that strategy was consolidated as “containment liberalism” by President Harry Truman, and it has been the guiding approach of every administration ever since, with the exception of the Trump administration from 2017 to 2021. The fundamental premise of liberal internationalism was best expressed by President John F Kennedy in his inaugural speech in 1961, when he said that Americans “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Another much quoted characterization of this outlook was provided by another Democratic Party personality, Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, when she said that for the maintenance of global order, the United States was “the indispensable country.”

    Liberal internationalism had its hard and not-so-hard versions, the former often termed containment liberalism or neoconservatism. But whatever their differences when it came to rhetoric or implementation, the differences between liberal internationalism and neoconservatism were matters of nuance, not substance. The rhetoric was lofty but the subtext of the rhetoric of liberal internationalism was making the world safe for the expansion of America capital by extending the political and military reach of the U.S. state.

    The Unraveling of Liberal Internationalism

    The grand strategy of liberal internationalism, however, became mired in its own ambitions, its first major setback occurring in Southeast Asia, with the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. Toward the end of the twentieth century, globalization, the economic component of liberal internationalism, led to the unmooring of U.S. capital from its geographical location in the United States as American transnationals went out in search of cheap labor, resulting in the massive loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States and the building up of a rival economic power, China. Power projection, the military prong of the project, led to overextension or overreach, with the ambitious effort of President George W. Bush to remake the world in America’s image by carrying out the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq during Washington’s so-called “unipolar moment” in the early 2000s. The result was a debacle from which the United States has never recovered. Both the crisis of globalization and the crisis of overextension paved the way for the rebirth of the isolationist impulse that broke to the surface under Trump’s presidency in 2017-2021.

    Only in retrospect can one appreciate how radically the isolationist, anti-globalist, and protectionist foreign policy of the first Trump administration broke with liberal internationalism. Trump, among other things, tore up the neoliberal Trans-Pacific Partnership that both Democrats and Republicans championed, considered NATO commitments a burden, demanded that Japan and Korea pay more for keeping U.S. troops and bases in their countries, trampled on the rules of the World Trade Organization, ignored the IMF and World Bank, negotiated the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban, and broke the West’s united front against North Korea by stepping across the DMZ to pat Kim Jong Un on the back on June 30, 2019.  Some have said that his foreign policy was erratic or chaotic, but there was an underlying logic to his supposed madness, and this was his felt need to play opportunistically to an important part of his white, working-class and middle-class base that felt they had had enough of bearing the burdens of empire for the sake of the American political and economic elites.

    But like Roosevelt in his efforts to break with isolationism in the early 1940s, Trump’s drive to break with liberal internationalism was plagued with obstacles, foremost of which were some of his appointees, who were open or covert adherents of liberal internationalism and proponents of globalization, and the entrenched national security bureaucracy known as the “deep state.” With Trump’s defeat in the November 2020 elections, these elements of the old foreign policy regime bounced back with a vengeance during the Biden administration, which proceeded to give full backing to Ukraine in its fight with Russia, expand the remit of NATO to the Pacific, and plunge the United States into full-scale military containment of China.

    For Trump, there is a second chance to remake U.S. foreign policy beginning on January 20, 2025, and it’s unlikely he’ll allow partisans of the old regime spoil his efforts a second time. In this regard, one must not be fooled by the pro-expansionist or interventionist rhetoric or record of some of his cabinet picks, like Marco Rubio. These folks have no fixed political compass but political self-interest, and they will adjust to Trump’s instincts, outlook, and agenda.

    Orban on Trump’s Grand Strategy

    Probably the world leader that Trump admires most is Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban. Indeed, Trump and Orban form a mutual admiration society. Prior to the elections, Orban was channeling Trump to the world.  On the question of America’s relations with the world under a second Trump presidency, Orban had this to say:

    [M]any people think that if Donald Trump returns to the White House, the Americans will want to retain their world supremacy by maintaining their position in the world. I think that this is wrong. Of course, no one gives up positions of their own accord, but that will not be the most important goal. On the contrary, the priority will be to rebuild and strengthen North America. ..And America’s place in the world will be less important. You have to take what the President says seriously: “America First, everything here, everything will come home!”… For example, they are not an insurance company, and if Taiwan wants security, it should pay. They will make us Europeans, NATO and China pay the price of security; and they will also achieve a trade balance with China through negotiations, and change it in favour of the US. They will trigger massive US infrastructure development, military research, and innovation. They will achieve – or perhaps have already achieved – energy self-sufficiency and raw material self-sufficiency; and finally they will improve ideologically, giving up on the export of democracy.  America First. The export of democracy is at an end. This is the essence of the experiment America is conducting in response to the situation described here.

    Let’s parse and expand on Orban’s comments. For Trump, there is one overriding agenda, and that is to rejuvenate, repair, and reconstitute what he regards as an economy and society that has been in sharp decline owing to policies of the last few decades, policies that were broadly shared by Democrats and traditional Republicans.

    For him, neoliberal policies, by encouraging American capital to go abroad, particularly to China, and free-trade policies, have greatly harmed the U.S. industrial infrastructure, resulting in loss of good paying blue-collar jobs, stagnation in wages, and rising inequality. “Making American Great Again” or MAGA is mainly an inward-looking perspective that prioritizes economic rejuvenation by bringing American capital back, walling off the American economic from cheap imports, particularly from China, and reducing immigration to a trickle—with that trickle coming mainly from what he would term “non-shithole countries” like Norway.  Racism, dog-whistle politics, and anti-migrant sentiment are, not surprisingly, woven into Trump’s domestic and foreign policy rhetoric since his base is principally—though not exclusively—the white working class.

    Foreign policy is, from this perspective, a distraction that must be seen as a necessary evil. The MAGA mindset, which is basically isolationism cum nationalism, sees U.S. security arrangements abroad, whether in the guise of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or mutual defense treaties such as those with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as obsolete commitments that may have been appropriate at a time that the United States was an expansionist power with tremendous resources but have since become bothersome relics for a power in decline, gaping holes that leak both money, manpower, and energy that would be better deployed elsewhere.

    Trump is not interested in expanding a liberal empire via free trade and the free flow of capital—an order defended by the political canopy of multilateralism and promoted via an economic ideology of globalization and a political ideology of liberal democracy. What he is interested in is building a Fortress America that is much, much less engaged with the world, where the multilateral institutions through which the United States has exercised its economic power, NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions, would be much less relevant as instruments of U.S. power. Deal-making, like the one Trump conducted with Kim Jong-Un during his first term, would, instead, be one of the main methods of defending American interests. Unilateral military and economic actions against those outside the fortress that are seen as threats, rather than allied endeavors, will be the order of the day.

    Selective Engagement and Spheres of Influence

    Rather than isolationism, probably a better term for Trump’s grand strategy is “selective engagement,” to contrast it with the open-ended global engagement of liberal internationalism.

    One aspect of selective engagement will be disengagement from what Trump denigrates as “shithole countries,” meaning, most of us in the global South, in terms of trying to shape their political and economic regimes via the IMF and the World Bank and providing bilateral economic and military aid. Definitely, there will be no more talk of “exporting freedom and democracy” that was a staple of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

    Another aspect of selective engagement will be a “spheres of influence” approach. North America and South America will be regarded as being Washington’s natural sphere of influence. So, Trump will stick to the Monroe Doctrine, and maybe his choice of Marco Rubio to be secretary of state might reflect this, since Rubio, a child of Cuban refugees, has been very hostile to left-leaning governments in Latin America.

    Eastern Europe will likely be seen as belonging to Moscow’s sphere of influence, with Trump reversing the post-Cold War U.S. policy of extending NATO eastward, which was a key factor that triggered Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The European Union will be left to fend for itself, with Trump unlikely to invest any effort to prop up NATO, much less expand its remit to the Asia Pacific, as Biden has done. It would be a mistake to underestimate Trump’s resentment of the western allies of the United States, which, in his view, have prospered at the expense of America.

    The downgrading of the United States as a central player in the Middle East will continue, with Washington’s confining itself to providing weapons for Israel and encouraging a diplomatic rapprochement between Israel and the reactionary Arab states like Saudi Arabia to stabilize the area against Iran and the wave of radical Islamism that direct U.S. intervention failed to contain.  Needless to say, Trump will gladly turn a blind eye to Tel Aviv’s carrying out its genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.

    Finally, in the Asia Pacific, there is a strong likelihood that while Trump will pursue the trade and technology war with China that he initiated during his first term, he will dial down the military confrontation with Beijing, mindful that his base is not going to like military adventures that take away the focus from building Fortress America. Concretely, he’ll raise the price for keeping U.S. troops and bases in Japan and South Korea. He’ll reengage Kim Jong Un in the dialogue he was carrying out when he crossed the DMZ in 2019—a dialogue that could have unpredictable consequences for the U.S. military presence in South Korea and Japan. He already gave an indication of this during his acceptance speech during the Republican National Convention when he said he had to initiate a dialogue with Kim owing to the fact that he “is someone with a lot of nuclear weapons.” Could the withdrawal or radical reduction of Washington’s military umbrella for South Korea and Japan be the price of a grand deal between Kim and Trump? This is the specter that haunts both states.

    Trump is likely to cease sending ships through the Taiwan Straits to provoke China, as Biden did, and one can expect him to tell Taiwan that there’s a dollar price to be paid for being defended by the United States and that Taipei should not expect the same assurance that Biden gave it that Washington will come to Taiwan’s rescue in the event of a Chinese invasion. I think Trump knows that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan was never in the cards anyway and that Beijing’s strategy was always cross-straits economic integration as the means to eventually absorb Taiwan.

    As for the Philippines and the South China Sea, a Trump administration is likely to tell Manila that there will be none of that “iron clad” guarantee promised by Biden of an automatic U.S. military response under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty in support of Manila in the event of a major confrontation with China in the South China Sea, like the sinking of the Philippine vessel.  Trump, it must be remembered, has gone on record saying that he would not waste one American life for what he called “rocks” in the South China Sea. The Pentagon’s push to build up the Philippines as a forward base for the military confrontation with China that Biden fully supported is likely to be reviewed, if not put on hold or abandoned.

    In short, Trump is likely to communicate to Xi Jinping that the Asia Pacific is China’s sphere of influence, though this message will be delivered informally and covered up by rhetoric of continued American engagement with the region.

    In conclusion, one must restate the caveat made at the beginning of this piece: that there are few certainties when it comes to an unpredictable figure like Trump. These few certainties are that Trump will be bad for the climate, for American democracy, for women, and for minorities. As for the rest, one can speculate based on past behavior, statements, and events, but one would be wise to always remind oneself that while his instincts are isolationist, unpredictability in policy and action has been and will continue to be the hallmark of Donald Trump.

    The post Trump: Isolationist by Instinct, Unpredictable in Action appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

    President Biden has never wavered from approving huge arms shipments to Israel during more than 13 months of mass murder and deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Biden’s crucial role earned him the name “Genocide Joe.”

    That nickname might seem shrill, but it’s valid. Although Biden will not be brought to justice for serving as a key accomplice to the horrific crimes against humanity that continue in Gaza, the label sticks — and candid historians will condemn him as a direct enabler of genocide.

    Biden could also qualify for another nickname, which according to Google was never published before this article: “Omnicide Joe.”

    In contrast to the Genocide Joe sobriquet, which events have already proven apt, Omnicide Joe is a bit anticipatory. That’s inevitable, because if the cascading effects of his foreign policy end up as key factors in nuclear annihilation, historians will not be around to assess his culpability for omnicide — defined as “the destruction of all life or all human life.”

    That definition scarcely overstates what scientists tell us would result from an exchange of nuclear weapons. Researchers have discovered that “nuclear winter” would quickly set in across the globe, blotting out sunlight and wiping out agriculture, with a human survival rate of perhaps 1 or 2 percent.

    With everything — literally everything — at stake, you might think that averting thermonuclear war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, Russia and the United States, would be high on a president’s to-do list. But that hardly has been the case with Joe Biden since he first pulled up a chair at the Oval Office desk.

    In fact, Biden has done a lot during the first years of this decade to inflame the realistic fears of nuclear war. His immediate predecessor Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of two vital treaties — Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies — and Biden did nothing to reinstate them. Likewise, Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration, and Biden let it stay dead.

    Instead of fulfilling his 2020 campaign promise to adopt a U.S. policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, two years ago Biden signed off on the Nuclear Posture Review policy document that explicitly declares the opposite. Last year, under the euphemism of “modernization,” the U.S. government spent $51 billion — more than every other nuclear-armed country combined — updating and sustaining its nuclear arsenal, gaining profligate momentum in a process that’s set to continue for decades to come.

    Before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022, Biden showed a distinct lack of interest in actual diplomacy to prevent the war or to end it. Three days before the invasion, writing in the Financial Times, Jeffrey Sachs pointed out: “Biden has said repeatedly that the U.S. is open to diplomacy with Russia, but on the issue that Moscow has most emphasized — NATO enlargement — there has been no American diplomacy at all. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. forswear NATO’s enlargement into Ukraine, while Biden has repeatedly asserted that membership of the alliance is Ukraine’s choice.”

    While Russia’s invasion and horrible war in Ukraine should be condemned, Biden has compounded Putin’s crimes by giving much higher priority to Washington’s cold-war mania than to negotiation for peace — or to mitigation of escalating risks of nuclear war.

