Francesca Albanese, Wikipedia.

In a world dominated by Western hegemony and silence in the face of injustice, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese stands apart. Through her immense courage under fire, Albanese has supplanted herself as the preeminent voice of the dispossessed and a crusader of Palestinian human rights. Captivating the international community, her persistence and audacity to challenge the Western-ruling elite has placed her firmly in their crosshairs. While international law has largely been ineffectual at stopping the Gaza Genocide, Albanese has long made the legal claim to hold those in power responsible.

“When the history of the genocide in Gaza is written, one of the most courageous and outspoken champions for justice and the adherence to international law will be Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur,” writes Journalist Chris Hedges. In “Anatomy of a Genocide” and “Genocide as Colonial Erasure,” Albanese centers the conflict from its colonial inception to its current genocidal manifestation, using precise terminology that other reports avoid. She embodies the core values of the Nobel Peace Prize, staking her claim as the 2025 recipient.

Over time, the credibility of the Nobel Prize has been severely tarnished, with some earning the prestigious recognition for political convenience rather than genuine merit. A notable case is war criminal Henry Kissinger for his role as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State during the Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford Administration. Kissinger’s blood-soaked legacy of terror can be found throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, and the “Death Squads” of Latin America.

“Kissinger bears significant responsibility for attacks in Cambodia that killed as many as 150,000 civilians,” according to Ben Kiernan, former director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University and one of the foremost authorities on the U.S. air campaign in Cambodia. That’s up to six times the number of noncombatants thought to have died in U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen during the first 20 years of the war on terror. Grandin estimated that, overall, Kissinger — who also helped to prolong the Vietnam War and facilitate genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; accelerated civil wars in southern Africa; and supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America — has the blood of at least 3 million people on his hands,” reported by The Intercept. Kissinger is one of the truly heinous political figures in American history.

Another notable figure with a checkered past is President Barack Obama. Aptly nicknamed the “The Drone King,” for his countless drone attacks on majority civilian populations, Obama’s presidency reigned in wars in the Middle East, devastating the lives of millions. Inheriting the Afghanistan and Iraq war from the previous administration, President Obama inflicted his own brand of terror in Libya and Syria. Cloaked in a veneer of invincibility, Obama punished Libya with penetrating NATO-led strikes, precipitating the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, and plunging Libya into a failed state where open-air slave markets thrive. The playbook for every western-lead intervention in the Middle East, Obama seeked regime change under the cover of humanitarianism.

“West African migrants are being bought and sold openly in modern-day slave markets in Libya, survivors have told a UN agency helping them return home. Trafficked people passing through Libya have previously reported violence, extortion and slave labour. But the new testimony from the International Organization for Migration suggests that the trade in human beings has become so normalised that people are being traded in public.“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, IOM’s head of operation and emergencies. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants,” reported by the Guardian.

Trails of blood inflicted by Obama’s presidency on the Global South can also be traced back to the 10-year dirty war in Syria. In the CIA’s failed operation “Timber sycamore,” they armed “Moderate Rebels,” with the aim of overthrowing Assad’s Regime, instead turning the conflict into a proxy war, with several armed factions vying for dominance in the region. Although this attempt at overthrowing Assad’s regime failed, their strategic goal was finally accomplished this year, installing a former Al-Qaeda leader in Syria as President.

Unfolding before our eyes is the systematic annihilation of the Palestinian people, or what Franz Fanone calls, “The Wretched of the Earth.” The Zionist regime guilty of wholesale slaughter, will soon replicate this horror in the West Bank, part of the greater Israel project. Through overt acts of moral courage, Albanese has stood against these malignant forces of darkness, documenting crimes against humanity in Gaza and the West Bank.

Recently, as of June 16-July 11, 2025, Albanese released a report detailing corporate complicity in the genocide, titled “From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide.” In summary, it lays out damning evidence, detailing myriad corporations as “machinery sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project of displacement and replacement of the Palestinians in the occupied territory.” Their responses spanned the gamut of conventional Zionist talking points since October 7. Case in point, Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin reduced the report to being “antisemetic.” These types of attacks on Albanese’s credibility are indicative of not only what she’s endured during the duration of her career, but also the broader Palestinian solidarity movement. The elites will relentlessly try to undermine her, regardless Albanese will endure and present the legal framework for the Gaza Genocide.

Not a stranger to death threats or character assassinations, the Trump Administration unleashed politically motivated sanctions on Albanese for her commitment to Palestinian human rights and unwillingness to acquiesce to the demands of the U.S. and the Zionist regime. Another potential roadblock towards a world grounded in human dignity, Albanese will proceed with courage and grace despite it all.

Faith in humanity can be restored by presenting this honor to Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, while simultaneously rehabilitating the credibility of the Nobel Prize. The unfortunate truth is rarely do we see agents of truth and justice colliding with expressions of hate and white supremacy win. Winning this award would further validate her claim as a champion of human rights and her valiant fight to halt the Gaza Genocide. As someone who took an unpaid position as Special Rapporteur, representing the Palestinian territories, it wouldn’t surprise me if this highly coveted award played an insignificant role in her journey for truth and justice.

The post A Nobel Moment: Recognizing Francesca Albanese’s Moral Courage appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Poster issued during World War I by the educational division of the U.S. Food Administration – Public Domain

The commons refers to shared cultural and natural resources, such as air, water, and land, which are accessible to and protected by all members of a community. More than just a collection of resources, the commons represents a foundational model for organizing social and economic life through collective care, mutual responsibility, and sustainable stewardship. For millennia, this model has sustained communities, fostering systems rooted in cooperation rather than competition. However, over the last several centuries, the commons have been eroded by the forces of privatization, militarization, and capitalist expansion.The war economy—a system driven by conquest, territorial control, and profit accumulation—relies on the enclosure of the commons to commodify nature and generate private wealth. This process not only extracts resources but also fractures the social fabric of communities, replacing cooperation with competition and shared care with exclusion.

The destruction of the commons is not merely an economic or environmental crisis but is instead deeply rooted in power structures that disproportionately impact women and other marginalized groups.

Feminist scholars have been at the forefront of exploring the gendered dimensions of the commons and highlighting how its destruction disproportionately impacts women, providing a crucial understanding of the role of the commons in the modern era.

The Beginning of the Privatization of Communal Resources

In early medieval Europe, common lands were essential to rural survival, providing communities with access to firewood, grazing grounds, and fresh water. These resources were collectively managed and governed according to local customs. However, as feudalism took hold and Europe’s imperial ambitions grew, the commons came under increasing threat. The rise of centralized states and expanding militarized economies led to the systematic enclosure and privatization of communal resources. The English Enclosure Movement of the 16th century epitomized this shift, as vast tracts of common land were transformed into private property, syphoning wealth to a minority of elites while permanently dispossessing local populations.

The enclosure of the commons was not confined to Europe—it became a global strategy of domination central to the colonization of Africa and the Americas. In many African societies, values such as hospitality, generosity, and mutual care were foundational to communal life. These principles, which prioritized collective well-being over individual accumulation, were misinterpreted by European colonizers as signs of weakness or inferiority. African societies, rich in both ecological and cultural commons, welcomed outsiders. Tragically, this openness facilitated the exploitation of these societies. The same colonial logic that drove enclosure in Europe was exported globally through conquest, slavery, and resource extraction.

By 1602, European powers had already begun formalizing capitalist structures, such as the establishment of the Dutch East India Company and the world’s first stock exchange. These institutions laid the foundation for extractive economies built on enclosure, commodification, and profit maximization. While African societies operated according to systems that emphasized balance and reciprocity, Europe was rapidly transforming its economic and social systems to prioritize accumulation. European imperial powers expanded by extracting resources and labor from Africa to build their wealth. Its most brutal form included the transatlantic slave trade.

The commons in Africa—land, water, forests, and knowledge—were systematically privatized and militarized. European powers imposed borders, introduced cash crops, and redirected natural resources away from local communities toward imperial markets. As in Europe, women bore the brunt of this transformation. The disruption of communal life and the commodification of land and labor undermined the roles African women held as traditional resource managers and healers. The colonial war economy extended its reach into the heart of African communal life, erasing systems of care and governance that had sustained societies for generations.

The Effects of Destruction of the Commons on Women

Feminist scholars have been at the forefront of exploring gendered dimensions of the commons and highlighting how its destruction has disproportionately impacted women. Thinkers and activists like Silvia Federici, Maria Mies, Vandana Shiva, and Ruthie Wilson Gilmore have illuminated that the commons is not only a material struggle but also a profound challenge to patriarchal, capitalist, and colonial systems. Their work underscores the commons as a social and political structure that fosters collective care, solidarity, and equitable governance—not merely as a set of resources to be exploited.

This process of enclosure, driven by the war economy, is central to their critique. As Silvia Federici argues in Caliban and the Witch (2004), enclosures were not simply an economic transformation—they were a key part of the shift toward capitalist social relations. Federici contends that the enclosures were deeply entwined with the creation of a new gendered division of labor, in which women’s roles in communal land management were progressively diminished. She emphasizes that the enclosure of the commons was not only a process of dispossession but one that disproportionately affected women, especially in rural and agricultural communities.

Federici writes, “The destruction of communal land was also the destruction of a social order in which women had some degree of autonomy and control over their labor and reproductive capacity.” As common lands were privatized, women found themselves excluded from decision making, their labor increasingly confined to the household and market economy, further reinforcing their subjugation.

Similarly, Maria Mies, a sociologist and ecofeminist, expands on the connection between the commons and the war economy in her influential work Ecofeminism (1993), which she co-authored with Vandana Shiva. Mies argues that the commodification of land, resources, and women’s labor is inseparable from the logic of the war economy. She demonstrates how the appropriation of women’s labor parallels the appropriation of land and natural resources, saying that “the commodification of resources is not just a matter of economics but of power, based on the appropriation of the surplus value of women’s labor, just as it is based on the appropriation of the surplus value of the land, nature, and human labor in general.” For women, particularly in rural areas or poor countries, these dynamics result in the undermining of their roles in resource management and community building.

As both Mies and Federici argue, the fight for the commons is ultimately a struggle for social justice, one in which gender dynamics are central. Women, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, have historically been the stewards of the commons, ensuring its sustainability. Yet, as the war economy has advanced, these communities have been marginalized, and their contributions erased or ignored.

Vandana Shiva, a prominent figure in the global struggle for the commons, has extensively written about the consequences of privatizing natural resources—especially water, seeds, and biodiversity—and its gendered impact. In Water Wars (2002), Shiva highlights how the commodification of water affects women in rural communities, who are often tasked with water collection.

She writes, “Water is life, but in the hands of corporations, water becomes a commodity, a profit-making tool.” Shiva’s work emphasizes that resource privatization is not only an ecological issue but also a deeply gendered one. Since women, particularly in rural areas, often shoulder the responsibility for managing natural resources, the privatization of essential resources like water restricts their access and increases their vulnerability.

The Indigenous-Led Landback Movements

The efforts of Indigenous groups to reclaim their lands echo these feminist critiques. For example, the Penobscot Nation’s successful reclamation of more than 30,000 acres of their ancestral territory along the Penobscot River is both an environmental victory and a reclaiming of sovereignty that disrupts centuries of colonial control.

Such movements are not simply about land—they are about restoring cultural heritage, reversing the erasure of Indigenous women’s leadership in resource management, and dismantling the patriarchal, colonial systems that have perpetuated violence against both the land and people (Maine Public, 2023).

These feminist perspectives, combined with the powerful examples of Indigenous-led landback movements, highlight the importance of the commons in contemporary struggles for justice. As Mies, Federici, and Shiva argue, the commons represent more than just a system of shared resources—it is a vision of collective governance, ecological sustainability, and solidarity that challenges the exploitative logic of profit-driven accumulation. The commons are not just a set of resources; they are a potential way of life, particularly for those who have long been marginalized.

Reclaiming the Commons

In his work, American writer and activist David Bollier has expanded on the potential of the commons to serve as a model for building a peace economy—one that transcends the war economy and prioritizes cooperation over conflict and sustainability over exploitation. Bollier’s extensive research on the commons focuses on the importance of collective governance and shared decision-making in maintaining common resources. In the book he co-edited, The Wealth of the Commons (2012), Bollier explores numerous examples of commons-based initiatives, ranging from traditional farming practices to modern digital commons, illustrating the diversity and resilience of commons-oriented systems.