    From the outset, Biden scarcely acknowledged that the survival of humanity was put at higher risk by the Ukraine war. In his first State of the Union speech, a week after the invasion, Biden devoted much of his oratory to the Ukraine conflict without saying a word about the heightened danger that it might trigger the use of nuclear weapons.

    During the next three months, the White House posted more than 60 presidential statements, documents and communiques about the war in Ukraine. They all shared with his State of the Union address a stunning characteristic — the complete absence of any mention of nuclear weapons or nuclear war dangers — even though many experts gauged those dangers as being the worst they’d been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    With occasional muted references to not wanting a U.S. military clash with nuclear-armed Russia, during the last 33 months the Biden administration has said it did not want to cross its own red lines — and then has repeatedly proceeded to do so.

    A week ago superhawk John Bolton, a former national security advisor to President Trump, summarized the process on CNN while bemoaning that Biden’s reckless escalation hasn’t been even more reckless: “It’s been one long public debate after another, going back to ‘Shall we supply ATACMS [ballistic missiles] to the Ukrainians at all?’ First it’s no, then there’s a debate, then there’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians Abrams tanks?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, then it’s yes. ‘Should we supply the Ukrainians with F-16s?’ First it’s no, then there’s a long debate, and it’s yes. Now, ‘Can we allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS inside Russia?’ After a long debate, now it’s yes.”

    Whether heralded or reviled, Biden’s supposed restraint during the Ukraine war has steadily faded, with more and more dangerous escalation in its place.

    Biden’s recent green light for Ukraine to launch longer-range missiles into Russia is another jump toward nuclear warfare. As a Quincy Institute analyst wrote, “the stakes, and escalatory risks, have steadily crept up.” In an ominous direction, “this needlessly escalatory step has put Russia and NATO one step closer to a direct confrontation — the window to avert catastrophic miscalculation is now that much narrower.”

    Like Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken as well as the Democratic and Republican phalanx of Ukraine war cheerleaders on Capitol Hill, Bolton doesn’t mention that recent polling shows strong support among Ukrainian people for negotiations to put a stop to the war. “An average of 52 percent of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible,” Gallup reported last week, compared to only 38 percent who say “their country should keep fighting until victory.”

    Biden and other war boosters have continued to scorn, as capitulation and accommodation to aggression, what so much of the Ukrainian population now says it wants — a negotiated settlement. Instead, top administration officials and laptop-warrior pundits in the press corps are eager to tout their own mettle by insisting that Ukrainians and Russians must keep killing and dying.

    Elites in Washington continue to posture as courageous defenders of freedom with military escalation in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have already died. Meanwhile, dangers of nuclear war increase.

    Last week, Putin “lowered the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a broader range of conventional attacks,” Reuters reported, “and Moscow said Ukraine had struck deep inside Russia with U.S.-made ATACMS missiles…. Russia had been warning the West for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to fire U.S., British and French missiles deep into Russia, Moscow would consider those NATO members to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine.”

    For President Biden, the verdict of Genocide Joe is already in. But if, despite pleas for sanity, he turns out to fully deserve the name Omnicide Joe, none of us will be around to read about it.

    The post Omnicide Joe? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

    The immigration issue has split and/or weakened both center and left parties and movements across many nations in recent years. Serious economic and social problems afflicting national working classes have been “managed”—at least temporarily—by scapegoating immigrants as if they were responsible for those problems. Leaders on the left fear that many among their supporters are vulnerable to that scapegoating. In contrast, leaders on the right often see that scapegoating as a means to achieve electoral gains. Trump reflected and strengthened the view that such scapegoating can get votes. The widespread perception that Kamala Harris too would be “tough on immigrants” showed that she offered no real alternative program on immigration. Thus, the classically reactionary posing of the issue as “protecting the nation against an immigrant ‘invasion’” widely prevailed.

    Appeals to morality, multiculturalism, and compassion for the plight of most immigrants failed to dissuade many on the left from disengaging and moving politically rightward. The center or moderate left needs but lacks clear, strong support for immigrants that does not alienate portions of their traditional electoral base. “Me-too” opposition to immigration, even if less harsh and hostile than that of the professional demagogues, will fail, as Kamala Harris’s campaign discovered. Moreover, classic left reformism suggests a radically different program on immigration. It is derived from the reformist program (the “Green New Deal”) to address climate change when it faced a parallel problem with job-holders in polluting industries. A parallel reformist program to deal with immigration might be called an “Inclusive New Deal.”

    In contrast, conservative, right-wing, and fascistic political forces have used extreme opposition to immigration to grow their ranks. Those forces boldly accuse immigrants of bringing crime, disease, downward pressure on wages, competition for jobs, and burdensome, costly demands on schools, hospitals, and other public services. Even in the United States, a country mostly composed of successive immigrant waves (who obliterated and replaced the indigenous people), many of those immigrants’ descendants now hold anti-immigrant views. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, they rationalize those views by insisting that, unlike former immigrants, today’s differ in being “unwilling to work.”

    Rightists advance their radical “solutions” such as sharply tightening immigration rules, refusing all further immigration, and deporting millions. Even where moral, ethical, and religious traditions call us to welcome immigrants, right-wingers have found that anti-immigration politics can work well. They attack center-leftists for seeking future votes by being pro-immigration or only weakly anti-immigration. In the United States, they attack the Democratic Party for not putting their American-born constituents first. Patriotism, as defined by such rightists, now entails a strict anti-immigrant position that displaces traditional religions’ endorsement of the opposite.

    Immigrants forced to arrive as slaves, Black people in the United States, for example, fared differently: their integration was mostly slower and much more partial. Brown immigrants who arrived as other than slaves also suffered slower and partial integration. Anti-Black-and-Brown racism added further discrimination and life difficulties to the experience of those immigrants. Institutionalized racism denied opportunities for such immigrant communities to develop their members’ levels of education, job skills, businesses, personal wealth, and social confidence. All immigrants suffer delays in their access to those qualities and capabilities, but the addition of racism worsens and lengthens those delays, including in U.S. society today. The difficulties usually endured by immigrants slow and skew the development of the economy they have entered. The occasional explosions of immigrants’ resentments and bitterness at their treatment—and the usually very violent subsequent repressions—then add further damage to their host economies.

    Repeated efforts by those opposed to immigration have rarely succeeded in stopping it. The broad range of social forces—including the persistent effects of colonial and neo-colonial subjugation, uneven capitalist development, and climate change—that propel people to emigrate usually outweigh their concerns for their own economic, personal safety, and family interests. For employers, immigration can cheapen labor costs by expanding the supply of labor power (especially when the opposite is threatened by falling birthrates or when capital accumulation risks bidding up wages). Undocumented immigrants offer employers notoriously outrageous opportunities for super-exploitation. Hence, they often support it.

    An important social cost of immigration is the opportunity it has regularly presented to demagogic politicians. They have repeatedly scapegoated immigrants to deflect genuine mass discontent where it might otherwise threaten the domestic employer class. Is there unemployment? The demagogue suggests that jobs are being preferentially reserved for immigrants. Are public services inadequate? The demagogue suggests that immigrants are placing excessive demands on them and corrupt officials are directing them to immigrants to secure cheap labor or votes. Demagogues often insist—again despite evidence to the contrary—that immigrants commit more crimes and bring and spread more disease than the native-born.

    The campaigns of Donald Trump and many Republicans scapegoated immigrants. Many Democrats’ campaigns likewise featured the scapegoating of immigrants. In contrast, the real, basic economic problems of the United States were not seriously addressed in the latest presidential election campaigns. One of those is the immense gap between haves and have-nots that has widened over the last 40 years. Another is the economic instability that has the economy oscillating between inflation and recessions. Still another is the obvious decline of the American empire (the relatively declining roles of U.S. exports, imports, investments, and the dollar) within the global economy. These issues were marginalized or, more often, ignored. Instead, candidates relentlessly scapegoated 12 million undocumented immigrants (among the poorest of the poor) as if they were the cause of and thus to blame for the deep problems of U.S. capitalism, an economy of 330 million people. Likewise, they excoriated China for the economic competition its economic growth has brought to the United States. Doing that conveniently deflects blame from the corporate employers who made the decision to move production from the United States to China. As usual, all social blame or criticism must be kept from touching the U.S. capitalist system that accounts for those profit-driven decisions.

    Deep, costly, and lasting consequences have followed the demagoguery and divisions in societies that split over immigration. Much energy, time, and money is diverted from dealing with the nation’s real economic problems to obsessive “coping with” immigration (homeland security budgets, border patrol budgets, and wall construction and maintenance). Still more is devoted to housing, policing, feeding, and otherwise “processing” undocumented immigrants. If high-priority policy instead created good jobs with good incomes for immigrants, huge portions of these social costs would be unnecessary. Moreover, worthwhile alternatives to failed existing immigration policies are available if sufficient political power places them on the social and political agendas of societies confronting immigration. A remarkable flaw of today’s global capitalism lies in its provocation of massive migration of people alongside its massive, costly failure to plan or manage that migration.

    One such alternative policy could solve together the recurring problems of unemployment, inadequate housing and social services, and immigration. In the U.S. case, another Marshall Plan or “Inclusive” New Deal, green or otherwise, is needed. It could create jobs performing public services (paid at or above the current median for such jobs) that would be provided, as a right, to every unemployed citizen as priority #1. As priority #2, equivalent jobs would be provided, as a right, to all immigrants. As priority #3, the jobs thus created would include expanding the housing and all other social services needed to adequately accommodate the entire population, native plus immigrant. The tragic social divisiveness of immigrant-vs-native competition for jobs might thereby be sharply reduced.

    Such an Inclusive New Deal could be funded by (1) billions of dollars no longer needed for unemployment insurance, (2) increased income and other taxes paid by newly employed native and immigrant workers, (3) increased taxes paid by businesses profiting from increased spending by those workers, and (4) an annual wealth tax of 2 percent on all personal wealth above $20 million. Immigration could be reduced for the first five years of this Inclusive New Deal to get it fully established and running.

    A major side benefit of this Inclusive New Deal would be the huge boost in receipts for Social Security. Another such benefit would be the reduced demands placed on social services by the better physical and mental health of all newly employed workers. Finally, as a social dividend from such an Inclusive New Deal, the official work week in the United States for all workers could be reduced from 40 to 36 hours (with no pay reduction).

    Imagine the enormous social benefits that would accrue to the entire U.S. population, native and immigrant, from this different reformist approach to the immigration issue. In the United States and beyond, such an approach would reduce the social divisions over jobs, incomes, housing, homelessness, social services, and immigration. A strong, growing economy attracts immigrants, integrates them productively, and thereby impresses the world. A weak, declining economy not only fails to employ all its people productively but by deporting immigrants advertises its failure to the world. A radical program would embrace the freedom to migrate as universal and therefore reorient the global location of investment to serve that freedom both domestically and internationally.

    This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

    The post A Reformist Program on Immigration (Or What Harris Might Have Said) appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Youtube screengrab.

    Last March, I wrote Gaza: Genocide by Starvation, analyzing Israel’s strategy to divert attention from the starvation caused by its blockade by shifting the narrative to food distribution and internal security. In support of this strategy, the Biden administration implemented a flawed plan, squandering more than $320 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money on a failed floating pier, and inefficient airdropping—an illusory remedy aimed at buying Israel more time by diverting attention from the siege, while offering a hollow promise to alleviate starvation in Gaza.

    According to the World Food Program, in October 2024 and due to Israeli restrictions, the U.N. organization was only able to bring less than 30% of what was needed in Gaza. In the north and following 40 days of complete siege with no food and water allowed in, only after the U.S. threatened to stop supplying Israel with weapons, three aid trucks were allowed to enter the town of Beit Hanoun. Then as the food was unloaded for distribution, Israel opened fire at the crowd forcing hungry families to flee the area. Additional food trucks destined to Jabalia and Beit Lahia towns were not allowed in, where children have resorted to eating weeds to survive,

    Since May, Israel has granted less than 30 of the more than 300 requests for individual drivers to enter Gaza. This month alone (November), the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs spokesman, Stephane Dujarric reported that Israel rejected 27 out of 31 planned humanitarian missions, and the four entries it allowed “were severely impeded.” As a result, bakeries and kitchens in northern Gaza had to shut down, nutrition aid suspended, and no fuel to operate hospitals, water and sanitation facilities.

    Whenever Israel acceded to international pressure and allowed food trucks into Gaza, it often turned the food distribution centers into death traps. One such massacre occurred on February 29, 2023, at Al Rasheed Street. The previous day, news spread that trucks carrying flour were en route to Northern Gaza. Hundreds of hungry men and women gathered at the designated drop point, the Nabulsi Roundabout.

    By 4:30 the following morning, the trucks’ headlights began to flicker in the distance, their beams piercing the freezing darkness. Excitement surged through the desperate crowd. Women wept, relieved that their children would soon have food. As the trucks drew closer, their lights grew brighter, illuminating the hope and anguish etched on the faces of those who had waited so long.

    The trucks passed the Israeli army checkpoint and roared into the roundabout, their rumbling engines competing with the growling stomachs of the crowd. Hungry men and women cautiously approached, desperate for food, when suddenly, deafening cracks of gunfire shattered the cold morning.

    The swarming crowd was a perfect target for Israeli tanks and snipers positioned around the area. In an instant, hope turned to horror, and the flour sacks soaked in the blood of the hungry. At least 118 civilians were killed, and more than 750 were injured.

    The Nabulsi Roundabout—a designated drop point coordinated between the U.N. and Israel—Flour Massacre was neither the first nor the last instance of Israel disrupting aid delivery and distribution. About three weeks earlier, on February 5, Israeli naval gunboats targeted food trucks for the ninth consecutive day. In April, Israeli drones struck clearly marked vehicles belonging to the World Central Kitchen, killing seven aid workers.

    In addition to the Israel’s “concerted policy to destroy Gaza healthcare system”, Gaza was declared by the U.N as the most dangerous place for aid workers. Year 2024 has already become the deadliest year for U.N. workers since the founding of the United Nations in 1945 with more than 320 humanitarian personnel killed since October 2023.

    In parallel with the food aid massacres—the targeting distribution centers and killing international aid workers—Israel also targeted local police protecting aid trucks. Without police security, the resulting combination of exacerbated mass starvation, hopelessness, and desperation could pave the way for armed gangs to attack and loot aid convoys, triggering a total breakdown of law and order. This has always been part of an Israeli broader strategy aimed at dismantling societal and cultural community structures entirely.

    As a result of targeting the aid truck’s security escorts, the police stopped providing security protection for aid convoys. Hence, Israel succeeded in impeding the delivery of food it had authorized for entry into Gaza. The Biden appointed U.S. Ambassador David Satterfield remarked that “With the departure of police escorts it has been virtually impossible for the U.N. or anyone else … to safely move assistance in Gaza because of criminal gangs,”

    Absent of security protection, this past weekend, November 23, Israel unexpectedly granted permission for 109 U.N. aid trucks to enter Gaza. According to CNN, the convoy, originally scheduled to cross into Gaza on Sunday, was instead instructed at short notice to depart on Saturday via an alternative route.

    Immediately after crossing into Gaza, and still in a restricted area controlled and patrolled by the Israeli army, a local armed gang intercepted the convoy, opening fire on the trucks. According to a driver, Israeli tanks and drones were nearby observing the attack. In a short time, 97 of the 109 aid trucks intended for the starving population were commandeered by the armed criminals. It’s important to point out that the Israeli army who shoots civilians without warning, allowed an armed gang to operate freely under their watchful eyes. When questioned about their failure to intervene and prevent the looting, the occupying Israeli army claimed that protecting aid convoys was not their responsibility.

    Through it all, the Biden administration has speciously urged Israel to “temporarily stop its military offensive on Gaza,” while simultaneously vetoing U.N. Security Council calls for a ceasefire. Most recently Wednesday November 20 where the U.S. was the only vote (14 to 1) opposing the latest resolution. Meanwhile, Israeli firster U.S. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, has been calling on Israel since November 2023 to ensure humanitarian aid gets into Gaza, while supplying the very weapons and bombs to enforce what Israeli War Minister promised on October 9, 2023, “complete siege . . . no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.”

    The Biden administration has played a pivotal role in enabling Netanyahu’s engineered chaos and the unfolding genocide in Gaza, as well as in turning a blind eye to Jewish colonist mobs terrorizing Palestinian villages in the West Bank, and the violent rampage in Lebanon. The Administration’s complicity in facilitating crimes against humanity must neither be ignored nor downplayed. Any arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court would be insufficient without also holding Netanyahu’s collaborators in Europe and the United States accountable for their roles in these atrocities.

    The post Israeli Engineered Chaos and Looting in Gaza appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • That is Gaza behind me.

    The fence line is 600m away. The northern part of Gaza, where Israel is carrying out a genocide within a genocide, systematically starving 300,000 Palestinians to death, is about 2km further.

    The absurdity and the obscenity of being able to be this close to 20,000 murdered children, their bodies “prophetic voices from under the rubble” as a colleague called them, is difficult to accept.

    The grotesque horror of a school field trip arriving at this location from two hours away to watch the mass slaughter from an observation deck was a shock I am overwhelmed by. The first wave of boys pumped celebratory firsts and thrust middle fingers upon their sight of Gaza.

    There were no warplanes or drones visible. The school kids and other audience members of a genocide who gawked and put money into a telescope left disappointed as they saw no bombs or missiles, no artillery or tank fire. There were no blast waves from controlled demolitions to wash over them, and the numbers of smoke pillars from smoldering and cratered homes and schools were in the single digits, their fires not vigorous enough to be smelled. It must have been underwhelming and a let down; not much to boast about or revel in on the school bus ride home.

    It was quiet. The sounds of those buried under rubble don’t reach the observation deck. No torn and wrecked bodies could be seen, no sunlight reflected in pools of blood, and no strips of clothes snagged on exposed bones fluttered in the strong wind. We were as close as we could be but so separate and so safe from it. It was sanitary and septic, picturesque.

    I felt I was a voyeur, a tourist, a spectator. I felt disgust and disbelief. And I felt an absence within me that I cannot articulate.

    To be that close to the cleansing and destruction of 2.2 million people and to be centering now my words on my feelings doesn’t escape me. Perhaps a well-achieved purpose of that observation deck of genocide.

    The Nietzsche-ism, stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back at you, struck me as I stood there.

    Stare into Gaza and Gaza stares back is what I am left with now, comfortable in my Jerusalem hotel, just hours after looking into their genocide as if I were on a platform at a national park or on the boardwalk at the shore.

    The horror of the genocide I expected but did not see. I thought I might curse and cry. I did neither. The cruel and so very human spectacle of a caged people being destroyed as a display for school children was what I encountered. I did not expect that and I don’t know how to respond.

    Note: Americans partially funded this observation deck.

    The observation deck in Sderot looking into Gaza.

    A school field trip assembled at the observation platform overlooking Gaza.

    These are my first thoughts on standing that close to Gaza. I may need to revisit them.

    I am in Palestine this week as part of a delegation to be in solidarity with and learn from those engaged in Palestinian liberation. Today, in addition to this visit to the border of Gaza, we met with Rabbis for Human Rights and an October 7th survivor in the Sderot settlement, as well as a Palestinian Lutheran minister in Bethlehem.

    This first appeared on Matthew Hoh’s Substack page.

    The post Stare into Gaza: The Horror Was Not What I Expected appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Owen Blacker, CC 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

    What a bleak November for the USA. It would be easy to throw in the towel. Then again…

    Look to the colonized people. The people our taxes oppress. They resist, resist, resist. Decade after decade and day after day.

    Look to the living communities—the other ones. Driven to the edges of habitat by our kind, as a battered, desperate climate burns out the few viable places left. Struggling to live, despite our incessant manspreading into the spaces their evolution requires.

    No, it’d be hard to give up.

    We resist.

    Oh, George.

    After the election, some Trump voters told reporters they don’t pay much attention to what Trump says. They pay attention to their bank accounts (if they still have them). And they think groceries were cheaper when Trump was in office, and maybe remember the stimulus payments Trump signed. (Yes, Biden’s administration sent stimulus payments too—but remember the facts. Trump set a $2,000 figure and Biden’s additional payment—a promised $2,000—turned out to be $1,400, added to a $600 payment that Congress signed off during Trump’s term.)

    The Democrats could have homed in on a lingering and widespread sense of financial alienation. The polls showed it simmering. So did the housing charts. Home prices have more than doubled in areas of Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Housing costs are rising everywhere—but especially in swing states, said The Washington Post on October 20.

    Friday after the election, I listened to Trump-turned-Harris-supporter George Conway tell Sarah Longwell that inflation wasn’t really a thing, so people’s economic concerns must be “a proxy for something else that bothers them.” Oh, George. Do you know for every home for sale there are 30 households that rent? Do you know what they pay their landlords? Do you know how “the economy” suffocates people’s dreams and betrays entire generations?

    Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell came out and said it. Inflation is going down (for now) but prices are not.

    Under Biden and Harris and Obama for that matter, many of us have lived one unexpected medical event away from a financial calamity. The LGBTQI+ community implored the Democrats to actually defend medical care. Instead of more bread and less circus, the Democratic presidential campaign leaned into jet-setting celebrities. And the Cheneys.

    As Joshua Frank put it, November 5th brought “blowback for 30 years of neoliberal capitalism.”

    Two-Faced Coin

    The cryptocurrency PACs supported political campaigns in a slew of states. Turns out the Coinbase CEO has designs on federal financial policy—or at least boosting Elon Musk’s designs on it.

    Crypto spent millions in Massachusetts, trying to oust Elizabeth Warren, and injected more than $40 million into Bernie Moreno’s Ohio campaign, which unseated longtime Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown.

    Brown understood the Democrats’ election outcome as primarily a class issue. Especially since NAFTA, Brown told Eugene Daniels at Politico, working-class support for the Democratic party has faded, “because Democrats haven’t focused on workers the way that we should over the last 30 years.”

    Granted, the Harris campaign promised mortgage assistance. Great, but we need zoning allowances that support density rather than sprawl, and we need support for barely waged renters, and the end of this system that forces large segments of U.S. workers to try to live off starvation wages. And to that point, the rise of cryptocurrency highlights class issues. It was conceived in the throes of the Great Recession, just after the government bailed out the major U.S. banks, while millions of people lost their homes to foreclosures. Their adult children remember.

    Yes, crypto would create its own class of high-emitting, jet-collecting oligarchs. As with the broader economy, crypto inequality is now horrendous, with less than 2% of wallets holding more than 90% of bitcoin. After the pandemic rocked corporate balance sheets, the denizens of Wall Street sidled in, smelling profit. By that point, many ordinary folk had downloaded crypto apps, looking for some bit of relief from a financial setup that erodes people’s dreams. It’s not surprising that underbanked households are particularly drawn to bitcoin. That has to be understood by anyone watching Trump jump on the crypto train, and crypto’s post-election rally.

    I downloaded the Coinbase app in 2017, when I was teaching law as an adjunct, scouring online agencies for writing gigs, and working a nighttime grocery job. My co-workers at the store and I were the typical holders, with just a few hundred dollars’ worth, if we could keep it. This was our decentralized lottery, our whimsical hedge for wages in decline, in a world where landlords were keener on collecting rents than fixing roofs.

    In October, the Harris team nodded to the pro-crypto pressure to replace Gary Gensler as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission—without pointing to the economic context in which that pressure arose.

    Reality of Plunder

    In the summer of 2021, defying the IMF, El Salvador’s government made bitcoin a legal alternative to the U.S. dollar, and required businesses to accept it. Here again, context matters.

    Rich countries and firms control World Bank and IMF trade policies. And those policies benefit rich countries and firms disproportionately. The racial imbalance in trade advantages is heavy.

    The neoliberal framework enables the erosion of workers’ rights in financially struggling countries. As noted by Jason Hickel, Dylan Sullivan, and Huzaifa Zoomkawala:

    For every dollar of aid the South receives, they lose $14 in drain through unequal exchange alone, not counting other kinds of losses like illicit financial outflows and profit repatriation. Of course, the ratio varies by country—higher for some than others—but in all cases, the discourse of aid obscures a darker reality of plunder. Poor countries are developing rich countries, not the other way around.

    Rich countries got rich in the first place through a pattern of colonial extraction. They used the extracted resources to build some sort of European descendants’ industrial complex template (EDICT?), leaving hunger, diaspora, abiding poverty, violence, and human rights abuses in their wake, and making it all seem normal and inevitable, so the struggles continue. Demand for computers and cars keep surging, at the expense of human lives and natural habitats. All oppressions are linked, dear friends.

    To its credit, El Salvador was first in the world to ban metal mining, in an effort to stop ecocidal gold extraction. Nayib Bukele, alas, wants to end the ban — subjecting environmental and human rights activists to new rounds of state violence. Yet Biden and Harris recently saw fit to “dampen” their critiques of Bukele, catering to anti-migration sentiment in the 2024 U.S. election.

    Frick and Frack

    Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t hear the Harris campaign talk about dealing with the emissions from bitcoin mining. That could have started important conversations. But today’s Democrats have a dangerously inconsistent take on greenhouse gas emissions.

    Yes, Trump and Pence bullshat us about Covid—and the Biden-Harris administration bullshat us about the climate crisis, just as Trump did.

    Trump & friends like to scare climate scientists—and Harris likes to boast about having opened new leasing for fossil fuels when casting the tie-breaking vote on the Democrats’ climate law. What? In 2020, candidate Biden vowed to bar new oil or gas drilling on federal lands. But the Democrats would never put a phase-out plan in place.

    Then, Harris campaigned in let’s-frack mode.

    Trump is pushing for maximum fossil fuel extraction; but the Biden administration couldn’t stop turning federal lands into oil fields. Trump confuses sea level rise with “more oceanfront property”; so as a matter of course natural gas spiked after the U.S. election, and solar energy stocks wilted. But both money-driven parties keep the United States among the ranks of procrastinator nations on meaningful climate action.

    If a house were burning, we’d put out the fire. When our collective home is on fire, we add more fuel to it. Our capitalist leaders’ promises of cheap oil and gas exacerbates the ever-worsening hurricanes, floods, droughts and killer crop failures. We’ve never witnessed a deadlier form of political malpractice.

    Party Line

    The USA has never played well in the sandbox of international law, policy, or just plain co-operation. But that doesn’t mean its people gave anyone a green light for war crimes.