Bollier argues that the commons offer a compelling alternative to both the war economy and the neoliberal market economy. The book states, “The commons is not simply about resource management. It is about transforming social relationships and rebuilding the bonds of trust, solidarity, and mutual care.”

For Bollier, the commons are about creating a new kind of relationship with the world: one that is grounded in reciprocity, cooperation, and shared responsibility.

Bollier’s Think Like a Commoner (2014) further develops these themes, focusing on how the commons can be a model for creating a peace economy. He writes, “The commons is a way of thinking about the world, a way of organizing life that stands in direct opposition to the war economy’s individualism, militarization, and resource extraction.”

Ultimately, the commons represent a transformative space where resistance to the war economy can take shape. By reclaiming the commons, we can build a world based on cooperation, ecological stewardship, and social justice.

This article was produced by Local Peace Economy.

The post The Enclosure of the Commons and the War Economy: A Feminist and Anti-Colonial Critique appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photo: White House.

Donald Trump’s decision to fire Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s orders to identify Jews at the Labor Department. Both efforts stem from paranoid delusions that the people producing the economic data were involved in a conspiracy to make them look bad.

Nixon’s anger stemmed from the fact that the country was in a bad recession. This showed clearly in the unemployment rate, which had risen from 3.4 percent when he took office in January of 1969, to 6.1 percent by December of 1970. Rather than accepting that his policies might be to blame, Nixon was convinced that people, Jewish people, were involved in a conspiracy to cook the data to make him look bad.

In the same vein, Trump seems to have convinced himself that there is a conspiracy, involving at least former BLS Commissioner McEntarfer, to make him look bad. While we may not yet be in a recession, the economy is clearly slowing, as reflected in both GDP data and much slower jobs growth.

Just as Nixon’s Jew counting was driven by his life-long antisemitism, Trump’s rage against McEntarfer is driven by bizarre paranoia. While his administration has tried to clean up the story and say Trump was unhappy about large revisions to the jobs data, which means the original counts were inaccurate, his actual statement is very clear that he was accusing McEntarfer of bias, not incompetence.

“I was just informed that our Country’s “Jobs Numbers” are being produced by a Biden Appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala’s chances of Victory. This is the same Bureau of Labor Statistics that overstated the Jobs Growth in March 2024 by approximately 818,000 and, then again, right before the 2024 Presidential Election, in August and September, by 112,000. These were Records — No one can be that wrong?”

There is no ambiguity in Trump’s Truth Social post. He is very explicit, saying “no one can be that wrong.” He is not saying that McEntarfer is incompetent, he is saying that she is out to get him.

This allegation is based entirely on Trump’s paranoia and/or dementia. The revisions to the data last year were made in August, more than two full months before the election. It’s hard to see how it could possibly have helped Biden or Harris to have big stories about a large downward revision to job growth occurring appearing shortly before the election.

Somehow Trump has convinced himself that the revisions took place after the election. Apparently, no one on the White House staff has the courage to correct his mistake on this simple fact.

The other big problem with the White House’s clean-up effort to claim that the firing is based on the inaccuracy of the data, and therefore McEntarfer’s alleged incompetence, is that it shows absolutely zero understanding of the process involved in collecting the data. McEntarfer overseas the process, but BLS  uses procedures that have been developed over decades and which are entirely transparent. They publish their methods for any interested researcher, reporter, or lay person to evaluate and criticize.

If Trump and his economic team think these methods are inadequate, they presumably have some suggestions as to how they can be improved. They have offered nothing.

For what it’s worth, former Commissioner McEntarfer would not even have had authority to make major changs in procedures on her own. She would have had to submit a concrete proposal for restructuring the Bureau’s methods and to ask permission and funding from Congress. The Trump administration has been cutting the BLS budget and staff.

In short, the effort to sanewash the firing as based on a concern about inaccurate data is absurd on its face and directly contradicts Trump’s own statement. The firing was driven by Trump craziness, just as Nixon’s Jew-counting was driven by his antisemitism and paranoia. That’s the truth.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

The post The Proud Republican History of Paranoia and Anti-Semitism About Government Statistics appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Free Gaza banner in Hiroshima.

As the Zionist project devolves from apartheid and ethnic cleansing to the final solution of its decades-long genocide, we also commemorate 80 years since the August 6 and August 9 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us consider what are the implications of remembering the nuclear genocide in this present moment of technogenocide in Gaza.

On October 24, 2023, Omar El Akkad, Egyptian-American journalist and novelist, posted on X: “One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.” The tweet, viewed over ten million times, was expanded into a book, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, published earlier this year. Interspersed with reflections on the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza are reflections on his own and his family’s history. As an Arab and a Muslim, El Akkad muses about how he might respond when told, “Go back to where you came from.” He thinks to himself, “If you like authoritarian governments so much, why don’t you go to where I came from?”

To what extent might anyone been against the atom bombings? And how have attitudes toward the bombings evolved since? In 1945, public opinion in the U.S. favored exacting revenge for Pearl Harbor and destroying Imperial Japan. Portrayals of Japanese as vermin or monkeys drummed up support for the bombing of the civilian populations of all of Japan’s major cities (save Kyoto). The March 9-10, 1945 bombing of Tokyo left some 100,000 dead. Together, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings left some 150,000 to 246,000 dead by the end of 1945. Given the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bombs, there were very few individuals who might have opposed using them before they were deployed. Among them were Leó Szilárd, a Hungarian physicist who circulated a petition during the summer of 1945, mostly among scientists at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, opposing the use of the weapons without giving Japan an opportunity to surrender.

In 1942, in the Continental U.S., under an executive order signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Japanese-Americans were dispossessed of their land and property and incarcerated in prison camps. Nothing of the like was perpetrated on those of German or Italian descent. Shouldn’t we call this ethnic cleansing? Is it fraught to interpret history through modern categories? While Harry Truman suggested that, by averting the need to invade the Japanese mainland, the atomic bombings spared the lives of perhaps a half-million U.S. troops – most historians say that Imperial Japan knew that it was finished and was ready to surrender. The stated intent of the atomic bombings was to bring about the end of the war. Other unstated reasons included demonstrating the new weapon to the soon-to-be Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, and justifying the cost of developing the weapon to the U.S. taxpayer. While the end result was many Japanese dead, the stated intent was not genocidal – so, therefore, we do not officially call it a genocide. (Of note, however, the etymology of “holocaust” is “to burn all” – and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly that.)

In 2025, every rational person opposes nuclear war, as even a “limited” nuclear war can result in nuclear winter, which can lead to the extinction of the human species. Yet, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moves its Doomsday Clock ever closer to midnight.

Currently, it is at 89 seconds to midnight. The hibakusha (A-bomb survivors), now mostly in their 80s, cry out: “No More Hiroshimas! No More Nagasakis! No Nukes! NO WAR!” As the 80-year memorial approaches, activists for Palestine in Hiroshima are trying to focus this moment not only on the thousands of Japanese, Koreans, and others who were killed and injured in the nuclear genocide, but also as a day of protest against the current genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing throughout Palestine.

In acknowledging 80 years since the bomb, we must also include the history of Japanese imperialism, which is erased from Hiroshima’s state-sanctioned Peace Memorial Ceremony. The defeat of the Japanese Empire should be viewed as the liberation of Asian and Pacific peoples from Japan’s brutal colonial rule. The echo of Japanese imperialism continues in various neo-colonial ways throughout Asia via economic, land, and labor exploitation, tourism, and the sex industry, not to mention the continued occupations of Ainu lands in Hokkaido and Ryukyu lands in Okinawa. In fact, we see the Ceremony itself as a ritual reinforcement of Japanese national mythology and the nationalistic Emperor system that “necessitates” nuclear weapons. Even the way that “Peace” is enforced in Hiroshima through “silent prayer” is a fascistic manipulation of people’s expressions of grief and anger. The City of Hiroshima has convinced the public that folding paper cranes and giving children tours of the Peace Park is enough to bring about “peace.”

In 2024, with the genocide of Palestinians well under way, Hiroshima City shamefully invited an Israeli delegate to attend the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony, while not inviting a representative from Palestine. Officials of Nagasaki City, meanwhile, disinvited the Israeli delegate. This year, Hiroshima sent “notifications” instead of “invitations” to try to avoid controversy about which countries are invited and which are not. This “peacewashing” attitude is maintained by the majority of Japanese society, who are also generally uninformed of the atrocities committed by their ancestors in the name of the Emperor.

In The World After Gaza, Pankaj Mishra gives us an overview of the manner in which the Shoah, the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis, came to serve as ideological justification for the Zionist project of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and now, the final solution of genocide. Similarly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the ultimate victimhood stories that Japanese nationalists use to justify militarization, tech and weapons development, and ongoing collaborations with the Israeli government. The Aichi-Israel Matching program, connecting Israeli arms tech startups with Japan’s manufacturing heartland, is the perfect example. The Japanese pension fund (the largest in the world!) is heavily invested in Israeli bonds as well as weapons manufacturers like Elbit Systems (Israel), Lockheed Martin (U.S.), and BAE Systems (U.K.). Japanese corporations like Kawasaki are buying drones from Israel, while Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactures parts in the F-35 supply chain.

Meanwhile in the most recent elections, the Trumpian Sanseito party won 14 seats in the government through their xenophobic rhetoric peddled on YouTube playing on Japanese fears of foreign contamination and loss of “pure” Japanese culture. This renewed interest in overt racism paired with rapid development of the artificial intelligence arms industry in collaboration with a genocidal state is what we would consider in Japanese “abunai” – dangerous!

Our most pressing point from ground-zero in Hiroshima is this: Palestine is a nuclear issue. Israel possesses some 90 nuclear weapons and is effectively a U.S. nuclear weapons depot in West Asia. Several of its government representatives have called for the use of nukes on Gaza. The recent demi-nuclear war with Iran destroyed nuclear fuel production facilities, undoubtedly causing chemical and radioactive contamination that no one is ready to even acknowledge, and demonstrated how willing Israel is–with U.S. support–to drag the region towards nuclear war. Hiroshima’s claims to be an “International City of Peace” committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons rings selfish and hollow as it remains completely silent on the nuclear realities of Palestine and continues to obscure Japan’s own war crimes. As an indigenous liberation struggle, Palestine is also connected to the #LandBack movement that intersects with the fight against nuclear colonialism — from the Marshall Islands, to Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, to the Navajo Nation, to the Shinkolobwe in the Congo, to the Aboriginal Australians, and more.

The pain of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and all the mass killings and atrocities of the past 80 years are real, and they still haunt us today. Both the anti-nuclear movement and Palestine liberation movements also emerged and developed during these same 80 years. Activists for Palestine in Japan see through the guise of Hiroshima’s 80th memorial to the reality that Japan’s imperial system, like that of the British, U.S., Germany, etc. – has not actually changed, it has merely shape-shifted. For nearly two years, we have been watching a genocide unfold in Gaza – one in which the perpetrators have vowed to eliminate the Amalek or the “human animals.” As if Israel is experimenting with a medley of methods of killing, we have watched children blown apart by bombs, shot by snipers, and now starved to death. We U.S. taxpayers fund this. Japanese pension plan participants fund this. Our governments and their corporate cronies supply the weapons and provide diplomatic cover. We must not allow our governments to co-opt our stories of pain and suffering in order to justify more pain and suffering. We must not wait until it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable. We must do everything we can to oppose apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We must fight for the liberation of Palestine and the liberation of all people from domination, militarization, and economies of war.

The post Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Genocide appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Image Source: Missile Defense Agency – Public Domain

Last month, I wrote about the waste and futility of deploying a national missile defense (NMD), focussing on the technical issues that make the system unnecessary, unworkable and unaffordable.  This week, I want to discuss the many strategic problems that NMD will create and the geopolitical problems that will be created.  There is nothing positive that can be associated with NMD, and the strategic issues are more threatening than the technical ones.  It’s lose-lose in every way!