    Pro-Palestine protesters had been shouting Come November, we’ll remember all year. Large segments of poll responses in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona showed more interest in voting for a Democratic candidate who would promote an arms embargo on Israel—and also showed that such a candidate wouldn’t hurt the Democrats’ chances. Who knew? A lot of voters resent investing in Israel’s military campaign of genocidal violence. And yet, Tim Walz backed out of meeting with Gazan families who wanted to press these same points. The Democrats wouldn’t even let a Palestinian endorse Harris on stage. And when Palestine supporters disrupted Kamala Harris’s Detroit speech, the now-infamous retort was “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that; otherwise, I’m speaking.”

    Harris kept playing Beyoncé’s Freedom. But what of their freedom? Freedom, Freedom, where are you? Cause I need freedom too.

    There was a vague sense of abusive parenting in it all. Harris promised a government that would to treat us well; meanwhile, the other child, Palestine, was taking the abuse—not us, so OK for now. We’d deal with those atrocities later. Or would we? Through social media, VP Harris’s national security adviser flatly said Harris wouldn’t support an arms embargo. Harris’s take on pro-peace protests as a gift to the Trump campaign was chilling. So much for keeping empathetic, energetic people engaged in current human affairs. So much for respecting the people who asked them to stop murdering children.

    And this is the other blowback that overtook the campaign. A map of countries that recognize Palestine speaks for itself. And the refusal to listen contributed to the election of a tyrant.

    Hillary, Bill, and Obama, and the whole campaign consultant circle proved willing to shame potential voters, leveraging race and sex to extract votes. Their logic had limits. Female candidates from swing states did manage to win seats in Congress. Reproductive rights prevailed in 7 out of 10 state ballot measures, including Arizona’s and Nevada’s—yet the Harris-Walz ticket didn’t get that same strong support. Party leaders themselves came under scrutiny for never having codified Roe v. Wade.

    Come on, Democrats. Even amidst your funding of war criminals, Bernie sent you voters. (Sigh.) Why couldn’t you have bothered to relate to those voters? And what about the contract workers, the gig workers, the nation of adjuncts and part-timers piecing jobs together, the people working on wealthy tech companies’ platforms who don’t even get minimum wage? Why couldn’t you have encouraged migrant workers and torture escapees, rather than taunting and frightening them? Where were you with the help that was and is needed? But you’ve got billions for the military industrial complex, even genocide?

    What we needed from Harris wasn’t the spectacle. We needed less speaking and more listening. Less joy. More witnessing. We got Cheney endorsements when we needed a commitment to an arms embargo and Medicare for All. Israel provides free universal healthcare to its people. U.S. taxpayers who fund Israel do not even get that basic support.

    Let me be clear: the Trump Republicans hold outrageous opinions of people on the left, workers, migrants, and LGBTQI+ folk. Trumpism’s hallmarks (aside from greed) are racism and misogyny. It’s poised to target people whose views, presence, or citizenship Trump and Vance resent. And now I hear people shaming their Republican peers for overlooking the vile speech and conduct of the Trump Republicans. The Dems can’t believe what Trump’s win says about who we are. For sure; yet I must ask: Didn’t it trouble you to know who we already were?

    Enemies Within

    To Republicans of the Cheney persuasion, Trump was a massive log obstructing the track. Republicans nostalgic for their pre-Trump glory needed to jump on Harris’s train to keep moving, and eventually wrest their influence back. So they bonded with Harris, who looked delighted.

    Liz Cheney’s dad Dick designed the Iraq War after leaving the CEO post at Halliburton to come to the White House. As VP, Dick Cheney continued to enjoy deferred salary and stock options in Halliburton.

    Halliburton became “the largest private contractor for American forces in Iraq, with $11 billion in government contracts,” as Peter Carlson described the company in The Washington Post. Its subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root built the detainee warehouse at Guantánamo Bay.

    A certain Yaser Esam Hamdi was apprehended and brought to Guantánamo after a prison uprising in Afghanistan in 2001. Hamdi, it came to light, was a U.S. citizen—born in Louisiana to Saudi parents. Thus, Hamdi’s detention was unconstitutional. It was, that is, until the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Bush-Cheney administration to push Hamdi’s citizenship aside, because “the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one.”

    VP Cheney expressly recommended calling U.S. citizens suspected of supporting Al-Qaida “enemy combatants” who could be detained indefinitely. Defending military tribunals, Cheney stated: “This is the way we dealt with the people who assassinated Abraham Lincoln and tried to assassinate part of the Cabinet back in 1865.”

    Due process be damned; the executive branch gets to decide who goes into storage in the brigs, the camps, or the dungeons.

    We Resist

    Nature runs the most adept anti-capitalist protests. Capitalism is no match for climate chaos. Florida is turning to “socialism” (Newsweek’s term) to try to keep homes insured, now that hurricanes are causing the profit-hungry companies to flee the state. This is only the beginning, Florida. Welcome to sea-level living in the midst of global heating. This is what Kivalina was telling you.

    And now, Trump’s return to the White House brings global climate action to a head. When the basics of living are in jeopardy, who will this government sacrifice? Whose resources will be taken? Any groups or nations serious about climate will need to unite and isolate the U.S. And by the same token, we must sideline the usual suspects.

    Xi Jinping is already seeking alliances with EU and Asian countries to offset Trump’s tariff threats. So there we have it. If countries can open networks for mutual assistance, so can NGOs. How about the non-moneyed political parties and movements uniting for mutual support and changemaking?

    It’s good to see Trump Republicanism spotlighted in anti-fascism protests led by Just Stop Oil. No time like the present to discuss the colonialist, capitalist mindset, and how to get over it. The alternative is the endless warrior culture—whether the Commander in Chief pursues retribution or joy.

    In our late stage as a hyper self-domesticated species, the most ethically unhinged people have nuclear weapons. We need to create an authentic alternative. That can’t happen when people keep electing champions of the “most lethal fighting force in the world.”

    We must press for a fairer global economy that stops replicating colonial-era exploitation. Challenge those who chastise third-party voters. Because we must cultivate alternatives to money-driven politics while our atmosphere still exists. It is well past time to sideline the hopelessly corrupt two-party duopoly.

    The post Done, Done, So Done With Duopoly appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Image Source: hstoops – Public Domain

    On November 14, 2023, a month into Israel’s genocidal attack on the Palestinians in Gaza, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, one of the leaders of Ansar Allah and of the government of Yemen, delivered a speech that was broadcast on Al-Masirah television. “Our eyes are open to constant monitoring and searching for any Israeli ship,” he said. “The enemy relies on camouflage in its movement in the Red Sea, especially in Bab al-Mandab, and [does] not dare to raise Israeli flags on its ships.” The Bab al-Mandab, the Gate of Grief, is the 14-nautical-mile wide waterway between Djibouti and Yemen. What is interesting is that, by United Nations treaty, a country claims 12 nautical miles as its territorial limit; this means a large part of the waters are within Yemen’s jurisdiction.

    Five days later, Yemeni commandos flew in a helicopter over Galaxy Leader, a cargo ship that is registered in the Bahamas and is operated by the Japanese NYK shipping line but that is partially owned by Abraham Ungar (one of Israel’s richest men). The ship continues to be held within Yemen’s territorial waters in the port of Saleef, with its 25 crew members as hostages in Al-Hudaydah governorate. This assault on Galaxy Leader, and then on several other Israeli-owned vessels, halted the traffic of goods to the Port of Eliat, which sits at the end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Squeezed between Egypt and Jordan, this port, which is the only non-Mediterranean Sea access for Israel, no longer has the level of cargo ships that it had before October 2023 and the private operator of the port has said it is almost bankrupt. Over the course of the past year, the port has been hit by drone and missile strikes emanating from Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen.

    U.S. Strikes Are Not Working

    Yemen’s government said that it would desist from any attack if Israel stopped its genocidal war against the Palestinians. Since the Israeli attack continues, Yemen’s attacks have also continued. These Yemeni attacks have provoked massive assaults on Yemen’s already fragile infrastructure—including an Israeli attack on Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah in July and punctual missile attacks by the United States. When U. S. President Joe Biden was asked if the U. S. airstrikes and missile strikes on Yemen were working, he answered bluntly: “When you say ‘working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Yes.” In other words, Yemen’s government—erroneously called the Houthis after the Zaydi tradition of Islam followed by a quarter of the Yemeni population—is not going to cease its attacks on Israel just because the U.S. and the Israelis have been hitting their country. Yemeni opposition to the Israeli genocide exceeds the Zaydi community, the Ansar Allah movement, and the Yemeni government. Even Tawakkol Karman, who received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2011 and is a critic of the Yemeni government, has been vocal in her criticism of Israel.

    Biden’s admission that the U.S. missile strikes will not stop Yemen from its attacks has been accurate. Yemen faced a murderous bombardment from Saudi Arabia from 2015 to 2023, with the Saudis destroying large parts of the infrastructure in Yemen. And yet, the Yemenis have maintained the ability to strike Israeli targets. In October 2024, the United States military deployed B-2 Spirit bombers to hit what the Pentagon called, “five underground targets.” It was not clear if these weapons depots were destroyed, but it does show the increasing desperation of the U.S. and Israel to stop the Yemeni attacks. The names of the U.S. missions (Operation Prosperity Guardian and Operation Poseidon Archer) sound impressive. They are backed by a roster of carrier strike groups to protect Israel and to hit Yemen as well as groups that attempt to deter Israel’s genocide. There are at least 40,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East and at any given time at least one carrier strike group with aircraft carriers and destroyers. According to the U.S. Navy, there are two destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea (USS Bulkeley and USS Arleigh Burke) and two in the Red Sea (USS Cole and USS Jason Dunham), with Carrier Strike Group 8, anchored by the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, en route to the Mediterranean as USS Abraham Lincoln goes off to the Pacific Ocean. There is a considerable amount of U.S. firepower in the area around Israel.

    A Political Solution

    Biden has not been the only person to say that the U.S. attacks on Yemen have failed. U. S. Vice Admiral George Wikoff, who leads Operation Prosperity Guardian, addressed an audience in Washington, D.C. from his headquarters in Bahrain in August. Wikoff said that the United States cannot “find a centralized center of gravity” for the Yemenis, which means that it cannot apply “a classic deterrence policy.” If the United States cannot strike fear into the leadership of the Yemeni government, then it cannot halt the Yemeni attacks on Israeli shipping or infrastructure. “We have certainly degraded their capability,” Wikoff said referring to the drones and missiles shot down by the U.S. weapons. Wikoff did not mention that each of the Yemeni missiles and drones cost about $2,000, while the U.S. missiles used to shoot them down cost $2 million. In the end, the Yemenis might be the ones degrading the U.S. military (the Wall Street Journal reported in October that the U.S. is running low on air-defense missiles, and the same paper reportedin June that the U.S. had spent $1 billion on its war on Yemen since October 2023). Like Biden, Wikoff reflected: “Have we stopped them? No.” In an interesting aside, Wikoff said, “The solution is not going to come at the end of a weapon system.”

    As far as the Yemeni government is concerned, the only solution will come when Israel ceases its genocide. But even a ceasefire might not be sufficient. In early November, the United Nations official Louise Wateridge posted a video on X of the desolation in northern Gaza, and then wrote, “An entire society now a graveyard.” The ability of the Yemeni government to cease shipping to Israel and to pin down the United States off its coast might embolden it to continue with this if Israel continues its illegal policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. Both Wikoff and Biden agree that the U.S. policy has not worked, and Wikoff even said that the solution is not going to be through military force. It will have to be political.

    This article was produced by Globetrotter.

    The post Are the Houthis Gaining the Upper Hand? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Downtown Detroit. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    In thousands of ways, we are taught to accept the world we live in as the only possible one, but thousands of other ways of organizing homes, cities, schools, societies, economies, and cosmologies have existed and could exist.

    We started a project called Made Differently: designed to play with the possibility and to overcome the suspicion—instilled in us every day—that life is limited, miserable, and boring.

    Our first focus is Cities Made Differently, exploring different ways of living together. Read and imagine four different kinds of cities taken from our book which are listed below, and continue your exploration, downloadable at a4kids.org, for drawing and dreaming.

    City of Greed

    What if you had to live in a city whose citizens must pay not only for housing and health care but also for the air they breathe?

    The dystopian novel The Air Merchant takes place in a secret underground factory city. Mr. Bailey, the factory owner, condenses air from the atmosphere and sells it to his fellow citizens for a profit. Eventually, the Earth’s atmosphere thins, creating a catastrophic shortage of breathable air. With the price of air increasing, fewer and fewer humans can afford to keep breathing.

    When people can’t pay for the air they breathe, the police throw them out of the city. Everyone lives in constant fear of suffocating, thinking only of how to earn enough money to spare their loved ones and themselves that terrible fate. The food company Nestlé is often criticized for its irresponsible use of water in India, Pakistan, and other developing countries. Captured in the documentary film We Feed the World (2005), former Nestlé chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe said:

    “It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter… NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right… That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff, it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price…”

    City as a Family

    Imagine a city without any strangers, where everything is shared, and everyone looks after each other. There are no shops, no money, and no danger at all.

    We think of the family as a group that practices “basic communism”: from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Any family is thought to be protected by bonds of kinship from the cruel laws of the outside world. Unlike businesses, rarely will a family throw out a sick child or an elderly parent because they are no longer “revenue-generating assets.”

    According to Roman law, which still underlies the value system of Western societies, a family was all those people living within the household of a paterfamilias or father whose authority over them was recognized as absolute. Under the protection of her father, a woman might be spared abuse from her husband, but their children, slaves, and other dependents were his to do with as he wanted.

    According to early Roman law, a father was fully within his rights to whip, torture, or sell them. A father could even execute his children, provided that he found them to have committed capital crimes. With his slaves, he didn’t even need that excuse.

    The patriarchal family is also the model for authoritarianism. In ancient Rome, the patriarch had the right to treat his household members as property rather than as equal human beings.

    The Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that humankind originally lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers composed of close friends and relatives until big cities and agriculture emerged, and with them wars, greed, and exploitation.

    However, archaeology shows us numerous examples of how people in different times and across different parts of the Earth lived in large metropolitan areas while managing their collective affairs on a fairly egalitarian basis. At the same time, there have always been small communities where status inequality prevailed and a privileged minority at the top benefited by exploiting the rest.

    We know from our personal experience that in almost every family there are elements of both authoritarianism and baseline communism. This contradiction never fully goes away but different cultures handle it differently.

    A City оf Runners

    The people who live in this city believe that real life is all about constant competition.

    The people in a city of runners find it fascinating or even necessary to keep track of who among them is more important, who is richer, smarter, more beautiful, or more worthy. There are many ideas about how the city came to have habits like this.

    One of the city’s revered philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, believed that the natural state of human beings is to seek violent domination over their neighbors, and that society without the authority of the sovereign would quickly turn into a battle of all against all. Constant competition between people is thus seen as an enjoyable game as compared to real war, which is always lurking around the corner.

    Naturally, in cities like this, there must be some who are poor, ugly, and unhappy. Just as in some children’s games, there are winners and losers.

    People living in the city of runners foster an admiration for winning in their kids, and an ambition to surpass their peers in all areas. Children in the city of runners have no interest in learning together, sharing, or mutual aid. Helping someone pass an exam is considered “cheating” and is strictly punished. All their lives, adults are engaged in constant competition over beauty, skill, and wealth.

    Runners believe that people who live differently from them and who refuse to play their games simply choose to be losers. During the 1968 student unrest in Western countries, some disaffected young people abandoned the big cities for the “sleepy” provinces where they created autonomous settlements, many of which still exist today.

    Underground City

    Living in an underground city could be safe and convenient. Without weather, there’s no risk of storms. And no trees mean no forest fires.

    Underground cities have been around practically forever. The city of Derinkuyu in the Turkish province of Cappadocia, for example, was built between 2000 and 1000 BCE. The landscape of volcanic tuff—a unique soft stone—could be hollowed out without requiring complex tools, making room to house 20,000 people. The underground city boasted a stable, corrals, churches, schools, canteens, bakeries, barns, wine cellars, and workshops. The intricate system of tunnels connecting it all together meant that intruders would not know their way around and quickly get lost.

    Tunnels are found underneath many cities. Rome is famous for its catacombs, and at one time subterranean burial chambers were commonplace. These days, tunnels tend to be for underground trains called subways. In Beijing, the residents became so fearful of nuclear war that they built an entire bunker city, with 30 kilometers of tunnels connecting underground houses, schools, hospitals, shops, libraries, theaters, and factories. There’s even an underground roller skating rink!

    Mexico City has not gone as far as to build an entire city underground, but architect Esteban Suarez is planning an underground apartment building. And what a building it will be! Piercing the center of the Mexican capital with its tip will be a 65-story pyramid—no wonder they call it the earthscraper. The glass-enclosed area above the surface will be for recreation and outdoor concerts.

    Underground, the building will be heated and powered with geothermal energy, making the pyramid energy self-sufficient. It’s not easy building downward into the earth, but building underground won’t disrupt the historical landscape of the city. And it evades the city’s building codes restricting the height of structures to eight floors.

    Mirny, a town in the Russian far north, has its eye on an abandoned diamond mine as the site for an underground city. There are no more diamonds to be found, but its abandonment threatens neighboring villages with cave-ins and landslides. Moscow architect Nikolai Lyutomsky has proposed a solution: building a strong concrete skeleton inside the quarry to strengthen its walls while covering its top with a transparent dome, resulting in an underground eco-city fit for 10,000 people.

    Located in the Yakutia Republic, the town has a harsh arctic climate with temperatures reaching as low as -60 degrees Celsius in the winter. But underground, the temperature never falls below zero. The quarry would thus be good for both people and plants. Its architects have allocated most of the city’s inner space to vertical farms. Farms for food production, technical laboratories, factories, and research centers are located underground and, aboveground, there will be play centers and schools. Moving between the underground and the surface is quick and easy.

    Going underground to avoid possible misfortunes—might seem like a good idea, but there’s a catch: if you don’t like the rules of your community it’s tough to get out. How important is it to be able to easily leave one community, whose rules no longer suit you, and join a different one?

    This excerpt is adapted from Nika Dubrovsky and David Graeber’s Cities Made Differently (MIT Press, 2024, all rights reserved) and is distributed in partnership with Human Bridges.

    The post Cities Made Differently: Try Imagining Another Urban Existence appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Thomas Friedman, screengrab from Zoom interview with Katie Couric.

    The New York Times’ leading columnist, Thomas Friedman, has devised an answer to “How Trump Could Earn an Unexpected Place in History.”  Friedman believes there is an opportunity for Donald Trump to exert pressure on Israelis and Palestinians, which would help the president “find a place in the history books that you did not expect.”  This is part delusion, part illusion, and part confusion, all hallmarks of Friedman’s writings on the Israeli genocidal campaign in Gaza over the past year.

    Friedman argues that the “one common denominator among Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and West Bank Palestinians” is that they are “exhausted by this war.”  But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t exhausted; his actions in Gaza and Lebanon are prolonging the war, which serves his interest.  After all, the war is his “Get out of Jail Free” card as well as his instrument for remaining the longest serving prime minister in Israel’s history.

    And there is no guarantee that Netanyahu’s immediate successor will be less dependent on the ultra-orthodox community for forming a coalition government than he is.  In fact, the majority of the Israeli population appears to support Netanyahu’s genocidal bombardment policy, which has found its way to Lebanon.  Hundreds of Lebanese children have been killed by Israeli bombardments, and more than 1,000 children have been injured.  In the past two months, more than 400,000 Lebanese children have been displaced from their homes, according to the UN children’s agency.

    Friedman also falsely credits Trump as the “rare American president” who formed a detailed plan for coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.  But this so-called peace plan, called “Peace to Prosperity,” gave Israel the right to annex 30 percent of the West Bank where most Israeli settlers live, with the remainder of the territory becoming a demilitarized Palestinian state.  Trump proposed that the Palestinians would be compensated for the loss of territory by receiving land from Israel’s Negev Desert, and that Gaza and the West Bank would be connected by roads and tunnels.  Imagine any Israeli government accepting the idea of a tunnel under Israel linking Gaza and the West Bank.

    The religious right dominates the Israeli government, and has no interest in a two-state solution.  There is even speculation in Israel that the Netanyahu government will move to formally annex the West Bank in the near term in order to stop any speculation regarding a two-state solution.  This step would end any possibility that any Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia, would contribute to the rehabilitation of Gaza.  Throughout the West Bank, moreover, Arab communities are currently facing violent attacks from Israeli settlers as well as Israeli police and security forces.  The Nakba of 1948 lives on, still taking Palestinian lives and settlements.

    The naming of Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and prominent Christian Evangelist, as the ambassador to Israel does not suggest that the Trump administration will have any interest in a two-state solution.  Huckabee not only opposes such a solution, but he says there is “no such thing as the West Bank” and “no such thing as settlements.”  He prefers the Israeli ultra-Orthodox terms for the West Bank, which are “Judea” and “Samaria.”  And he refers to the illegal settlements as “communities,” “cities,” or “neighborhoods.”  Maybe Friedman doesn’t understand that Trump made his position clear in his debate with President Joe Biden when he said that America should let Israel “finish the job” in its war with Hamas.

    The capstone to this Orwellian language is Huckabee’s claim that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian,” which too many Israeli prime ministers, including Golda Meir, also believed.  Many of Trump’s other appointees are one-sided supporters for Huckabee’s beliefs as well as for Israel’s genocidal military campaign that has killed so many innocent civilians, particularly women and children.

    According to Friedman, the revival of the Trump plan “would signal to Iran that Trump intends to isolate Tehran militarily—and diplomatically—by…helping realize the ‘Palestinians’ legitimate desire for self-determination.”  Friedman’s endorsement of a hard-line stance toward Iran, which echoes the hard-line positions of both Trump and Netanyahu is additional evidence of the columnist’s failure to understand the policies that are not working in the Middle East.  At a time when it is possible to begin a dialogue with Tehran, Friedman is supporting militarized policies that have failed.  The Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, are reaching out to Iran.  The United States should be telling the Israelis that we will be doing so as well.

    Friedman believes that, if Trump returns to his “detailed plan for coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians,” he could be “remembered as the president who preserved Israel as a Jewish democracy and helped to securely birth a Palestinian state alongside it.”  It’s more likely that there be more support for an Israeli Prime Minister, even one who has been charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).  In an unprecedented action against a pro-Western official, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.  Citing testimony from journalists in Gaza, who have become Israeli targets, the judges said there were “reasonable grounds” that Netanyahu and Gallant bore “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war between Israel and Hamas.

    The post  NYT’s Friedman’s Two-State Solution: Delusion, Illusion and Confusion appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph Source: Mstyslav Chernov – CC BY-SA 4.0

    There are many reasons for regretting the resurrection of Donald Trump, but one overwhelming reason for welcoming it is that he is a peacemaker not a war maker, and will actively lever America’s power to pacify an increasingly dangerous world.

    Western leaders do not actively seek war with Russia, China, or Iran. But they do not actively seek peace. Ukraine is a case in point.

    Our leaders have repeatedly stated that it is up to Ukraine to define the terms on which it will make peace. Meanwhile, they will continue to supply it with ‘all it takes’ for victory. Given that the big demographic and military imbalance between Ukraine and Russia precludes a Ukrainian victory at the present level of support, this stance leaves only two options: Ukraine’s defeat or a dangerous escalation with unpredictable consequences.

    President Biden’s unconfirmed authorization for Ukraine to use US-made ATCAMS to strike targets in the Kursk region comes too late to affect the outcome of the war. While sufficiently limited to avert a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, it is too limited to prevent a Ukrainian defeat. In any case, it holds for only another two months. Trump’s team has indicated that the new President will bring simultaneous pressure on both Putin and Zelensky to end the war quickly.

    Any successful peace initiative will have to accept that this conflict has no single bad guy. We do not recognize Putin’s view of NATO as a beast with encircling claws. At the same time, Russians can be forgiven for thinking that the Western narrative is not quite as defensive as it seems. “The spread of our values makes us safer” declared Tony Blair in Chicago in 1999, justifying NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia. This sets out the ground for forcible regime change when the opportunity offers. The underlying message is that democracy is the peaceful, dictatorship the warlike form of the state, so a war for democracy is necessarily a war for peace. Many Western analysts view the war in Ukraine as a war for regime change in Russia, which is why they cannot contemplate anything less than a Ukrainian victory.

     Christian teaching offers more secure grounds for negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict. According to Augustine of Hippo, the claims of peace are paramount. A perfectly just peace is unattainable in this world, but humanity may be brought closer to it. War may be a means of doing so, so that absolute pacifism is untenable. But since right and wrong are rarely unambiguous, justice is always relative, and war, therefore, must be waged with restraint and limitation. (Some analysts prefer the term ‘justifiable’ war to capture the essence of the thought that no war can be perfectly just.)

    What is a justifiable war?  Chapter 7, Article 51) of the UN Charter recognizes the ‘inherent right of self-defense’ if a member is subject to armed attack.  In UN terms, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was both unjust and illegal; Ukraine is fighting a just war in self-defense; the Security Council is powerless to stop it in the face of Russia’s veto;  and Ukraine deserves all the support we can give it.

    The weakness of just war theory is twofold: in the extension of the idea of ‘defense’ to the defense of values rather than territory and recourse to ‘preventive’ war even when there is no attack or immediate danger of one. In such formulations defence and attack lose their commonsense referents. Was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 defensive or aggressive? The US claimed it was fighting a defensive war against Saddam Hussein to prevent him using ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (which he turned out not to have) at some time in the future. This elasticity of reasoning invites an indefinite inflation of the meaning of defence. Russia might, and did, justify its invasion of Ukraine as a preventive move to counter NATO expansion.

     No less formidable is the difficulty of defining a just peace. Augustine thought of a just peace not in legal terms but as a peace which would last as long as it could in a wicked world. He rejected the imperial (Roman) model of peace secured by obliteration of the enemy as too costly in terms of carnage and bloodletting –’they made a desert and called it peace’ said Tacitus of Roman imperial methods. Rather he adopted the Aristotelian idea of peace as orderly proportion. ‘Order’ wrote Augstine ‘is the adjustment of the like and unlike each to its own place’. This was partly realised by  the Westphalian system of the ‘balance of power’, though balance of powers would give a better idea of it, with each part  contributing to the harmony of the whole.

     Any peace project based on the idea that freedom is indivisible, and that an attack on a single person’s freedom is an attack on everyone’s is bound to break down in face of the diversity of cultures and powers. Yet this remains the official western view.  The second coming of Trump, with his isolationist instincts, promises to break this mold, For it is not the universalization of our values that foreign policy should aim for, but the harmonization of the like with the unlike.