The off-and-on debate that has revolved around the feasibility and dependability of NMD has been present since the Reagan administration and the mythology associated with Star Wars or the Strategic Defense Initiative.  President Ronald Reagan had a huge number of chicken hawks in his administration—Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, Deputy Defense Secretary Richard (the heart of darkness) Perle, and Perle protege Frank Gaffney, who ran his own pro-Star Wars think tank (the Center for Security Policy) on behalf of the Reagan administration.  All were opposed to arms control and disarmament.

National security adviser Robert McFarland argued that the only advantage in pursuing NMD was in its value as a bargaining chip.  McFarland believed that the threat of NMD could  either bring the Chinese into the arms control dialogue or entice the Soviets to reduce their strategic offensive warheads.  McFarland wasn’t genuinely interested in constructing NMD; he was more sophisticated than his colleagues in the national security community.

McFarland’s reference to NMD as a bargaining chip suggests the possibility of a reverse domino effect that would involve conciliatory steps that would threat, but not deploy, NMD.   A conciliatory U.S. step could be used to invigorate discussions with both China and Russia.  Any sign of Chinese restraint could lead, in turn, to India’s willingness to limit its own strategic programs.  This raises the possibility of India and Pakistan entering a dialogue to limit strategic weaponry, and possibly try to put the Kashmir issue on the back burner.  This kind of strategic thinking doesn’t seem to be present in the Trump administration.

There are numerous strategic problems associated with the construction of NMD, particularly if the international community believes the United States could build a system that actually works.  First of all, the construction of NMD would bring Russia and China closer in their already unprecedentedly close relationship.  Russia and China have broadened their international standing by bringing North Korea and Iran into the dialogue.  Second, our most important European allies—particularly Britain, France, and Germany—will view the NMD as an important step towards a compartmented U.S. security policy that would ultimately decouple U.S. national security from European national security.  The erratic behavior of Donald Trump toward our European allies helps to foster European concerns with decoupling.  This already has led to serious strategic discussions among Britain, France, and Germany.

A variety  of non-proliferation and disarmament measures would be weakened as a result of NMD.  First and foremost, non-nuclear states such as Japan and South Korean may decide to seek their own strategic nuclear weaponry as well as NMD.  Nuclear states who are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be less likely to join the NPT arrangement, and nuclear states such as North Korea with small systems would be more inclined to seek greater offensive weaponry to overwhelm an NMD system. The United States would lose any limited leverage that it might have with nuclear weapons states—India, Israel and Pakistan—who are not part of the NPT regime.

A perfectly functional national missile defense is not possible, and Trump’s Golden Dome NMD is more likely to resemble the French Maginot line of the late 1930s, which proved to be irrelevant in facing a German offensive in 1940.  The Maginot Line was not extensive enough, and the Germans chose to go around it; the Line had a defensive purpose that could not be shifted to an offensive role, but the same could not be said for Trump and his Golden Dome.  NMD, if deployed, could threaten an adversary’s second strike capability.

In any event, national missile defense or the decision to forego national missile defense will play a major role in the configuration of the next nuclear era and the future of arms control and defense.  These issues are  particularly urgent because the global community is facing the expiration of the last nuclear arms control treaty that exists between Russia and the United States—the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that was signed between President Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin in 2011.  It caps each country at the lowest levels of deployed long-range delivery systems (both missiles and bombers) since early in the Cold War.  The likelihood of Trump extending an arms control treaty that Obama negotiated is not promising.

The timing of this issue is also important because the United States, China, and Russia are pursuing programs to modernize their strategic programs.  The distrust that exists between the United States and China as well as between the United States and Russia complicates all of the arms control issues.

Today’s 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a cruel reminder of the need to address the problems of disarmament and arms control.

The post The Strategic Nightmare That is National Missile Defense appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Moral injury is the social, psychological, and spiritual harm that arises from a betrayal of one’s core values, such as justice, fairness, and loyalty.

“Moral Injury” – Psychology Today, emphasis added.

I became interested in the term “moral injury” when I read of the suicides of IDF soldiers who have served in Gaza. One reservist who committed suicide by self-immolation is quoted as saying, “I smell and see burning bodies all the time.“

It’s the concept that violence and injustice have more victims than the directly victimized. And it can affect how we function and are able to fight back when we participate in, witness, or fail to prevent something of intolerable evil.

Part of the horror is doubting that the values ever existed. Certainly, the inmates of the most incarcerated nation on earth – the USA – might have different attitudes to the claims of minimal justice, fairness.

We are in a season of injustice and cruelty. Do fascist periods occur like seasons? Is there a periodicity?

The quote that is attributed to Voltaire – that belief in absurdities leads to atrocities – is being acted out, stupidly.

We’re now exposed – often in real-time – to video of abducted mothers torn from their children, workers taken at their jobs, green card holders handcuffed when reporting to ICE appointments, in the USA – and to videos of people in Gaza shot, burned, or bombed, or herded, starving, from blasted place to blasted place by pitiless IDF operations in a not so hidden logic of extermination.

The displaced and bereaved in Gaza, and the disappeared in America, are not the only ones experiencing injury. We who witness and cannot stop it also lose confidence in our ability to effectively support decency and justice, or be confident that we live in a world of such things.

Unlike trauma from an accident or natural disaster, this “moral injury” is to our social sense – what we can expect from our society. Masked, heavily armed men grabbing men, women, children, brutalizing them as if they were enemies, on our streets, and knowing they are government agents, bruises our sense of moral order.

Judith Levine in The Guardian wrote,

The colossal buildup of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will create the largest domestic police force in the US; its resources will be greater than those of every federal surveillance and carceral agency combined; it will employ more agents than the FBI. ICE will be bigger than the military of many countries. When it runs out of brown and Black people to deport, ICE – perhaps under another name – will be left with the authority and capability to surveil, seize and disappear anyone the administration considers undesirable.

There is no doubt of our direction. Billions have been appropriated to build detention for ICE targets. Random exile to a torture prison in El Salvador and a concentration camp in the Florida Everglades making it clear that arbitrary abuse and inhumanity is the intention. Government terror.

Every day has a new horror. A video of a huge ICE raid in a strawberry field in California’s Central Valley, terrorizing workers, shows the “rounding up” of 100.

The United States government is overtly voicing white supremacy, of a “pure” historic “Homeland,” more suited to 1925.

Klu Klux Klan march in Washington, DC 8/8/1925. Source: Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.

The Vice President has proposed the idea that ancestral pedigree should add a qualitative weight in American discourse.  Mr Vance has complained that Uganda-born New York City mayoral candidate Mamdani is “ungrateful.”  The President campaigned with a complaint of immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the US.

“Legality” and due process is gone, in a country of ICE snatch gangs grabbing anyone who speaks a “foreign” language, has some profession or marker of “alienness,” terrorizing swaths of the American community, tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

The following are two posts from the US Department of Homeland Security:

The stupidity and vulgarity of this government department harkening to an imaginary “white” American kitsch is unbearable.

(Their vacuous, absurd Hollywood America elides

+ slaughtered and dispossessed native peoples of North America;

+ Africans enslaved and shipped as livestock, their destiny as sub-human chattel, stigmatized to this day;

+ Spanish-speaking citizens of territory subsumed into the United States in 1848;

+ generations of “undesirable” immigrants, each scorned as they did useful work.)

MAGA erasure of transgender people mirrors the 1933 Nazi burning of Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute of Sex Research library nearly 100 years ago – and the Nazi purge of “Jewish degeneracy” in German scholarship is mirrored in the purge of “woke influences” in universities.

May 10, 1933 book burning. A member of the SA throws confiscated books into the bonfire during the public burning of “un-German” books on the Opernplatz in Berlin. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Am I – a secular non-Zionist Jew with roots in Brooklyn, descendant of the Jewish Great Migration 120 years ago from Eastern Europe – part of the “Homeland” they work to protect with all the powers and monopoly of violence of the federal government? I’m not without fear for my life and comforts. And nauseated that by skin color and class I am part of what they “protect.”

In my Jewish immigrant culture, weaned on the stories of the Holocaust and of Eastern European persecution, we are warned to be alert for what might come to us.

In a mendacious way, this Administration has taken up antisemitism as a cause, mixing Judaism with Zionism, and casting resistance to the Israeli state as terrorism.  (Euro-centric Americanism is yoked to a Jewish supremacist concept of Palestine.) I may easily be not who they “protect,” but who they target as a terrorism advocate.

Absurd, stupid.  Not without precedent. Both Mussolini and Hitler and their appointees were comical, but it didn’t matter; they managed deadly transformations of their societies for a time.  That’s why I wonder about periodicity – that it’s a time of fascism, much as a season.

The President on July 24 issued an “executive order” declaring unhoused people a threat to public order, and saying the “vast majority” of them are drug addicts or mentally ill, and declaring public policy to “clear them” from public spaces into detention by “civil commitment.”

Unquestionably, this administration is choosing the most vulnerable people – immigrants, those without housing, transgender people – to target, and has shown that it intends to deprive human rights of those it stigmatizes. We can Niemöller the trend from here.

Once we’ve created concentration camps like “Alligator Alcatraz” and many other unofficial miserable holding sites for people beyond the law’s protection, the only question is the rate of further construction – and the funding has been voted.

Six months in, the confidence with which the Trump administration has turned the guiding philosophy of government from aspirations to equality to criminalization of non-whiteness – unleashing of police power, contempt of any sort of  “queer” non-conformity, prioritization of a standard “white” model of American, and mockery of scholarship – makes me feel there is a momentum that is… tidal, and as King Canute demonstrated, impervious to commands to fall back before its fullness is reached.

The post “Moral Injury”: Murdered in Gaza, Disappeared in America appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

A coalition of cross-regional states met in Bogotá, Colombia in mid-July to discuss measures to disrupt Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. The subsequent commitments by some of those governments to end all material support to Israel and to uphold international law is an important development not just to end the genocide, but to counter the relentless miltarism and profiteering of Western states. People power is the strength behind these commitments, and is what will lead to their implementation.

Action to end complicity

From 15–16 July 2025, thirty states met in Bogotá, Colombia at an Emergency Conference on Palestine, which was convened jointly by Colombia and South Africa as co-chairs of the Hague Group. The Hague Group, which began organizing in January 2025, formed as a bloc of countries to coordinate legal and diplomatic measures in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The Hague Group is compromised of Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, and South Africa.

The Bogotá conference in July brought together additional countries from across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. In response to Israel’s continuing and intensified genocide of Palestinians, conference participants unanimously agreed “that the era of impunity must end—and that international law must be enforced without fear or favour through immediate domestic policies and legislation.”

Twelve of the participating states—Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa—committed to implementing six measures to end their complicity with Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. These include:

*Preventing the provision of weapons, military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel, including ending the transit of any such materials through their territories or transport on any ships bearing their countries’ flags;

*Preventing public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine;

*Ensuring accountability for crimes under international law, through independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels; and

*Supporting universal jurisdiction mandates to ensure justice for victims of international crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The 12 states are encouraging other countries to join them in similar commitments, urging them to do so by 20 September 2025, the start of the next UN General Assembly. They also called on all states to take effective action to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law, including by imposing sanctions on Israel.

The spirit of Bandung

The Bogotá conference is a bold demonstration of multilaterialism in action, through which states are supporting each other in upholding their commitments under international law. With the most heavily militarized governments in the world engaging in mass violence, it’s imperative that other countries form new coalitions of power to oppose them and them to account.

Seventy years ago, in April 1955, twenty-nine Asian and African states convened in Bandung, Indonesia in opposition to “colonialism in all its manifestations.” They adopted a ten-point Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation, incorporating principles of the UN Charter, human rights, racial equality, territorial sovereignty, and non-interference.

Drawing on the principles established at the Bandung Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was formed in 1961 by the leaders of then-Yugoslavia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, and the United Arab Republic. The NAM was intended as a counterweight to the US and Soviet blocs of the Cold War. It rejected colonialism, imperialism, and all forms of foreign aggression and domination.

Today, the NAM still exists. But shifting political, economic, and military dynamics over the ensuing decades have diminished its power as an alternative to the military gamesmanship of the West and Russia. Rather than standing up against colonialism, some of its founding members, like India, support Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. Two of its members, India and Pakistan, possess nuclear weapons. Some NAM states have formed new alliances with Russia or the West. Many are economically compromised by the West or China through structural adjustment programs or “development aid” packages.

These relationships have prevented many NAM states from taking meaningful action in the face of genocide. Even as many offer rhetorical condemnations of Israel’s actions, their complicity continues under economic or political pressure.

Thus, the need for a meaningful alternative to the so-called “great power” rivalries and their rampant imperialism and war profiteering is as imperative as ever. The Hague Group offers one possible configuration that could build power; other configurations are also possible and necessary. The key will be to figure out how these countries can protect each other from the economic, political, and military might of the West, Russia, and China, who see formations like this as threats to their dominance.

Settler colonial weapons

The US government has already accused the Hague Group of trying to “weaponize international law as a tool to advance radical anti-Western agendas.” This comment is instructive, as it positions compliance with international law to prevent genocide as anti-Western. This makes sense when one understands Israel’s genocide of Palestinians as the latest in a long history of Western colonial genocide and present-day imperialist projects.

As Nick Estes, Melanie K. Yazzie, Jennifer Nez Denetdale, and David Correia write in Red Nation Rising: From Bordertown Violence to Native Liberation, settler colonial societies require sustained violence against Indigenous populations in order to sustain settler life. A settler state cannot exist without dominating the Native world that was there before it; thus, the “homicidal settler worldview” is “constructed through cultural, legal, and political norms of extermination and genocide.”

Most of the states profiting from Israel’s genocide are colonizers—from the European countries that ravaged other continents for resources and labour, stealing wealth and destroying Indigenous life, to the settler colonial states of so-called Australia, Canada, and the United States, which conducted their own genocides to eliminate, incarcerate, and dominate Indigenous populations. The assertion that trying to uphold the Genocide Convention is an anti-Western agenda is only legible in light of the brutal history and ongoing practice of colonialism by the West.

Genocide is necessary to settler colonialim; Israel’s settler colonialism is necessary for Western war profiteering and attempts to control energy resources in the region. The United States uses Israel as a military base to exert power in the Middle East to benefit a wealthy few, particularly military contractors and oil executives. It also sends billions in weapons and other material support to Israel, as do the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, and others.

The “weaponization of international law” does not stem from countries trying to uphold it. it comes from those who claim to support the so-called “rules-based international order” while aggressively violating it to serve their own economc and political interests. From the Genocide Conventions to the Arms Trade Treaty to the rules of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and beyond, Israel is in violation of every rule, standard, and principle that has been set since the end of World War II.

In the interest of ensuring “Never Again” after the Holocaust and the slaugter of WWII, the world’s governments agreed to codes of conduct that Israel, with full support of its Western backers, has shredded along with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. They are the ones who have weaponized international law, effectively carving out Palestine as a “state of exception” where Palestininans are not protected by law but instead are dehumanized, bombed, shot, tortured, raped, and starved.

People power for Palestine

The countries coming together to form new alliances to challenge this “state of exception,” to hold Israel and its Western protectors accountable, and to end the genocide could potentially help forge a new world order. If others join them, creating a large group of non-aligned states in the spirit of Bandung to stand up to Western (as well as Russian and Chinese) military and economic force, then international law might not die in the rubble of Gaza.

The Bogotá conference “marks a turning point—not just for Palestine, but for the future of the international system,” said Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla, Executive Secretary of the Hague Group. “For decades, states—particularly in the Global South—have borne the cost of a broken international system. In Bogotá, they came together to reclaim it—not with words, but with actions.”

More states need to have the courage to join the Bogotá commitments, and to start building the networks of soliarity and support that will necessary to overcome pressure from the Western warmongers, as well as from Russian and Chinese imperial interests.

However, it’s also important to acknowledge that states have not, in the bigger picture, stood for people. Most often, they work to protect their own interests—their power, privilege, and profit—even at the expense of their people. While the commitments made at the Bogotá conference are essential, they can only be implemented and embodied through people power.

The blockades at ports, the protests at weapon manufacturing sites, the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, the refusal of people globally to participate in genocide and to hold their own governments accountable are absolutely vital not just to ending the horrific suffering of Palestinians now, but building a new international system based on solidarity and justice for us all.

Building transnational networks of mutual aid, collaborative campaigns, and political education are going to be a key part of building a new world order that actually works for us all. We are up against global authoritarian horrors, far-right resurgence, and devastating violence in all its myriad forms. But there more of us that suffer from the current “world order” than profit from it. Finding our way out and creating something new can only happen together.

The post Building Power for Palestine and for a New World Order appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: Basel Yazouri – CC BY 2.0

“What are you going to do now, pull a baby out of your bag?”

The guard’s voice echoed through the marble halls of Capitol Hill, his words hitting me like a physical blow. Not just because of their callousness, but because I had indeed come carrying images of babies–Palestinian children murdered in Gaza, photographs and stories tucked in my tote bag that I believed any human with a heart would see and demand action.

It was January 2025. Biden was still in office. I stood with other seasoned professionals in the Capitol Hill lobby, planning our day of advocacy for Palestine. The space towered above us with its high ceilings and white marble floors, a black metal monument rising like an arrow, pointing upward toward some unreachable justice.

We were a quiet crowd when four or five guards approached. One of them — short, stocky, visibly angry– began shouting as if shooing away a herd of animals: “This is your first warning. If you do not disperse, I will arrest all of you!” We shuffled slightly, exchanging quizzical glances, unsure what had triggered such fury. Then came the line that would haunt me: “What are you going to do now, pull a baby out of your bag?”

In seven words, this guard had unknowingly exposed the mechanism by which an entire society can watch children starve on their screens and remain unmoved. His mockery revealed something deeper than individual cruelty; it exposed what the Dominican Sociologist called the “coloniality of power”—a global system that determines whose children matter, whose tears move us, whose deaths register as loss. It is a system based on racial hierarchy and empowered by economic interest, mainstream media that manufactures consent (to use Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s framework), and by the principle that might make right.

The Logic of Disposable Children

The officer’s statement reveals what Quijano identified as the enduring colonial logic that organizes our world. Though formal colonialism ended, its organizing principle, racial hierarchy, persists in determining human worth. Europeans created racial categories during colonization, not as biological facts, but as what Quijano calls “mental constructions” to justify why it was acceptable to enslave, kill, or dispossess certain populations while granting full humanity to others.

This isn’t abstract theory. When Winston Churchill defended Zionist settlement during the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission hearings, he made the racial logic explicit: “I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia, by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race… has come in and taken their place.”

The guard’s question operates within this same framework. Palestinian children exist at the bottom of a hierarchy that renders them fundamentally different from other children. They are what Martinican psychiatrist Frantz Fanon called inhabitants of the “zone of non-being” — not marginalized humans, but beings positioned outside the category of human altogether.

I carried those photographs to Capitol Hill because a Palestinian network to which I belong had launched what we thought would be an undeniable campaign: protecting Palestinian children. Surely, we reasoned, when Americans saw what was being done to children — children — they would demand accountability.  We armed ourselves with the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. military assistance to foreign forces that commit gross violations of human rights. We brought documentation of systematic torture, of night raids, of children shot while playing. 

We were doing what Palestinians are perpetually forced to do: ask to be treated like the rest of humanity. The guard’s mockery was a brutal reminder of what we’re truly up against. Palestinian poet and activist Mohammad El Kurd has written scathingly about the impossible performance Palestinians are forced to undertake—the demand to be “perfect victims”: docile, depoliticized, stripped of religious identity, and severed from any connection to resistance. We must present ourselves as helpless rather than resilient, individual rather than collective, grateful rather than dignified. In this colonial logic, children represent the ultimate “perfect victim”—innocent, non-threatening, deserving of universal sympathy. Yet the guard’s mockery reveals the bankruptcy of even this strategy. When Palestinian children—the most unassailable subjects for empathy—can be dismissed with such casual cruelty, it exposes the illogical logic El Kurd describes: no performance of Palestinian victimhood will ever be perfect enough to pierce the racial hierarchy that renders us fundamentally ungrievable, as Judith Butler so eloquently put it. The guard’s question strips away the liberal fiction that Palestinian suffering simply needs better documentation or more compelling presentation. Even our “perfect victims” remain imperfect in the eyes of power.

When the Baby in the Bag Is Real

Palestinian scholar Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian has a term for what happens to Palestinian children: “unchilding”: the systematic stripping away of childhood’s protections and innocence to serve colonial goals. This isn’t metaphorical. Palestinian children are the only children globally prosecuted by military courts. Israel detains between 500 and 700 Palestinian children annually. Since 2000, approximately 13,000 Palestinian children have been detained, interrogated, and incarcerated by Israeli military authorities, with reports of torture and sexual violence abound. In Gaza, the statistics regarding children have broken every record: Gaza has the highest per capita child amputees globally; more children and women have been killed than in any other war in recent history; and the United Nations described Gaza as a graveyard for children. 

The guard couldn’t have known that the “baby in my bag” was statistically real. Gaza now has the highest child amputation rates in the world. Over 11,300 Palestinian children have been identified as killed since October 2023, approximately 30% of them under age five. More than 39,000 children have lost one or both parents. At least 17,000 children are unaccompanied or separated from caregivers, many buried beneath rubble or disappeared during forced displacement.

Gaza has become what UNICEF calls “the deadliest place in the world for children.” As I sat in those windowless congressional offices, my hand shaking as I handed staffers photographs of Palestinian children — one killed, one incarcerated — I was witnessing what happens when logic itself breaks down in the face of racial hierarchy.

The Bosnia Test: When Children Matter

The differential treatment and logic breaks down, become starkest when we compare international responses to child endangerment. In the 1990s, when Bosnian children faced imminent death in Srebrenica, the international community mounted complex evacuation efforts. Between 8,000-9,000 Bosnian Muslims, including children, were evacuated in March-April 1993 when Bosnian Serb forces threatened to attack. The UN declared “safe areas” and deployed 25,000 peacekeeping personnel from dozens of nations.

When diplomatic pressure failed, NATO responded with overwhelming force: 400 aircraft, 3,515 sorties, over 1,000 bombs. The message was unmistakable: attacks on civilians would meet severe consequences. Even when protection failed catastrophically at Srebrenica, the failure generated accountability, resulting in resignations, tribunals, and commemorations.

Gaza presents different geopolitical realities, certainly. Israel is a powerful U.S. ally with Security Council veto protection and the “logic” is might makes right. But these factors interact lethally with the racial hierarchy the guard’s question exposed. Unlike Bosnia, where evacuations were attempted despite risks, no safe corridors for Gaza’s children have been seriously pursued by powerful states. Instead, the primary provider of humanitarian protection, UNRWA, has been systematically delegitimized and defunded.

When Humanitarian Aid Becomes a Death Trap

Even when the international community attempts to provide basic sustenance to a starving population, the logic of Palestinian disposability transforms relief into execution. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), established in May 2025 as a U.S. and Israeli-backed initiative to distribute food aid, has become what UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini called “a death trap costing more lives than it saves.” Since operations began on May 27, 2025, over 410 Palestinians have been killed and at least 3,000 Palestinians have been injured while seeking food at these distribution sites. More recent figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry put the death toll at 743 Palestinians killed and more than 4,891 others injured while seeking assistance at GHF sites.

Reports emerged of Israeli soldiers being ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near food distribution sites in Gaza, even when no threat was present. As one soldier told Haaretz: “We fired machineguns from tanks and threw grenades. There was one incident where a group of civilians was hit while advancing under the cover of fog.” Another soldier reported that “between one and five people were killed every day” at their position. The UN Human Rights Office condemned this as “the weaponisation of food for civilians” which “constitutes a war crime and, under certain circumstances, may constitute elements of other crimes under international law.”

This systematic violence against those seeking food reveals how colonial logic operates: Palestinian hunger is addressed through mechanisms designed to maximize humiliation and death. Where Bosnian children’s endangerment prompted international rescue efforts, Palestinian children’s starvation is met with militarized aid distribution that functions as target practice. The same racial hierarchy that allows the Capitol Hill guard to mock Palestinian suffering enables a system where even the act of providing food becomes an opportunity to eliminate Palestinian life.