    The post In Just Proportion  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in the Merauke regency of South Papua province, July 23, 2024. [Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr] Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in the Merauke regency of South Papua province, July 23, 2024. [Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr]

    Sugar-cane planting ceremony in Merauke, West Papua, July 2024. Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr.

    “By way of transmigration … the different ethnic groups will in the long run disappear because of integration…and there will be one kind of man.”

    Martano, Indonesian Minister of Transmigration, March 1985

    “Brigadier-General Ali Murtopo told us in 1969 that if we want to be independent we should write to the Americans and ask them if they would be good enough to find us a place on the moon.”

    West Papua People’s Front

    Indonesia’s new president, war criminal Prabowo Subianto, couldn’t even wait to be sworn in. He established a “strategic initiative” of five “Vulnerable Area Buffer Infantry Battalions” in the Keerom, Sarmi, Boven Digoel, Merauke, and Sorong Regencies of West Papua to “enhance security” with an additional 5,000 troops as backup for the 25,000 already there. According to the Armed Forces Chief, General Agus Subiyanto, “the main goal of the new battalions is to assist the government in accelerating development and improving the prosperity of the Papuan people”. He didn’t mention a possible future presence of militias, which is Prabowo’s way of dealing with populations that resist military-improved prosperity. On 21 October, just one day after Prabowo’s inauguration, Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara, Minister for Transmigration, announced plans to resume the government’s transmigration programme in West Papua. It was needed, he said “for enhancing unity and providing locals with welfare”. Prabowo himself hotfooted it to West Papua on 3 November to check out a programme aiming to create three million hectares (an area about as big as Belgium) of food estates across the country. Reuters calls this a “self-sufficiency drive”. Forest, wetland, and savannah will be turned into rice farms (in which Indonesia’s military has a major stake), sugarcane plantations, and other infrastructure, which would include military installations to guard the sequestered land. This “key food programme” is actually ecocide. In net terms, it will add approximately 392 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere.

    For the past six decades, Indonesia has been an occupying colonial power in West Papua. The United Nations is responsible for this and its atrocious consequences, as John Saltford meticulously details in his account of the 1969 UN-orchestrated handover of West Papua to Indonesia in a so-called Act of Free Choice, which was nothing more than “a ridiculous and overtly manipulated denial of West Papuan rights”. Ever since, overt manipulation of the reality of the West Papuan people has been the order of the day in the international arena. The murderous farce is officially blessed as Indonesia has been a member of the UN Human Rights Council since 2006. The UN has refrained from confronting Indonesia about its refusal to allow an official visit to West Papua, although more than a hundred countries have demanded it. After all, investigating crimes against humanity committed by one of its leading human rights “defenders” might be awkward. “Universal” human rights law turns out to be for some but not for others. And “some” can kill and otherwise destroy “others” with impunity.

    The transmigration equation is actually this: moving people in = moving people out. Whether they want to move in or want to move out. Some people don’t have the right to decide these things. That transmigration in West Papua comes with so many troops, that it is so highly secretive, is enough to suggest that “enhancing unity” and “providing welfare” are not the agenda at all. In both origin and destination, transmigration is not voluntary but more due to deceit and brute force, respectively. In itself, it’s another form of militarisation because there are many former military personnel secreted among transmigrants, especially in border areas. As the Free Papua Movement (OPM) leader James Nyaro warned, “Don’t think of these settlers as ordinary civilians. They are trained military personnel disguised as civilian settlers”.

    Since West Papua with its torture mode of governance isn’t open to independent observers it’s almost impossible to get accurate figures of the numbers in the equation but a recent estimate puts the total number of internally displaced people at about 80,000. This displacement means denial of the basic rights needed for survival: food, shelter, health, freedom from suffering, torture, inhuman treatment, danger, and from fear, freedom of movement, liberty, and security. Genocide Watch reports that some 500,000 West Papuans have been killed since the Indonesian occupation began and, in 2015, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization calculated that West Papua’s population was approximately 4.4 million, but only around two million were Indigenous West Papuans. The figures show that Indonesian settlers outnumber West Papuans by some 10% and that about 25% of the population has been murdered. In 2004, a Yale University study concluded that the evidence “… strongly suggests that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the West Papuans as such, in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the customary international law prohibition this Convention embodies.” Twenty years later, the evidence of genocide is even more compelling but even more hushed up.

    Why is this horrible case of genocide, ecocide and, in the end, human species suicide (“unwitting suicide, causing one’s own death while pursuing other ends”) being ignored? One explanation comes from Edward S. Herman. There are “good and bad genocidists”. In the “first fine careless rapture” of Indonesia’s New Order (military dictatorship), its genocidal project and mechanisms were lauded and assisted by the World Bank, “development aid” bodies like the IGGI (Inter-governmental Group on Indonesia), and funded by World Food Program, the EEC, Asian Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, West Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United States, and the UNDP. After throwing West Papua to wolves in New Order clothing, the “international community” has, by omission and commission, embraced this as a “good” genocide, perpetrated by our genocidists and it has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop it. Underlying this fact is racism, murderous, systemic racism.

    Transmigration comes with a lot of baggage. You only have to look at the history of transmigration in West Papua to understand how transmigration, European and settler colonial in origin, belongs to the “good” genocide package. It began in Dutch colonial times, in the early nineteenth century, when poor settlers sent to the outer islands were forced to provide plantation labour, with very high mortality rates. The standard—a very low bar for the rights of some—was set. After independence, Sukarno continued the programme, now planning to transport millions of people from the islands of Java, Madura, Bali, and Lombok to less densely populated settlement areas in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and West Papua. His original plan, announced in 1949, was to move 48 million people over 35 years, thereby reducing Java’s population from 54 million to 31 million. However, the targets of this immense social engineering endeavour (the World Bank’s “most irresponsible project” in the words of Survival International) were never achieved. Between 1979 and 1984, the peak transmigration years during Suharto’s New Order military regime, 535,000 families (almost 2.5 million people) were moved.

    The rights of transmigrants themselves, many of them poor peasants who are either tricked or coerced into leaving their homes, are also violated, as transmigration is a matter of “national security”. They are moved to state- or privately-owned estates, where the company concerned, often a military asset, cultivates twenty percent of the land while the transmigrants, now a de facto coolie labour force, must cultivate the rest and sell the crops to the company. They are promised eventual ownership of 1.5 hectares of cultivable land and 0.5 hectares for a house and garden but, when crops are eventually produced some years later, they must pay for the land by reimbursing some the bank credit used for the company’s initial investment. They live in compounds far from the land they’re allocated, and are also in danger from attacks from the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) or displaced local people.

    For West Papuans, the arrival of transmigrants was preceded by forced displacement as the rule in transmigrant areas was one Papuan family to nine non-Papuan families. By 1984, about 700,000 hectares of land had been confiscated (about a third of the size of Belgium, to stay with the earlier comparison) without any compensation. In 1981, the counterinsurgency “Operation Clean Sweep” (suggesting that West Papuans were rubbish to be cleared away, like their rainforest) came with the slogan Biar tikus lari kehutan, asal ayam piara dikandang (Let the rats flee to the jungle so the chickens can breed in the coop), which also says a lot about the almost captive status of transmigrants.

    It’s been known for more than forty years that transmigration is a fiasco within its own framework of the benign “development project”. Costing an average of US$7,000 per family in the mid-1980s, it was an economic disaster that gobbled up almost 40% of the economic development budget of the outer islands. Rather than alleviating poverty there, transmigration aggravated it and spread it more widely. Most transmigrants were worse off after moving. Population pressure in Java wasn’t relieved. The environmental calamity it caused was clear from the start. Yet, with World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans, plus bilateral financial aid, transmigration kept expanding so that, from 1980 to 1990, ten times more people were moved than in the previous seven decades. By 1991 forest loss was estimated at 1.2 million hectares per annum.

    Transmigrasi has strategic and economic (cash crop) goals other than the mostly stated aim of reducing population pressure. In 1987, the Department of Transmigration was fairly honest for once: ‘‘the frontier regions of Kalimantan, Irian Jaya, East Timor have the priority for migrating military people for the purpose of Defense and Security’’. The idea was to seed active and retired military personnel into transmigration settlements and administration to create buffer zones in “trouble spots”. When he headed the Cendrawasih/ XVII Regional Command in West Papua, Brigadier-General Sembiring Meliala referred to ‘‘The Basic Pattern of Territorial Management Specific to Irian Jaya, Employing the Method of Community Development Centers.’’ By this he meant camps to which the Indigenous peoples of West Papua would be moved after being ejected from their traditional villages, where they were to be “Javanised” with special courses of ‘‘guidance and instruction.’’ In fact, transmigrasi is a depraved plan that aims to strengthen “national defence and security” (read: military benefits) by means of mass murder and at the price of global warming with all its planet-wide consequences: après moi le déluge.

    Propaganda is another important aspect. Posters distributed by an organism whose name declares that West Papuans are aliens—Project for the Guidance of Alien Societies of the Directorate General for Social Guidance (Projekt Pembinaan Kemasyarakatan Suku-Suku Terasing)—and text books that were distributed in the early 1980s, by which time twenty-four major transmigration sites had been established on 700,000 hectares of appropriated land, show West Papuans as primitive, dirty and lazy and, depicted beside them, Javanese as neat, clean, civilised, and hardworking. The term Papuan was generally expunged, or Papua and Maluku were lumped together as one geographical, ethnic, and cultural entity. Information like the following was disseminated: “The inhabitants of Maluku and Irian both come from the same ethnic stock: Irianese. … [T]he countryside of Irian has not yet been cultivated because of the lack of people. Even their staple food, sago, just grows wild in the jungle.” The government still refers to transmigration in abandoned land.

    This is all part of what settler colonialism scholar Patrick Wolfe calls the “logic of elimination”, whereby Indigenous populations are obliterated to gain control of land and resources. “The deployment of five new battalions in Merauke is best understood in terms of Wolfe’s logic of elimination.” In another word, genocide. But it’s not just a local genocide that the Indonesian military hopes to tuck away behind restricted access to West Papua and a sweeping press ban, because it’s also ecocide. And this affects the whole world.

    So far, the results in Merauke, for example, are that Papuans number less than 40% of the population, life expectancy is 35 years for men and 38 for women, and HIV rates are extremely (and suspiciously) high. The Indonesian government, boasting about how it’s strengthening environmental standards, plans to take two million hectares of land in this region for a sugarcane project of five consortiums of Indonesian and foreign companies. Since this—“the world’s biggest deforestation project”—is designated a project of “strategic national importance”, Indonesian law allows the government to expel Indigenous communities from their land. President Prabowo Subianto’s first official visit to “West Papua” wasn’t to West Papua, but to the Merauke food estate, the National Strategic Project, to what, for him, was a part of Indonesia that needs the protection of heavily armed troops against the local Malind people who are protesting the seizure and destruction of their land, customary forests, and villages, without any prior warning, let alone consultation. Destruction of their very lives. West Papuans are fighting back, not only as an organised National Liberation Army but also as groups and individuals armed with bows and arrows or weapons acquired on the black market from low-ranking Indonesian soldiers whose welfare is neglected. Stripped of their identity as ancestral keepers of the land and forest by acts of capitalist violence, in which the agribusiness crops are in themselves part of the destructive machinery, Indigenous people become “terrorists” threatening Indonesia’s national security, and therefore exterminable.

    Alien monocrops, affecting both natural forests and peatlands, significantly increase carbon emissions as well as the direct devastation they cause. Rainforests are often described as Earth’s oldest living ecosystems. Some have existed in their present form for at least 70 million years. For example, the Amazon rainforest probably appeared some 55 million years ago during the Eocene era. Rainforests cover only 6% of the Earth’s surface but contain more than half its plant and animal species, so they’re extraordinarily dense with all kinds of flora and fauna which, since they also help to regulate climate, are essential to human wellbeing. They are usually structured in four layers: emergent (top layer, up to 60 metres high); canopy (about five metres thick, forming a roof over the two remaining layers, creating a humid, dark environment below, and protecting topsoil); understory (dark, still, and damp); and forest floor (where decomposers like slugs, termites, worms, and fungi thrive, breaking decaying fallen organic matter into nutrients). Although each layer, with different levels of sunlight, water, and air circulation, has its own characteristics, they belong to an interdependent system. When a tree is cut down, at least four different whole ecosystems are destroyed. And every single species that disappears has knock-on effects on other species including, eventually, humans. In this sense, a single tree can represent the whole forest. The rainforest is many worlds that are unknown to the marauding species—the humans that come to cut them down—who see only cash crops where whole cosmologies have thrived since human time began.

    It’s no coincidence that Prabowo has announced a new transmigration programme at the same time as his ecocidal deforestation regime intensifies. These conjoined twins of his agenda are the two sides of Indonesian colonialism in West Papua: exploitation and settlement by dispossession. Benny Wenda, Interim President of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua tells it from his people’s perspective: “Indonesia only wants West Papua’s resources; they do not want our people. The wealth of West Papua—gas from Bintuni Bay, copper and gold from the Grasberg mine, palm oil from Merauke—has been sucked out of our land for six decades, while our people are replaced with Javanese settlers loyal to Jakarta.”