The contrast is devastating. Despite a UN investigation in August 2024 finding insufficient evidence for most allegations against UNRWA staff, Israel proceeded to pass legislation effectively banning the agency from operating in Israeli-controlled territory. The consequences are catastrophic: UNRWA operates 96 schools serving 47,000 children in the West Bank alone, runs 43 clinics, and provides social security to over 150,000 residents. In Gaza, it serves as the primary provider of education and healthcare services to over one million residents. As UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini warned: “We have today 1 in 2 persons in Gaza below the age of 18, among them 650,000 girls and boys living in the rubble, deeply traumatized at the age of primary and secondary school. Getting rid of UNRWA is also a way to tell these children that you will have no future.”

Certainly, the international community did not do enough for Bosnia.  However, where Bosnian civilian deaths spurred military retaliation and institutional reckoning, the systematic murder and starvation of Palestinian children have been met with continued arms transfers, vetoed ceasefires, and impunity. The difference lies not in capacity, but in the colonial valuation of life.

The Performance of Humanity

Since October 7, 2023, I have lived in perpetual whiplash, between crushing despair and fierce determination, between witnessing livestreamed genocide and the unshakeable conviction that Palestine will be free. But underneath this activism was a darker recognition: we are forced to perform our humanity.

We must choreograph our grief, curate our suffering, package our children’s deaths in ways that might penetrate power’s callousness. The guard’s mockery echoed in every advocacy meeting: “What are you going to do now, pull a baby out of your bag?”

In our congressional appointments, I found myself translating Palestinian humanity into terms that might be comprehensible to those taught to see us as threats. “Our children are the only children prosecuted by military courts,” I would say, trembling with emotion. “Gaza has the highest per-capita amputees in the world. Please help us protect our children.”

This constant advocacy carries its own violence. When Israeli officials call Palestinians “human animals” or declare there are “no innocent civilians in Gaza,” these words don’t just wound, they reshape how Palestinians must move through the world. Walking toward the elevator that day on the Hill, I passed a young man who, upon seeing me, had a look of disgust on his face, pushed himself against the wall away from me, and gestured with the back of his hands as he shooed me away. This bodily recoil– automatic, unthinking, visceral — exemplifies how racial hierarchies operate through embodied affect that bypasses rational thought.

We become vessels carrying the weight of collective suffering, our voices pleading our case for basic humanity while calculating what can be digestible to observers: “Is this photo expressive enough? It cannot be grotesque and anger viewers for its cruelty. And of course, is it respectful of our children? Or are we using the very beings we want to protect as props?”

What I was witnessing was what scholar Sherene Razack describes as the breakdown of logic itself, how “nothing has to make sense when the subject is Muslim.” Here I was, presenting evidence of systematic violations of international law, documented torture of children, clear violations of the Leahy Law. Yet the response was measured political language that effectively communicated indifference.

The Production of Ignorance

The guard’s question exposes how genocide adapts in the digital age. This isn’t the crude efficiency of industrial death, but the sophisticated violence of racial logic that transforms Palestinian children from subjects deserving protection into abandoned objects or collateral damage. Genocide now operates through legal frameworks and humanitarian discourse, through the very institutions designed to prevent it.

Consider a telling 2022 example: A video went viral showing an 11-year-old blonde girl confronting a soldier, telling him to go to his country. Media outlets applauded the girl, whom they believed to be Ukrainian, and the video garnered 12 million views. When it was revealed that the video actually showed Palestinian girl Ahed Tamimi confronting an Israeli soldier, the celebration stopped. At 16, Ahed was jailed–a human rights violation that prompted U.S. statements but no action. Within the global racial hierarchy, Ukrainian children deserve celebration for resistance; Palestinian children deserve imprisonment.

The officer’s mockery operates within this same logic. His question assumes Palestinian testimony is inherently manipulative, Palestinian pain is performed, Palestinian children exist only as props in political theater, never as subjects deserving protection.

The Question That Speaks

But the guard’s attempt to silence us becomes the question that speaks. In trying to mock our evidence, he inadvertently testified to its power. Yes, we carry dead babies in our bags, not as props but as proof. Not as manipulation but as documentation of systematic elimination.

The photographs I carry are what we might call “counter-archives” — testimonies that refuse the violence of forgetting, evidence that survives the production of ignorance. When the guard asked his question, he revealed the mechanism by which certain deaths are rendered ungrievable, certain suffering incredible, certain children “unchilded.”

This is genocide’s vulnerability: its need to mock reveals its consciousness of guilt. The question that was meant to shame us into silence becomes evidence of the racial infrastructure that makes genocide possible, the hierarchy determining whose babies matter, whose tears move us, whose deaths register as loss.

Refusing Erasure

Palestinian children themselves refuse the logic of disposability the guard’s question assumes. In Gaza’s rubble, they create schools from destroyed buildings. In detention centers, they maintain solidarity despite torture. In refugee camps across generations, they preserve stories, languages, and histories that refuse erasure. Every act of Palestinian children asserting their humanity — every drawing made in a tent, every game played in destroyed streets–represents what Palestinians call Sumud (steadfastness), resistance that refuses colonial logic.

But Palestinian agency alone cannot dismantle the structural foundations enabling such casual cruelty in centers of power. The guard’s mockery echoes in every Security Council veto, every blocked investigation, every weapons transfer. Genuine protection for Palestinian children requires confronting the material structures sustaining their “unchilding”: ending military aid that facilitates their targeting, dismantling economic relationships that profit from their suffering, creating accountability mechanisms that cannot be suspended based on racial hierarchies.

The guard assumed his words would shame us into silence. Instead, they become evidence–not only of individual cruelty, but of a global system that has normalized Palestinian children’s disposability.

The Answer That Exposes

“Pull a baby out of your bag?” This question exposes genocide in its contemporary form. In seven words, the guard revealed how systematic elimination operates through the colonization of perception itself, through institutions and frameworks designed to prevent the very atrocities they enable.

But his question also exposes genocide’s ultimate failure. Yes, we will continue pulling Palestinian children from the zones of abandonment where they have been placed, from the archives of erasure where their deaths are hidden, from the racial hierarchies that render them disposable. Not as props in political theater, but as witnesses to their own elimination and agents of their own liberation.

The guard’s question exposes genocide. Our answer reveals the children who refuse to be erased and the global transformation required to ensure that no child, of any background, ever again becomes the subject of such a question.

The post “Pull a Baby Out of Your Bag?” The Question That Exposes a Genocide  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Image Source: מפה מדינית של המזרח התיכון – Public Domain

Over the past four decades, there have been at least three tectonic shifts in the geopolitics of the Middle East, often referred to as efforts at “changing the map” of the Middle East.  In 1982, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon invaded Lebanon in order to destroy the threat of  Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.  In 2003, the Bush administration created the lie that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” in order to invade Iraq.  Most recently, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu stated explicitly that he would use military force to “change the map” of the Middle East as part of his campaign to annihilate Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  The map of the Middle East has not changed, but hundreds of thousands of innocent Arabs have been killed.

In every case, the “day after” was far different and far more threatening than anything that Sharon, Bush, or Netanyahu promised.  Military campaigns and occupations that were supposed to last months turned into years.  In the cases of Lebanon and Iraq, Israeli and American occupations lasted decades, and after two decades in Iraq there are still several thousand U.S. military troops in vulnerable positions there. The U.S. invasion of Iraq allowed Iran to become the chief outside influence in Baghdad, marking a huge strategic setback for the United States.  As for Gaza, Netanyahu promised to make the Strip uninhabitable, and there is no reason to believe at this point that it will ever be habitable for Palestinians.

Ariel Sharon devised a secret plan in 1982 for taking the invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut, which he didn’t share with Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who had a nervous breakdown in the wake of the initial invasion and the war crimes that were committed at two refugee camps—Sabra and Shatila.  The operation was planned to last several days; Israeli forces formally withdrew from Lebanon 18 years later, and there are still Israeli units in southern Lebanon.  The PLO was forced to leave Lebanon and the Middle East, and repaired to North Africa.  But the PLO was replaced by a newer and far more threatening force—Hezbollah—with the assistance of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

In 2003, President George W. Bush lied his way into a military invasion of Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein didn’t possess.  The mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, played a key role in repeating the hundreds of lies of the Bush administration.  Like Sharon, Bush wanted to “change the map” of the Middle East by introducing democracy in Iraq that would become a model for other Arab states.  Vice President Dick Cheney played a major role in favoring the creation of democratic governments, telling the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 2002 that the “freedom-loving peoples of the region” will turn to democratic forms of government.

Oil was also a factor in the partnership between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair who discussed dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth, which was reminiscent of the talks between President Dwight Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to overthrow the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.  The Suez War of 1956 was a huge disaster for the interests of Britain, France, and Israel. The commander of CENTCOM in 2003, General John Abizaid, when asked about Bush’s war, said “of course, it’s about oil.”  All of these wars were driven by economic interests.

Netanyahu is proclaiming that his war against Hamas, the attacks on Iran, and the new attacks on Syria will create a “new” Middle East.  Israel has been using military force against Syria for the past 12 years, but the mainstream media has paid little attention to this campaign. Netanyahu’s claim of creating a “sterile defense zone” with Syria was simply a case of opportunism, using military force without any indication of the policy that would follow.  This has been typical of Israeli use of force since the Six-Day War in 1967 that found Israel with occupied lands, but with no idea of what would come next.

Netanyahu’s answer for all questions about the Gaza War was to stress “changing the face” of the Middle East, which was echoed across much of the American and Israeli press.  The Jerusalem Post typically explained “In the past year, Israel has done more for stability in the Middle East than decades of ineffective UN agencies and Western diplomats.”  (See the New York Times Magazine, July 27, 2025, “Netanyahu’s War,” for an authoritative account  of Netanyahu’s prolonging the war in order to stay in power.)

Trump has not been a direct collaborator in Netanyahu’s efforts, but he campaigned on the promise that the “Middle East is going to get solved.”  Trump’s first-term efforts on behalf of Israel made it clear that he would support Netanyahu’s aggressive policies in the region.  He emphasized that he had no preference for a two-state or one-state solution, and he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel without getting any concessions from Israel.  He cut U.S. aid to UNRWA as well as to various Palestinian aid groups on the West Bank that were hostages to Israeli governments.  Finally, he had no problem with the Israeli settlements on the West Bank that previous U.S. administrations and various international organizations had declared illegal.

Trump’s second term is far worse, marked by complicity with Israel’s genocidal campaign, and ignoring the forcible starvation of the Palestinian people.  As John Paul, a former State Department official who resigned from the Biden administration, remarked, politicians “cannot admit they have been wrong, ignore the evidence of their eyes, and find some way to avoid facing the truth.”  Trump and Netanyahu most recently blamed Hamas for the starvation in Gaza, which Israel’s high-level military commanders denied..

The balance of power in the Middle East is probably more threatening now than at any other time in the post-World War II period because of Israel’s military domination and its easy willingness to use military power.  There certainly has been no “sign of stability.”  Historically, Israelis have claimed the high moral ground in their confrontations with the Arab states because of the Jewish suffering of the Holocaust.

However, Israel’s genocidal military campaign in Gaza and its ethnic cleansing campaign on the West Bank have contaminated that claim. It has also divided the Western world—including the Jewish diaspora— on the legitimacy of Israel’s self-proclaimed status.  The United States had been in position to possibly expand the number of Arab nations in the Abraham Accord, but U.S. influence in the Middle East has declined.  The “no war, no peace” situation in the region will continue, and the apartheid reality in Israel will only worsen the geopolitics of the region as it continues to erode Israel’s moral standing.

These three scenarios demonstrate that war will not “change the map” of the Middle East, but rather create more chaos and tragedy.  Conversely, there is the example of the way peace and diplomacy did “change the map” of the Middle East.  That would be the result of the 13 days of talks at Camp David in 1978 between Israeli and Egyptian leaders Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat that produced an historic agreement.  It meant that Arab states, without Egypt, could not start a war against Israel.  That certainly changed the map.

The post The Sad History of “Changing the Map” of the Middle East appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Image by Ahmed.

Israel is meticulously following a textbook model of instigating unrest in the occupied West Bank. The latest such provocations consisted of stripping the Palestinian-run Hebron (Al-Khalil) municipality of its administrative powers over the venerable Ibrahimi Mosque. Worse, according to Israel Hayom, it granted these powers to the religious council of the Kiryat Arba Jewish settlement, an extremist settler body.

Though all Jewish settlers in occupied Palestine can be qualified as extremists, the approximately 7,500 inhabitants of Kiryat Arba represent a more virulent category. This settlement, established in 1972, serves as a strategic foothold to justify subjecting Hebron to stricter military control than virtually any other part of the West Bank.

Kiryat Arba is infamously linked to Baruch Goldstein, the US-Israeli settler who, in February 1994, unleashed a horrific attack. He opened fire at Muslim worshipers kneeling for dawn prayer at the Ibrahimi Mosque, mercilessly killing 29. This bloodbath was swiftly followed by another, where the Israeli army brutally cracked down on Palestinian protesters in Hebron and across the West Bank, murdering an additional 25 Palestinians.

Yet, the Israeli Shamgar Commission, tasked with investigating the massacre, resolved in 1994 that the Palestinian mosque, a site of profound religious significance, was to be grotesquely divided: 63% allocated to Jewish worshipers and a mere 37% to Palestinian Muslims.

Since that calamitous decision, oppressive restrictions have been systematically imposed. These include pervasive surveillance and, at times, unjustifiable, extended closures of the site, solely for exclusive settler use.

The latest decision, described by Israel Hayom as “historic and unprecedented,” is profoundly dangerous. It places the fate of this historic Palestinian mosque directly into the hands of those fanatically keen on acquiring the holy site in its entirety.

But the Ibrahimi Mosque is merely a microcosm of something far more sinister underway across the West Bank. Israel has exploited its war in Gaza to dramatically escalate its violence, carry out mass arrests, confiscate vast tracts of land, systematically destroy Palestinian farms and orchards, and aggressively expand illegal settlements.

Though the West Bank, previously largely subdued by joint Israeli military pressures and Palestinian Authority crackdowns, was not a direct party to the October 7, 2023, assault nor the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, it has inexplicably become a major focus for Israeli military measures.

In the first year of the war, over 10,400 Palestinians were detained in Israeli army crackdowns, with thousands held without charge. Furthermore, hundreds of Palestinians have been forcibly ethnically cleansed, largely from the northern West Bank, where entire refugee camps and towns have been systematically destroyed in protracted Israeli military campaigns.

Israel’s overarching aim remains the strangulation of the West Bank. This is achieved by severing communities using ubiquitous military checkpoints, imposing total closures of vast regions, and the cruel suspension of work permits for Palestinian laborers, who are almost entirely dependent on the Israeli work market for survival.

This insidious plan also explicitly targeted all Palestinian holy sites, including the revered Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem, and the Ibrahimi Mosque. Even when these shrines were nominally accessible, age restrictions and suffocating military checkpoints make it difficult, at times utterly impossible, for Palestinians to worship there.

In August 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that his relentless violent campaign against the West Bank was part of confronting the “broader Iran terror axis.” Practically, this statement served as a green light for the Israeli army to treat the West Bank as an extension of the ongoing Israeli genocide on Gaza. By mid-July 2025, over 900 Palestinians had been killed by the Israeli army in the West Bank, while at least 15 were murdered by settlers.

As Palestinians were pushed further against the wall, with no centralized strategy by their leadership to meaningfully resist, Israel exponentially increased its illegal settlement constructions and the brazen legalization of numerous outposts, many built illegally even by Israeli government standards.

Israel’s actions in the West Bank were not a sudden deviation but consistent with a long-standing, insidious scheme. This includes a plan solidified by the Israeli Knesset in 2020 that allowed Israel to officially annex the West Bank. Israel’s ultimate goal has always been to confine the majority of Palestinians into Bantustan-like enclaves, while asserting full control over the vast majority of the region.

In August 2023, extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir articulated this sinister vision: “My right, the right of my wife and my children to move around Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank) is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs.”

More coercive measures swiftly followed, including Knesset laws to significantly curtail UNRWA operations, and further legislation to entrench de facto annexation. Last May, Smotrich audaciously announced 22 more settlements. On July 2, 14 Israeli ministers made a public call on Netanyahu to immediately annex the West Bank.

In fact, every action Israel has undertaken, especially since the commencement of its devastating genocide in Gaza, has been carefully calculated to culminate in the irreversible annexation of the West Bank – a process that would inevitably be followed by declaring native inhabitants persona non grata in their own homeland.

This level of systemic pressure and oppression will ultimately lead to a popular explosion. Though suppressed by the brutality of the Israeli army, the terror of armed settlers, and the suppressive actions of the Palestinian Authority, the breaking point is fast approaching.

Those in the West who preach hollow calls for calm and de-escalation must understand the region is hurtling towards the brink. Neither diplomatic platitudes nor sterile press releases will suffice to avert the catastrophe. They are advised to act decisively against Israel’s destructive policies, and they must act immediately.

The post Beyond Gaza’s Shadow: The Unseen War for the West Bank’s Future appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photo by Šimom Caban

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of modern society, revolutionizing industries, enhancing daily life, and driving economic growth. From virtual assistants to advanced data analytics, AI applications are diverse and continue to expand rapidly. However, this rapid growth comes with significant environmental implications, particularly concerning energy consumption and carbon emissions. As AI technologies become more prevalent, understanding and mitigating their environmental impact is crucial for sustainable development. A typical AI data center, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), uses as much power as 100,000 households right now, but the largest centers currently being constructed will consume 20 times that amount.

The Energy Demands of AI

AI models, especially large-scale ones, require substantial computational power for training and operation. Training sophisticated models like GPT-3 (a platform that enables natural language conversations with advanced artificial intelligence) involves processing vast amounts of data through complex algorithms, necessitating extensive computational resources. For instance, training GPT-3 with 175 billion parameters consumed approximately 1,287 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, resulting in carbon emissions equivalent to driving 112 gasoline-powered cars for a year.

The energy-intensive nature of AI extends beyond training to deployment and inference phases. AI applications, such as image and speech recognition, natural language processing, and recommendation systems, continuously process data, resulting in ongoing energy consumption. Data centers, which house the hardware for these computations, have seen a significant rise in their electricity consumption. In 2022, global data center electricity consumption reached 460 terawatt-hours (TWh), positioning data centers as the 11th largest electricity consumer worldwide, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. In fact,projections by the IEA indicate that by 2030, electricity demand from data centers could more than double to around 945 TWh—more than Japan’s current annual electricity use.

The Carbon Footprint of AI

The environmental impact of AI is closely tied to the energy sources powering data centers. Many data centers rely on non-renewable energy sources, leading to substantial carbon emissions. In the United States, data centers accounted for over four percent of the nation’s total electricity consumption, with 56 percent of this energy derived from fossil fuels, resulting in more than 105 million tons of CO2 emissions.

Compared to other sectors, the carbon footprint of AI and data centers is becoming increasingly significant. For example, the emissions from in-house data centers of major tech companies, such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Apple, may be over seven times higher than officially reported. This underreporting underscores the need for increased transparency and accountability in evaluating the environmental impact of AI technologies.

One analyst from the Carbon Disclosure Project noted, “There’s a major transparency gap in how companies report data center emissions. As AI workloads surge, it’s essential we close that gap.”

How AI Is Accelerating the Climate Crisis 

The escalating demand for AI technologies places additional strain on global energy resources. As AI becomes more integrated into various sectors, the energy required to support these applications is expected to increase. Projections indicate that by 2028, data centers could account for up to 12 percent of the United States’ annual electricity consumption. This surge in energy consumption could lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating global warming and hindering efforts to combat climate change.

Furthermore, the expansion of data centers to support AI growth has led to increased water consumption for cooling purposes, adding another layer of environmental concern. The cumulative effect of these factors points to the urgent need to address the ecological impact of AI technologies.

In Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia—dubbed “Data Center Alley” due to its exceptionally high concentration of data centers, forming a significant hub for global internet traffic—water usage increased by nearly 63 percent between 2019 and 2023, primarily driven by the growth of AI-driven infrastructure. Similar concerns have been raised in Chile, where community opposition led Google to abandon water-based cooling at its Santiago facility in favor of more sustainable alternatives.

Tania Rodriguez, a community leader in Santiago, said, “We’re not against technology. But we cannot allow AI to grow at the cost of our water and future.”

Steps Toward Sustainable AI

Addressing the environmental challenges posed by AI necessitates a multifaceted approach that combines technological innovation, policy changes, and industry collaboration.

Efficiency Improvements: Optimizing AI models to enhance efficiency can significantly reduce energy consumption. Techniques such as model pruning (which removes redundant neural connections while maintaining performance), quantization (which reduces model precision by converting to lower bit-width formats), and knowledge distillation (which trains smaller “student” models to mimic larger “teacher” models) help streamline AI models, making them less computationally intensive without compromising performance. Implementing these methods can lead to substantial energy savings during both training and inference phases.

Renewable Energy Integration: Transitioning data centers to renewable energy sources is a critical step toward sustainability. By leveraging solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, data centers can decrease reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate environmental impact. Companies such as Google and Microsoft have invested in renewable energy projects to power their data centers, aiming to reduce their carbon footprints.

Google has matched 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy sources since 2017, and Microsoft has committed to becoming carbon negative by 2030. Meta and Microsoft have also pioneered liquid cooling techniques and direct current power systems, resulting in an improvement in energy efficiency of over three percent.

Anthropic and OpenAI have not disclosed specific sustainability benchmarks, raising questions about transparency in this space. However, industry-wide collaboration efforts, such as the AI Energy Score project, are beginning to push toward unified accountability standards.

Advanced Cooling Techniques: Innovative cooling methods, such as liquid cooling and AI-driven climate control systems, can enhance energy efficiency in data centers. These systems can reduce cooling energy consumption by over 18 percent compared to traditional air cooling methods. Implementing such technologies helps lower overall energy usage and associated emissions.

In a 2025 collaboration, Microsoft and Meta adopted electric vehicle-derived cooling systems to manage high-density AI racks exceeding one megawatt per unit, technologies that reduce heat while minimizing water usage.

According to Noman Bashir, Computing & Climate Impact Fellow at MIT’s Climate and Sustainability Consortium, the relationship between response speed and energy consumption in AI models is significant yet often overlooked. Despite this direct correlation, users remain largely unaware of how their AI interactions impact energy usage, as companies rarely highlight this aspect in their product presentations.

Policy Advocacy and Regulation: Governments and regulatory bodies play a pivotal role in promoting sustainable AI practices. Implementing policies that encourage energy efficiency, mandate transparency in reporting emissions, and provide incentives for using renewable energy can drive the industry toward more environmentally friendly practices. For instance, tax policies that address the carbon emissions from AI and cryptocurrency operations can help mitigate their environmental impact.

In the U.S., states such as Virginia are considering legislation to mandate water use estimates for data centers. Minnesota’s data center law, passed in 2025, requires data centers to consider water conservation measures if they plan to use more than 100 million gallons per year to cool their facilities. Ireland, facing grid instability due to rising demand driven by AI, is now reevaluating its permitting processes for new facilities.

Decentralized and Sustainable Data Centers: Exploring decentralized data center models powered by renewable energy sources can contribute to sustainability. Initiatives such as Earth Friendly Computation advocate for building data centers on Indigenous lands, utilizing local renewable resources, and promoting community involvement. Such approaches not only reduce environmental impact but also foster economic development in local communities.

Conclusion

The rapid advancement of AI brings about transformative benefits across various sectors. However, it also presents significant environmental challenges, particularly in terms of energy consumption and carbon emissions. Recognizing and addressing these hidden environmental costs is imperative for sustainable AI development.

Businesses, researchers, and governments must collaborate to prioritize sustainability in AI initiatives. This includes investing in energy-efficient technologies, integrating renewable energy sources, advanced cooling methods, and implementing supportive policies and regulations. Transparency in energy reporting and the use of standardized metrics for measuring AI’s environmental impact will be crucial in driving accountability and ensuring its responsible use.

Consumers also play a role in reducing AI’s energy footprint. By closing apps when not in use, choosing less resource-intensive tools, and supporting companies that demonstrate environmental responsibility, individuals can contribute to the collective effort, notes The World Economic Forum.