    Although Rafael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide”, was greatly concerned about colonial genocides, he is generally and mistakenly seen as having a more limited understanding of the word, in “the wake of the Holocaust in order reflect its features as a state-organized and ideologically-driven program of mass murder”. Israel’s present, horrific genocide in Palestine, a moral wound inflicted on all humanity, has laid bare the deep colonial, racist roots of the Westphalian world order, supposedly of equal sovereign states. Rather, it is an order of “unequal subjects; sovereigns and colonized; and of states, empires, settlers, and colonies”. As such, it normalises mass shredding of defenceless people, especially children, and their debasement to unidentifiable body parts in plastic bags. The fact that its victims tend to be dark-skinned is part of an ongoing colonial legacy arising from the destructive forces of European capitalism. The results in terms of international law, including genocide law, are visible in the power of veto used by the United States to block proposals put before the UN Security Council ordering Israel to stop the genocide in Gaza. “The right to veto is not only a privilege of the victors in WW2; it is an advantage given to themselves by the same vanquishers that simultaneously happened to be at the time former and new empires.”

    If the international legal system is dominated by old imperial powers and newer transnational companies, every aspect of exploitation, subjugation, and even genocide in former colonies will be ignored, disguised and, in some cases, encouraged. In West Papua, hiding behind innocuous terms like development, enhancing unity, welfare, and sustainability are the facts that directly affect the other people, the original peoples of West Papua.

    1) The causes of political and social unrest in West Papua extend far beyond the question of self-determination; the people are not just “rebels” as they’re often depicted but are threatened with extermination.

    2) They’re not a “primitive” lesser or alien species but wise human kin who know how to live in harmony with nature and who, protecting their environment (and hence that of everyone), are said to stand in the way of progress (read: destruction).

    3) They have no rights as people or as individuals as the international legal order doesn’t protect them, but lets the genocide happen.

    4) They’re frontline victims of the civilising lie which, now taking the form of global warming, is telling us what civilisation has done to this planet, humanity’s habitat.

    5) West Papua rainforest custodians are subjected to an alien military mindset or, in practice, everyday brutality and devastation. In a detailed study, Yezid Sayigh spells out the scary reality of what military-managed “sustainability” means in Egypt, and the comparison with the Indonesian regime is relevant because the Indonesian military is also heavily involved in extractive sector business.

    6) The West Papua people are clearly subject to the “logic of elimination” by occupying forces seeking to gain control of land and resources.

    7) Not all genocides are highly organised, high-tech mass killing projects. Genocide can be achieved through gradual dispossession, destruction, and small-scale but constantly repeated killing, as is happening in West Papua, and also against many other Indigenous peoples.

    8) As genocide scholar Kjell Anderson asks, if West Papuans “do not regard themselves as Indonesians and are not regarded as such by other Indonesians”, how can they survive as a people in the militarised, hegemonic state of Indonesia?

    9) The UN is still dodging its responsibility for the genocide in West Papua even though its own human rights experts express “serious concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation … citing shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans, including child killings, disappearances, torture and mass displacement of people”.

    Rafael Lemkin understood genocide as aiming at the annihilation of essential elements of a group’s conditions of life: political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, and moral. Whatever the group and wherever it was. All of these elements were assaulted in European colonial projects around the world, and are being destroyed by Indonesia’s colonial project in West Papua, most recently by the revival of transmigration and deliberate destruction of Indigenous cultures and ways of life. As philosopher Imge Oranlı observes, genocide denial “is a peculiar phenomenon that speaks to the ontology of evil. Here, the evilness of an evil event is not readily evident to the public because the evil in question was socially and politically produced by the same ideology that continues to shape the collective social imagination of that very public.” The western collective and social imagination is shaped by the deeds and ideology that enabled a good part of European “civilisation”. So, some genocides are more acceptable than others. Once again, think of Belgium: what if a European country of about the same size as the recent land appropriation in West Papua was subjected to the same genocidal project. Would the “international community” remain passive and silent?

    “Good” or “bad” genocide, the issues are inescapably the same: genocide (humans kill others of their own nature)→ecocide (as part of this project, humans kill nature) and, in the end→suicide (humans kill themselves).

    The post West Papua: Where Transmigration Means Genocide, Ecocide and, in the End, Suicide appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph Source: Staff Sgt. Jamal Sutter – Public Domain

    When a political party loses its legitimacy, its traditional priorities and moral compass, its candidates lose elections. Opting not to hold an open convention, which would have tested political viability, the DNC (acting on the President’s recommendation) invited Kamala Harris to replace Biden on the ticket.  For many Democrats, the lack of a competitive primary undermined the legitimacy of process.

    In a misguided effort to attract anti-Trump Republicans, Harris  enlisted conservative Republican Liz Cheney  to join her on the campaign trail. This  strategy  failed.  The Republicans stuck with Trump or voted third party.  In the effort, Harris alienated many core supporters who saw her cave on such  issues as  fracking, immigration and health care.  Her policy backtracking was another blow to party legitimacy.

    An even more delegitimizing strategy was to take for granted the support of working-class voters and labor unions. Both UAW President Shawn Fain and  Senator Bernie Sanders were noticeably absent from Harris’ campaign events, which included instead entertainment celebrities and Cheney.  Commenting on the election outcome, Bernie said it “should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

    The possibly heaviest, blow to party legitimacy was the large defection of progressives and other Democrats who were horrified by the ongoing genocide in Gaza and by the continued transfer of U.S. weaponry to Israel for its wars in both Gaza and Lebanon. Harris lost the popular count by five million votes.  At the same time, she finished 12 million votes below the 81.2 million votes Biden received in 2020.  Where did those missing Democratic voters go?

    The November 10 New York Times featured an op-ed entitled “Democrats Ignored Gaza, and It Brought Down Their Party.” Its author. Peter Beinart, a contributing Opinion writer for the Times and an editor at large of Jewish Currents offered an answer to the missing voter question.  He observed that,

    “Over the past year, Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Palestinians–funded by U.S. taxpayers and live-streamed on social media–has triggered one of the greatest surges in progressive activation in a generation.”

    He went on to say, “Many Americans roused to action by their government’s complicity in Gaza’s destruction have no personal connection to Palestine or Israel.  Like many Americans who protested South African apartheid or the Vietnam War, their motive is not ethnic or religious.  It is moral.”

    I could identify with Beinart’s remarks. When Biden began enabling Israel’s genocide last October, I left the Democratic Party after 68 years of loyal membership.  My vote on November 5 was a write-in for Bernie Sanders.

    Since then, I have come to realize that Biden has not been alone in starting or expanding U.S. wars of choice.  Of the seven Democratic presidents in office from 1945, only Jimmy Carter managed to avoid war (though it was the Iranian hostage crisis and his failure to rescue U.S. hostages that denied him a second term).

    How can the Democratic Party recover its moral compass, with proxy wars raging in both Gaza and Ukraine?  Why should the U.S. continue to give Israel an exception from international law and United Nations condemnation? According to Beinart,  “Democrats must begin to align their policies on Israel and Palestine” with the broader principles of human equality and respect for international law. “The Palestinian exception,” says Beinart, “is not just immoral. It is politically disastrous.”

    Unless the Democratic Party abandons its current war policies in favor of international diplomacy, it won’t be able to win back the support of its important progressive wing. It will continue to lose elections.

    The post The Democratic War Party and Its Loss of Legitimacy appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

    There is no justifiable explanation for lame duck President Joe Biden’s sudden turnabout decision to okay Ukraine’s use of longer-range US ATACMS ballistic missiles t which can hit targets as much as 200 miles inside Russia.

    Biden and his ironically-dubbed national security “brain trust” of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have for most of this year been nixing Kiev’s request for such missiles as well as permission for Ukraine use Britain’s Storm Shadow stand-off air-launched long-range cruise missiles to hit Russian targets. They did this arguing that such attacks on the Russian heartland could lead to a spiraling escalation of that war — an escalation that could quickly go nuclear.

    Now those two out-of-their-depth but supremely over-confident advisors and the doddering outgoing president they serve are claiming the US “has to respond” to Russia’s supposed escalation of the war. They are referring to Vladimir Putin’s acceptance of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s offer of over 10.000 North Korean troops to assist Russia in driving invading Ukrainian forces out of its Kursk region north of Ukraine.

    But the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk Oblast itself was an significant escalation or this conflict and the US had made it worse by providing shorter range missiles, called HIMARs, which were already bing launched  from Ukraine into Russian territory.

    Basically, the Ukrainian-Russian war, now 1000-days running, has been following an all-too-common pattern of tit-for-tat escalation of the kind that led to WWI, the US CiVil War, the Korean War and the Spanish-American War, The problem is that at some point one of those tits or tats is likely to lead to a situation where Russia, feeling hard-pressed by a more powerful adversary in the US and its NATO allies, will feel sufficiently threatened to resort to a nuclear response. And the nature of nuclear war which is fought by missiles, not by the ponderous moving of large numbers of troops and motorized weapons, is that the process of escalations is measured in days, hours or even minutes.

    Will this latest move up the escalation ladder, providing Ukraine’s military with US (and British) rockets that can hit targets deep inside Russia, and doing so in both cases with the necessary assistance of US military satellites for guidance, be the rung that leads to Russia’s use of some of its nukes?

    Fortunately probably not, but the mere chance that it could happen makes Biden’s escalation decision beyond appalling.

    I say it is not likely to lead to nuclear war because in fact, it is unlikely that Ukraine will have the ability to launch any ATACMS rockets in the remaining few weeks of Biden’s presidential dotage. Firstly, even any of those rockets in Ukraine, they are few in number. The UK’s  Telegraph newspaper quotes a retired leader of Ukraine’s military as saying it would take ‘hundreds” of those missiles to significantly weaken Russia’s advancing counterattack in Kursk. Second, the Ukrainian military personnel using the ATACMs have to be trained in how to fire them and to use the satellite-based guidance system to direct them to targets. All that will take time. And time is running out for the Biden administration. On Jan. 3, 2025, the new Congress, which will be fully in the hands of the Republicans, will be seated, and the new Republican-led  Senate can be counted on to tie Biden’s hands and reverse his decision on provision of the rockets, if instructed to do so by incoming President-Elect Donald Trump.

    Jan. 3 is only 45 days away.

    Moreover, Biden (who has promised Trump a “smooth transition” (in contrast to Trump’s refusal to leave office after the 2020 election), will in the coming weeks have to follow the long-standing tradition of a smooth handoff by bringing Trump and his foreign policy team in on discussions on any foreign policy crisis or issue,

    And Trump certainly does not want to begin  his second term with a hot war on his hands.

    So why did Biden and his foreign policy handlers make this sudden provocative and destabilizing decision?

    It is surely not because Russia invited in some North Korean infantry — poor souls who will surely be chewed up given the language barrier between the Korean-speaking troops and their Russian officers.

    I suspect Biden’s decision to authorize the more powerful and longer-range missiles fo Ukraine was motivated by a desire to either establish his and his foreign policy team’s hard line against Russia. Or more ore sinisterly, it could be an effort to actually press Russia into responding with some kind of retaliation, hopefully not nuclear, but perhaps a conventional attack on US or British trainers, of a storage depot for ATACMS rockets.

    Putin, however (who has reportedly been in phone communication with Trump), knows that the incoming president badly wants to start off his second presidential term with a peace deal in Ukraine. Given that, the Russian leader, no matter how angry he may be at the breaching of one of his ‘red lines,’ is unlikely to allow himself to be provoked into taking a retaliatory action that could provoke a surge of anti-Russia patriotic fervor in the US. Such a result could  prevent Trump from following through with his plan to be the peacemaker.

    Any way you look at it though, Biden’s and his advisors’ move on providing those ATACM missiles and okaying their use inside Russia is the height of recklessness and must be condemned.

    The post Going Out With a Bang? Biden Plays Nuclear Chicken with Russia appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph Source: Airman 1st Class Colin Simpson – Public Domain

    J,D, Vance explained in 2020 why he put aside the elitist atheism he picked up in college and law school to become a Catholic (“How I Joined the Resistance,” The Lamp, April 1, 2020). His quest for a meaningful life led Vance to be baptized a Catholic in 2019. The sentiments he so eloquently endorsed in 2020 suggested that in politics he would act as a Pope Francis progressive—the very opposite of a sophist acolyte for Donald J. Trump. Instead, we now see a vice-presidential candidate who lives by what Peter Quinn calls the “Wanton Opportunism” of a “Horatio Hillbilly,” Commonweal, September 8).  Equally problematic, Vance is paired with a presidential candidate who, as Alexander Motyl points out (here, October 20) stops at nothing to boost his own power.

    Has J,D, sold his soul? Does ne still have one? As Vance advanced through what he called “our educational hierarchy”—from Ohio State to Yale Law—he worried that his “assimilation into elite culture came at a high cost.”  Having fallen in love, he found that the emotional demons of his childhood made it hard for him to be the type of partner he wanted to be. His “obsession with achievement” would fail to produce the achievement that mattered most–a happy, thriving family.

    Vance had immersed himself in the logic of meritocracy and found it deeply unsatisfying. “I had traded virtue for achievement and found the latter wanting. But the woman I wanted to marry cared little whether I obtained a Supreme Court clerkship. She just wanted me to be a good person.” A voice in his head demanded: that he put her interests above his own and master his temper.