Ultimately, the future of AI must align with the planet’s future. As we continue to unlock AI’s potential, we must ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of our environment. Only by embedding sustainability into every layer of AI development can we achieve a brilliant—and responsible—technological evolution.

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

The post The Hidden Cost of AI: How Energy-Hungry Algorithms Are Fueling the Climate Crisis appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: Christopher Michel – CC BY 2.0

“There is no nation that feeds its enemies.  The British didn’t feed the Nazis nor did the Americans feed the Japanese, nor do the Russians feed the Ukrainians now.” 

– Amichay Eliyahu, Israel’s Heritage Ministry, July 24, 2025

“How many times can a man turn his head/and pretend that he just doesn’t see.”
– Bob Dylan, “Blowing in the Wind,” 1962

“Israel is prolonging the war, even though we do not see where further progress cans be made.”

–Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy, 2025

Last week, Bret Stephens, the New York Times’ leading warmonger and apologist for Israel, penned a lead editorial that denied Israel was committing genocide in Israel.  The editorials and articles in the NYT’s have always favored Israel, but no NYT’s columnist compares to Stephens, whose writings are chauvinistic and bellicose.  Stephens, a former editor of the Jerusalem Post and a supporter of all Israeli policies, left the Wall Street Journal to join the Times in 2017 because he believed Israel was not getting a fair hearing in the mainstream media.  In doing so, he joined other Jewish columnists at the Times (Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and Roger Cohen).  However, while these men bring some objectivity to the problem of Israel, Stephens has no limits in his support of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu.

Stephens limits his definition of genocide to assault against innocent civilians, which allows him to ignore the international definition developed during World War II that includes cultural genocide.  Even with his definition, Israel is committing genocide on the basis of the brutal starvation of the Palestinian population, which is an assault on the physical survival of Gaza’s population. 

Israel is clearly committing cultural genocide to ensure that its militarism stops Palestinians in Gaza from ever constituting itself as a political, social, or cultural entity.  The convention against genocide mandates that signatory states must prevent genocide and that war criminals who carried out genocide must be punished.  The International Court of Justice stipulates that severe sanctions can be imposed on nations that conduct genocide.

The targeting procedures of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are consistent with the objectives of cultural genocide.  The IDF has made Gaza uninhabitable and, in the process, has systematically destroyed or damaged virtually the entire civilian infrastructure.  This military campaign has targeted every government building, hospital, medical clinic, school, university, mosque, library, and archive.  Israel had turned Gaza into an outdoor prison before the war, and there is no chance that Gaza can now be revived for civilian life.  As Netanyahu said in May, “We are destroying more and more homes.  They have nowhere to return to.”  Certainly, this is genocidal.

The relentless and repetitively compulsive Israeli attacks over the past two decades indicates that Israelis are making innocent Palestinians pay for the savagery of the Germans 85 years ago.  The current massacre, such as the one in Sedalia, with Palestinian children carrying white flags and running for their lives from Israeli tanks and artillery, is reminiscent of the massacre of the Warsaw Ghetto, the largest of all Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.  We know so little of Israel savagery because the Israelis have kept journalists out of Gaza.  There is also terrible savagery in the West Bank, but Western journalists have displayed little interest in covering the terror imposed by Israeli settlers against Palestinians. The mainstream media is finally getting around to covering the starvation in Gaza after the evidence mounted in a year and a half of savage bombing with U.S.-supplied weaponry..

Now, we are seeing the IDF target women and children who are trying to get food and medicine from a very limited assistance effort that Israel is permitting.  According to Omer Bartov, a Professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, “Gaza now has the grim distinction of having the highest number of amputee children per capita in the world.” Chronically ill Palestinians have very little access to hospital care.  The fact that Palestinians must risk their lives to acquire a bag of flour is absolutely repulsive.

Stephens justifies Israeli savagery as necessary against Hamas, but there is little left of Hamas to target.  Instead, the IDF is preoccupied with moving Palestinian civilians from one part of Gaza to another, while its bombardment continues everywhere in the Strip.   The IDF fight against Hamas was essentially over more than a year ago, and the weakened group that still emerges from their tunnels to contest the IDF is extremely limited. Stephens explains that Israel could kill many more Palestinians if it was truly pursuing genocide.  What a pathetic statement.  Israeli intent is obvious.

Israeli acts of violence against innocent Palestinians have been taking place for over 75 years, beginning with the terrorism and ethnic cleansing that took place in the 1948 war…the Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic.  The forced displacement and dispossession of Palestinians from their homes that began in 1948 is still taking place in the West Bank, in addition to Gaza.  The Nakba in 1948 involved the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from what became the Jewish state.  Palestinians are the only refugees in the world that have hereditary refugee status among international relief agencies..

There are several certainties in this narrative.  First, the New York Times will always give Israel the benefit of the doubt, and Bret Stephens will excuse any barbarity that Israel imposes on the Palestinian people.  The NYT’s Walter Duranty, ironically, was the leading apologist for Stalin’s genocide in the 1930s.  Second, when scholars and academics study genocide in the future, they will frame their writings and research around Joseph Stalin and Ukraine (the Holodomor); Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust; and Benjamin Netanyahu and the latest Nakba.  Third, the United States—particularly Biden and Trump—will be guilty of complicity for the barbarity that Israel is imposing on innocent Palestinians.

The post The New York Times’ Leading Apologist for Israel is Still at It appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Mountain pass, California rare earth mineral ining and processing facility. Photo courtesy of Tmy 350 and Creative commons Attribution Share alike 4.0 .

Montanans are well aware of the asbestos disaster caused by the vermiculite mine in Libby that turned the town into a Superfund site. Libby’s tremolite asbestos lurked in the shadows for decades until determined citizens brought the hidden killer to light. But too late for more than 400 people who died and many more left sickened with asbestosis, dying slowly and painfully from asbestos fibers lodged in their lungs. 

A similar disaster was narrowly avoided when actinolite, a mineral that belongs to the amphibole family became a topic of concern about the proposed Skalkaho vermiculite mine near Hamilton in 1999. The question of asbestos was not addressed by officials until the mine was almost permitted. Only after the Bitterroot National Forest had issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement did the agency decide to evaluate the potential for asbestos exposure. The mining company folded before testing. 

As “Roadside Geology of Montana” notes: “Several early attempts to mine vermiculite in the Skalkaho intrusion went poorly. While at one time that seemed unfortunate, now it’s clear that we narrowly escaped having another major environmental disaster.”

Yet, Montanans are facing this situation once again with the US Critical Materials Sheep Creek mine project at the headwaters of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River. There could hardly be in a riskier place to mine given the location, the surrounding wilderness lands, and the threat of river contamination throughout the Bitterroot Valley. 

The company did not pick that spot for a rare earth elements deposit nor choose other minerals associated with the rare earth elements in the ore veins. But one of those minerals is actinolite, a close relative of Libby’s deadly tremolite — and both are asbestos in their fibrous form. 

As a recent study on the dangers of actinolite concluded: “The lack of widespread awareness regarding actinolite complicates efforts to mitigate its health risks. Unlike more commonly known asbestos types…actinolite often remains underestimated. Actinolite occurs in both fibrous and non-fibrous forms, but the fibrous type has garnered a reputation due to its links with asbestos. The health risks associated with this mineral cannot be overstated: Exposure to actinolite, particularly in environments where it is disturbed, poses significant respiratory health risks. The potential for mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other diseases expands with prolonged exposure.”

To be clear, nobody knows if there is asbestos at Sheep Creek. But there is good reason to suspect asbestos may be there. Geologists at Montana Tech report that actinolite is one of the most common minerals in the host rock and the veinlets containing ore are “actinolite-rich.” The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Crowley Bulletin reports actinolite at Sheep Creek “forms masses of radiating fibers surrounding other crystals.” The American Mineralogist, a prestigious industry journal, confirms: “actinolite forms clusters of fibers, usually in radiating groups.” 

There’s no question the actinolite is there. But although US Critical Materials has sampled ore for several years and tested for a long list of analytes, I can find no mention of possible asbestos on US Critical Materials’ website. 

Asbestos exposure happens by breathing contaminated dust, which is very hard to contain and clean up. Mining is dusty business. Workers at Sheep creek are already breathing dust. So why not test for asbestos to inform both the public and agency management? We’ve been down this lethal road before. Public health concerns are clear: test soon to avoid spreading asbestos around if it’s there.

Contact Bitterroot NF Supervisor Matt Anderson matthew.anderson3@usda.gov and Ranger Dan Pliley Plileydaniel.pliley@usda.gov about possible asbestos at Sheep Creek.

The post Sheep Creek Mine: Why Risk Another Libby Asbestos Disaster? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

If ever there was a sign that democracy in the United States is in dire straits, it was Congress’s rescission of $9 billion in funding for public media, achieved via a party-line vote of 216 to 213 on July 18, 2025. The vote took place despite the fact that millions of people wrote to their elected representatives urging them not to cut funds and that a majority of Americans, including Republicans, support federal funding of public media.

Public funding of media is not the problem that President Donald Trump and his puppet masters at the Heritage Foundation claim it is. Not enough public funding for it is the real problem. According to public media experts Victor Pickard and Timothy Neff, “the U.S. government is notable among democratic nations for how little it funds its public media.”

Compare the public media funding cuts to the $28 billion in tax dollars that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency will receive thanks to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill—a subsidy that goes against public opinion.

A well-resourced media ecosphere is essential to democracy—an informed electorate is far more capable of keeping its representatives accountable than an ignorant one. Fascism thrives on ignorance, and that is precisely what the defunding of public media symbolizes within the context of excessive funding of armed enforcement agents.

Since 1967, congressionally appropriated funds have been distributed to thousands of small broadcast media outlets via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a private nonprofit organization. But CPB funding represents only about 0.01 percent of the federal budget. American media were never very well-resourced—and that was always the problem. For a nation of nearly 350 million people, a few billion dollars of taxpayer funding for public media is akin to crumbs from a heavily laden table.

And still, using those crumbs, small radio stations managed to operate in all corners of the nation, never fully thriving, and constantly relying on pledge drives and corporate sponsorship to fill budgetary gaps.

That sliver of the federal budget just barely enabled the maintenance of an essential public service. “Although mainstream news media face historically low levels of trust, public broadcasting enjoys relatively high levels, even among Trump supporters,” wrote Pickard and Neff in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2021.

CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison concurred, saying that “public media has served families in every corner of America, especially rural and tribal communities, providing extraordinary vital content and services free of charge.”

Moreover, according to Harrison, “Cutting federal funding could also put Americans at risk of losing national and local emergency alerts that serve as a lifeline to many Americans in times of severe need.” Given the unprecedented flooding that states like Texas and North Carolina faced in July 2025 due to unchecked global warming, local emergency alerts are more necessary than ever.

For nearly two decades, I worked at KPFK, Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, a station that once relied on CPB funding. At regular intervals, KPFK would test—as required by virtue of being a public radio station—its emergency alert system over the airwaves. The loss of public funding is likely to lead to the closure of many such public radio stations, and therefore emergency alerts, across the nation.

We knew this was coming, and indeed, Americans voted for it. The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership, also known as Project 2025, made defunding public media a major goal, claiming that “To stop public funding [of media] is good policy and good politics.” Advising a future Republican president, the document’s authors quoted the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying, “conservatives were being ‘confronted with a long-range problem of significant social consequences—that is, the development of a government-funded broadcast system similar to the BBC.’”

Project 2025 specifically named those media outlets deemed the greatest threats to conservative ideology, saying, “Stripping public funding would, of course, mean that NPR, PBS, Pacifica Radio, and the other leftist broadcasters would be shorn of the presumption that they act in the public interest and receive the privileges that often accompany so acting.” And yet, NPR and PBS in particular have often appeased the right, as per years of analysis by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

Interestingly, Project 2025’s authors understood that stripping public funds for media would not impact big media outlets such as NPR and PBS, saying, “Defunding CPB would by no means cause NPR or PBS… to file for bankruptcy,” and that “NPR and PBS stations are in reality no longer noncommercial, as they run ads in everything but name for their sponsors.”