    As Vance considered how his twin desires—for success and for character—both conflicted and did not, he met the venture capitalist and conservative libertarian Peter Thiel at Yale. Sone things Thiel said persuaded Vance he was too obsessed with achievement—not as an end to something meaningful, but to win a social competition. J,D, had prioritized striving over character.  “I felt more shame over failing in a law school exam than I did about losing my temper with my girlfriend.” He decided all this had to change. He would focus on what he could do to improve things.

    The answer he landed on, “as unsatisfactory then as it is now,” is that you can’t actually “solve” social problems. The best you can do is reduce them or blunt their effects.

    Political experts on the right blamed these problems on “culture” and lack of personal responsibility, while the left’s intellectuals focused on the “structural and external problems” such as finding jobs and adequate resources.

    J,D, sought a broad synthesis: “I felt desperate for a worldview that understood our bad behavior as simultaneously social and individual, structural and moral; that recognized that we are products of our environment; that we have a responsibility to change that environment, but that we are still moral beings with individual duties; one that could speak against rising rates of divorce and addiction, not as sanitized conclusions about their negative social externalities, but with moral outrage.”

    Vance felt that St. Augustine’s critique of 5th century Rome fit the United States.  Society has become oriented “towards consumption and pleasure, spurning duty and virtue.” J,D, came to see Catholicism as a kind of Christianity obsessed with virtue, but aware that “virtue is formed in the context of a broader community; sympathetic with the meek and poor…without treating them primarily as victims; protective of children and families and with the things necessary to ensure they thrive.”  He believed that the best part of him took its cues from Catholicism. “It was the part of me that demanded that I treat my son with patience and made me feel terrible when I failed.”

    So how could this seeker for virtue and truth align with an aspirant for the highest office in the land—a man notorious for his cruelty to women and daily resort to a Big Lie? Vance’s current partnership with Trump ignores J,D,’s earlier rejection of opportunism. Vance now looks like the incarnation of Goethe’s Faust, an intellectual who, despairing of finding meaningful truth, sold his soul to the devil in return for earthly pleasures.

    Despite Satan’s interventions, Faust never reached the point where he could say to any situation, “Stay with me now, you are so wondrous.”

    After ruining a young woman’s life, Faust got Satan to help him do something good for society. They built dikes and reclaimed flooded lands—actions that earned Faust a place in heaven instead of hell.

    Regardless Vance’s ostensible skepticism about achievement, he accepted Peter Thiel’s help to become a successful venture capitalist and Thiel’s millions to finance his Senate race in Ohio.

    Thiel believes that freedom and democracy are incompatible, due to welfare beneficiaries, As Robert Reich observed in The Guardian, October 3,  Vance has become the handpicked leader of the anti-democracy movement in the US– part of Thiel’s “libertarian community of rich crypto bros, tech executives, back-to-the-landers and disaffected far-right intellectuals”—the antitheses of the Christian values that Vance claims to champion..

    Do we need more wanton opportunism in Washington?

    The post Implication for National Security: What If a Top Leader is Willing to Sell His Soul? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

    In February, the public health specialist Muna Abed Alah published a paper in the journal Current Psychology titled “Shattered Hierarchy: How the Gaza Conflict Demolished Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs.” The idea of a hierarchy of needs—first published by the psychologist Abraham Maslow in 1943 and subsequently modified in various ways by Maslow and others—has long been pervasive in the world of pop psychology, while some in academia have poked holes in Maslow’s logic. Now, Alah suggests that the Palestinians of Gaza have rendered the hierarchy of needs wholly obsolete.

    Briefly, Maslow and others who followed have identified universal human needs—including but not limited to basic physiological requirements, safety, cognition, self-actualization, and transcendence—and listed those needs along with others in a precise order. They maintain that an individual’s physiological needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) must be satisfied first and that each subsequent need can be fulfilled only after the needs that precede it in the list have been at least partially fulfilled.

    Well, Alah writes, the people of Gaza have torn up and thrown away Maslow’s blueprint.

    Regarding non-fulfillment of physiological needs, Alah of course cited Israel’s campaigns depriving Palestinians of food, water, fuel, shelter, sleep, and other necessities. Safety was being totally erased by Israel’s relentless bombing throughout Gaza. Endlessly repeated destruction of hospitals, assassination of medical personnel, and targeting of trucks and people that gather at food-distribution locations has prevented the satisfaction of both physiological and safety needs. With serial displacement of millions of people, separation of family members, and deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, the need for esteem has been swamped; people’s sense of dignity and control over their lives has been wrecked. Israel’s intentional bombing of schools and universities has blocked their pursuit of cognitive needs. Regarding the need for self-actualization, Alah wrote, “The relentless focus on mere survival in the face of constant threat overshadows any opportunity for self-fulfillment . . . In such an environment, where safety and basic needs are a daily struggle, the luxury of realizing personal potential becomes nearly impossible.”

    But what about transcendence, the peak of the hierarchy of needs? In Alah’s words, it “involves connecting with something larger than oneself, including spiritual experiences, deep connections with others, and contributions to the broader society.” With none of the prerequisites being satisfied, transcendence should have receded completely out of reach months ago, according to Maslow’s thesis. Instead, Alah, observed, transcendence is the one need that was being realized:

    “Amidst ongoing conflict and siege, achieving transcendence is notably difficult, yet it manifests itself in unique and meaningful ways. Despite the limitations in aid and resources, many people in Gaza have started to help each other, fostering a strong sense of community and solidarity. This mutual assistance not only addresses immediate needs but also serves as a powerful form of transcendence, allowing individuals to connect with and contribute to something greater than themselves.”

    The coordinated service, heroism, and sacrifice personified by Palestinian journalists, taxi drivers, first responders, and health care professionals during the war is by now legendary. But countless other people in all walks of life have demonstrated similar degrees of transcendence. In his article, Alah focused on the resilience of Gaza’s civilian population. Here, I’ll just add that the armed resistance forces in Gaza—encompassing the al Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s armed wing) and others—also have transcended unbearable hardship by mounting an extraordinary collective effort.

    “Something Greater than Themselves”

    A report released in August by Ground Truth Solutions and Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) revealed the extent of mutual aid occurring in Gaza over the past year. Conducted in June and July, the survey of 1,200 civilians confirmed that none of the fundamental needs at the base of Maslow’s hierarchy were being fulfilled in Gaza. As expected, when asked about their most immediate priorities, 90 to 99 percent of the respondents listed Maslow’s basic needs: food, water, shelter, and safety.

    But more than 90 percent also listed priorities such as “care for marginalized groups” and “doing something to contribute or support.” A large share of people also provided food, water, help with daily affairs, electric power, housing, childcare, or psychosocial support to others in the community—and received such help from others. Community volunteer groups organized early in the conflict, and about one-third of respondents told interviewers they had benefited from support provided by these groups.

    Displaced families or communities taking refuge in a new location said they’d found plenty of help. Local leaders and committees helped them set up tent encampments or “find other housing arrangements in host families.” Furthermore, “When asked about the most important resources available to them, people often mention community kitchens, which provide a means through which local aid groups can provide support and residents can pool resources to try and reach those in greatest need.”

    At the time Ground Truth Solutions and AWRAD were conducting these interviews, the Israeli onslaught and aid blockade had been going on for nine months. When families and communities are forced to live with constant hunger and thirst, to go without medical care, to watch family members and compatriots die all around them for months on end, sustaining a functional society can become physically impossible. As a result, the report noted, “During in-depth discussions, both aid providers and community volunteers mentioned the erosion of mutual aid within communities as resources become scarcer.”

    Burdens of scarcity, displacement, and death-risk accumulate over time. There’s only so much that people can take, however brave and generous they are. But that doesn’t mean the Palestinians are giving up. One woman told Ground Truth interviewers, “We are a mighty people who have dignity and we will prevail. We’ll die standing like palm trees and we will not kneel.” It may be that colonized people just don’t fit Maslow’s model. Alah himself noted that its “Western-centric origins may not adequately reflect the collective experiences of trauma and resilience that significantly influence societal dynamics in regions like Gaza, where cultural heritage plays a pivotal role in shaping communal responses to adversity.”

    No Choice but to Fight

    The Palestinian armed resistance too is exemplifying transcendence. As part of a great tradition established by wars of liberation throughout history, they have held their own against a far larger, more powerful army—one equipped and supported by the world’s biggest military-industrial complex, that of the United States and other Western powers.

    Gaza’s fighters have so far thwarted the occupiers’ efforts to depopulate Gaza. They are mounting fierce resistance against the army’s attempt to drive all Palestinians from northern Gaza into the South, annex and resettle the North with Israelis, and let the South become one big, uninhabitable “deportation camp” (somehow inhabited by millions of Palestinians until they are pushed out).

    The Palestinians are fighting with antitank weapons, rifles, and mortars that they designed and manufactured themselves. In so-called “return to sender” missions, they’re blowing up IDF tanks and troops using “barrel bombs” filled with explosives they’ve recycled from the Israeli “dud” munitions that litter Gaza’s landscape. They’ve also gained remote control of Israeli drones, landed, reprogrammed, and armed them, and then sent them back out to attack IDF sites. In these and many other ways, the resistance forces have shown great resourcefulness.

    They’ve shown not only ingenuity but great courage as well. In resistance videos (starting at the 2 hr 6 min mark in this one), we can see fighter after fighter dash from a bombed-out building across dozens of meters of open ground, highly exposed to drone fire, lugging a 45-pound, locally manufactured explosive device. They place them just a few feet behind an IDF tank, dash back across the open ground, and take cover just before the bomb explodes.

    The resistance fighters attack only military targets that threaten the people of Gaza. After they strike, and IDF ambulances and medevac helicopters arrive to carry away the wounded and dead, the resistance fighters film from a distance but do not attack them.

    Some readers might object to the inclusion of resistance fighters among examples of how people of Gaza are rising above their demolished hierarchy of needs. But focus on the than 2 million-plus people who have lived through more than 13 months of unspeakable horrors—preceded by 18 years of open-air imprisonment and a blockade that has deprived them of fundamental human needs, a siege punctuated by deadly IDF bombing campaigns in 2006, 2008-9, 2012, 2014, and 2021, along with massacres of nonviolent protesters in 2018. (And Israel’s unlawful occupation of Gaza goes back another four decades, to 1967.)  No population that’s been under deadly siege and bombing for two decades would accept an open-ended continuation of such savagery without fighting back.

    The death and destruction that occurred during the Palestinian resistance’s October 7, 2023 military action could never justify Israel’s attempted eradication of an entire society—even if one chose to believe every one of the now-debunkedclaims that the Israeli military, government, and press have made about that day.

    Even if on that day the resistance had committed every act of which the Israelis have falsely accused them, the latter’s genocidal campaign of the past 13 months (and counting) is a monumentally extreme violation of two fundamental principles of international conflict: proportionality (retaliation must not be disproportionately more severe that the acts being retaliated against) and distinction (military targets may be attacked, but civilians or civilian targets must not).

    In Gaza, Nonviolence Is a Nonstarter

    My friend Justin Podur, author of the 2019 Gaza novel Siegebreakers, points to the 2018 mass protest known as the Great March of Return as conclusive evidence that nonviolence had no chance of ending the Israeli occupation of Gaza—that, indeed, nonviolence has never freed a people from a violent colonial power.

    Every Friday for a year starting in March, 2018, Palestinians, by the tens of thousands on some days, carried out nonviolent actions at various points along the giant fence that (along with a sea and air blockade), separates Gaza from the rest of the world. The groups protested on their own land, along their own side of the barrier. By sticking to wholly nonviolent resistance, March of Return protesters did what many around the world are constantly urging the people of Gaza to do. But starting on the very first Friday, Israeli forces on the other side of the fence fired with abandon at the unarmed protesters. Over the next twelve months, the troops shot and wounded 30,000 people, killing 266. The dead included dozens of children. Though a horrific massacre, it was just a peek-preview of the crimes Israel would commit against Gaza’s civilian population during this genocide half a decade later.

    The Israeli regime will use any excuse at any time to kill, maim, or displace Palestinians. The regime, not the resistance, is the driving force behind the conflict. In Podur’s words, “the slaughter of Palestinians at the Great March of Return was not the fault of the nonviolent protesters any more than the genocide in 2023-24 was the fault of the Palestinian armed groups.”

    Recently, the Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed, who reports from Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, was asked if he has a message for Westerners who demand that those of us protesting the genocide answer the question, “But do you condemn Hamas?” He responded,

    “Regardless of political affiliations, do you really condemn someone who defends you and has your back against a terrorist state? Israel has been butchering, dehumanizing, torturing, and bombing us for 76 years. And has imposed a strict siege on us in Gaza for 17 years. In this context, where does this question even fit? It’s incredibly enraging that people are trying to justify Israel’s genocide by asking such silly questions.”

    Those of us who live in a country that’s supplying unlimited support for Israel’s all-out military assault and starvation campaign have no right to demand that the Palestinians refrain from fighting back. Our time is better spent demanding a total embargo on the provision of arms, money, or anything else to Israel. We too are responsible for bombing Gaza’s people out of access to their basic Maslow needs. Now, to do nothing more than celebrate the valiant perseverance into which we ourselves have forced them would be a hollow gesture indeed. And to engage in pious tut-tutting over their armed resistance would be immeasurably worse.

    The post Palestinians, Both Civilian and Military, are Transcending the Horror We’ve Unleashed appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.