Indeed, one can argue there is a correlation between private funding and bias, and not public funding and bias. The more a news outlet relies on private sources of funding, the more likely it is to play it safe to avoid upsetting its sponsors.

U.S. media has been so tilted toward the right that we have a culture that is now dominated by conservatism. If media outlets operated according to the highest standards of journalism, they would indeed be biased against the doctrine favored by billionaires and bigots—injustice, greed, domination, and authoritarianism—values that thrive in a web of lies and wither when exposed by facts. Not being tough enough on right-wing ideas and policies has, in part, paved the path to defunding the media.

To summarize, conservative forces have claimed (wrongly) that NPR and PBS are biased against them, admitted that those outlets aren’t as reliant on public funding as smaller media outlets, and voted to defund public media anyway; they are hurting the constellation of small media outlets relying on taxpayer funds. The long-term conservative goal is to fuel public ignorance and the subsequent embrace of the morally bankrupt ideology of the right.

The coming mass shuttering of small publicly funded media outlets will happen within the context of already expanding news deserts. The U.S. has, for generations, suffered from unsustainable models of media funding. Without public funding, news outlets have few options: they can rely on corporate advertisements and sponsorships, appeal to foundations for private support, or cultivate subscriptions and donations from individuals.

Corporate advertising and private philanthropic support are most problematic and can result in subtle pressures on editorial coverage to appease funders. Meanwhile, subscriptions and donations are extremely challenging, especially for smaller media outlets, and rely on a populace weary of rising costs and stagnant wages.

Public funding of the media is an antidote to bias, not the driver of it. Just as public funding offers solutions to the crises of health care, child care, banking, and education, it is an obvious solution to the crisis of unsustainable journalism.

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

The post Public Funding is the Solution to Media Bias, Not the Driver appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: Ashraf Amra – CC BY-SA 4.0

The bronze sculpture by Marie Uchytilová, Memorial to the Children Victims of the War, depicting the 82 children of Lidice murdered at Chełmno in 1942, serves as a haunting reminder of the barbarity that defined the Nazi-led Lidice massacre. In reprisal for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazis razed the village of Lidice, executed its men, and deported its women and children to death camps.

The murder of these innocent children, whose faces are forever memorialized in Uchytilová’s sculpture, resonates deeply today, as we witness the suffering of children in Gaza, where the cycle of violence continues unabated. The massacres of these children, then and now, serve as stark symbols of the ongoing tragedy of war and genocide, linking past and present in an unbroken chain of human suffering.

In Gaza, the atrocities visited upon children are unspeakable, a violence that staggers the imagination. Omer Bartov, a distinguished scholar of Holocaust and Genocide studies, reports in The New York Times that more than 17,000 children have been slaughtered in Gaza, 870 of them infants, not yet one year old. He further reveals that Gaza now has the highest rate of child amputations per capita in the world. These chilling figures unravel the brutal truths of modern warfare, a sickening continuation of the horrors we dared to believe had been consigned to history’s darkest pages, alongside Auschwitz and Hiroshima.

But the genocide in Gaza, like the slaughter at Lidice, cannot be hidden. It stands as an undeniable, grotesque monument to the unchecked power of the state and the monstrous machinery of war. This tragedy is different from past atrocities in one disturbing respect: the suffering of Gaza’s women and children, the use of starvation as a weapon, the unrelenting bombardment, and the spectacle of mass murder are laid bare for all to see. The grotesque violence is not concealed, it is flaunted, glorified in the guttering language of demagogues and amplified by the shameful silence of the mainstream media. In addition, as a testament to the grotesque violence of gangster capitalism, entire villages are being bulldozed in the interest of appealing to private investors who can turn Gaza, in the words of President Trump, into a “riviera of the Middle East.”

The collapse of conscience is not a distant abstraction but a visceral reality, carved into the bloodstained bodies of women and children, their lives and futures obliterated by the ruthless forces of war. It is etched into the hands of those who perpetuate this unbearable violence against a defenseless yet resilient people. This erosion of humanity is also made explicit in the chilling words of Israeli politicians. Take, for instance, former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin, who pushed this rhetoric to unspeakable extremes in a 2025 interview on Israeli Channel 14. He declared, “Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy. The enemy is not Hamas, nor is it the military wing of Hamas … We need to conquer Gaza and colonize it and not leave a single Gazan child there. There is no other victory.” Feigin’s words lay bare a harrowing truth: this is no longer a war, but a calculated and dehumanizing military campaign, a ruthless genocidal war,  aimed at erasing not only the most vulnerable—Palestinian children—but an entire people from existence.”

Nowhere is the heartlessness of the Netanyahu government and the Israeli state, and the shameless indifference of most of the world. more evident than in the deliberate starvation of an entire people. Because of the enforced blockade of aid to Gaza, 81 people have died from starvation, while Gaza’s health ministry reports over 28,000 cases of malnutrition, including more than 5,000 children. “According to U.N. spokesperson, Thameen Al-Kheetan, “as of July 21st, 1,054 people have been killed while simply trying to obtain food.” This is not merely a humanitarian catastrophe—it is an act of collective punishment, a slow, grinding extermination. Infants wither in their mothers’ arms, their tiny bodies hollowed by hunger. Mothers, themselves starving, have no milk to give. Children gaze with sunken eyes and swollen bellies, their cries of hunger echoing into a silence broken only by the roar of bombs. The smell of death is everywhere-with no shame, only the hunger of extermination. The deliberate starvation and murder of those seeking bread, the withering of children before the eyes of the world, is more than a moral stain or a violation of international law—it is the mark of a state descending into the savagery and cruelty of genocidal authoritarianism. And yet, the silence of much of the world remains deafening.

The atrocities occurring in Gaza are not merely a crisis–they are a profound moral catastrophe, one that forces us to confront the global collapse of conscience. As we bear witness to the brutal, real-time images of children being torn apart by bombs, snipers, and the Israeli Defense Forces, we are confronted with a global moral collapse. The major powers continue to arm Israel, while academic institutions remain silent and corporate-controlled media either ignore or vilify those who dare to speak out against the Israeli government’s actions. We are witnessing what could be described as the Hiroshima of our time, an event that signifies not only the destruction of lives but the erosion of our collective conscience.

The parallels between the children of Lidice and the children of Gaza are undeniable. Both are casualties of power, victims of regimes that see them as expendable. Yet, in the erasure of history, in the paralyzing censorship that pervades many parts of the world, we risk forgetting the lessons of the past. The ghosts of genocidal violence are not distant echoes, lingering only in the forgotten corners of history, they are present, shaping the policies that continue to devastate innocent lives. To ignore these lessons is to abandon our moral compass, to deny our shared humanity, and to let history repeat itself.

We stand at a crossroads. The violence and brutality we are witnessing today demand more than passive observation; they demand collective moral action. The tragedy unfolding in Gaza is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader pattern of state violence and genocide. It is a global issue, one that transcends borders and affects us all. It is time to acknowledge the atrocities being committed and to act with the urgency that the situation demands. The children of Gaza are not just casualties of a distant conflict; they are the children of humanity, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure their suffering does not continue unchecked. The time to dismantle the machinery of death and state terrorism is now.

Our collective responsibility is no longer a choice, it is an imperative. Every child is our child. This is not a hollow slogan but a profound truth, a declaration of our boundless commitment, our unwavering love, and our shared hope for all children, for whom we bear an irreplaceable responsibility. It is a call to action, an urgent demand for justice that transcends mere words, and a vision of hope as a fierce, militant force resisting the childcide that stains our world. It is a rallying cry against the gangster militarism and ruthless authoritarianism that enable such horrors, a reminder that our fight for the future is inextricably bound to the lives of the youngest among us.

Note from the publisher:  You can call your representatives via Code Pink’s Congress Action page. They provide a script that urges congress to:

Support a ceasefire and open humanitarian corridors
Vote NO on future weapons shipments to Israel
Demand aid for Gaza, not bombs
Dial (202) 224‑3121 as your voice from your ZIP code.
Find the contact link here.

The post The Silent Cries of Gaza: A Legacy of Innocence Lost and the Urgent Call to Confront Genocide appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: Ashraf Amra – CC BY-SA 4.0

“I have a cold. And in one hour, I’ll have finished a twenty-four-hour shift, heartbroken again. I lost a cardiac patient because we had no medication. Another patient shot in the head, was left to die slowly because we had no ventilator. A child with a shattered skull and exposed brain matter just died in front of me. I also just found a kidney patient collapsed on the bedroom floor. He had a seizure due to brain damage because he has not had dialysis in three months. A diabetic man hadn’t eaten in four days. He cried when I asked why. I gave him fluids and some money to buy flour. I’m so sorry for the starving, for the children we couldn’t save, for the mothers, for the elderly, for the vulnerable. Not a single shift has passed without having me shattered.”

This is the reality in Gaza right now for the medical profession struggling to save an overwhelming amount of patients, not only from the bombings and gunshot wounds but now also from starvation. And the starvation has reached everyone, including the doctors themselves, some of whom have passed out on the floors of what remains of Gaza’s hospitals, then picked themselves up and gone back to work.

Those opening words belonged to Dr. Ali Tahrawi, an emergency room doctor at Alqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, Gaza.They were read aloud at a recent Washington, DC press conference by Dr. Ashraf Abou El-Ezz, a physician from Indiana who knows he has all the resources he needs.

But somehow, the words are never loud enough and even though they were spoken in the shadow of the US Capitol building, those inside had already left for the summer recess. And in any case, most of them are not listening. Only US Representative Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan Democrat and the sole Palestinian American in Congress, remained behind to host the press conference.

“I dread the moment Hanan and Misk will ask me about their legs,” continued medical student Sharad Wertheimer, a member, like the others, of the US-based global network, Doctors Against Genocide (DAG), reading the words of Hala Sha’sha’aj, a 40-year old mother of five from Gaza city.

“What will I tell them? When I go to buy shoes for my children, what will I do when Hanan and Misk ask why I don’t buy them any? If they say, ‘I want to play’, ‘I want to dance’, ‘I want to ride a bike,’ what will I say to them? They lost their father, the love, compassion and security he gave them, and they also lost their legs, the ability to move and play. Everything beautiful in their lives is gone. Their childhood was stolen. What did they do to deserve such devastation?”

One after another, the doctors in their white coats and scrubs stepped forward to read the words of their colleagues, friends, relatives and people they don’t know at all, just human beings who matter and who are trapped in the concentration camps and free fire zones that Gaza has now become under the Israeli bombardment and forced starvation.

The doctors have heard these stories over and over for 22 months, during which time the situation has continued to get worse and the inaction by the US and other governments more criminal. But now, in the heat of late July, having lobbied members of Congress, protested, disrupted meetings and been arrested, they are running out of patience.

“We will not be polite”, warned John Reuwer, a retired ER doctor and member of DAG, who said he had been to five war zones but had never seen anything as bad as the current situation in Gaza. “We are here to say ‘no more’”, he said. “We will not stop. And we will not forget.”

And so the doctors continued to bear witness on behalf of the besieged and desperate Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

“On the 28th of March, the soldiers called me and two other civilian prisoners, aged around 16 and 17, by name,” came the words of Dr. Khalid Alseer, read by Dr. Qurat-ul-ain Syedain. “It was night. They tied us very tightly at our wrists and ankles and put us in a military car. No one told us anything. We drove for around two hours into the hills. All the while they beat us, kicking us and humiliating us. They were laughing. I was trying to explain in English that the ties on my wrist were too tight, but they just said I was a doctor so I would be okay.

“At around 4 am I heard one say in Arabic, ‘these three are to be hanged.’ I thought it was the end. I was in pain. They had broken my ribs. Even when they said I was going to be hanged, I didn’t care. I just wanted it to end.” Dr. Alseer was eventually released in late September, reunited with his parents for whom he is the sole provider.

“In mid-April 2024, Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh arrived at Section 23 in Ofer Prison,” read Dr. Roxana Samimi from an eyewitness account by a captive at the notorious detention center in the occupied West Bank and as told to Sky News. “The prison guards brought Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh into the section in a deplorable state. He had clearly been assaulted with injuries around his body. He was naked in the lower part of his body. The prison guards threw him in the middle of the yard and left him there. Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh was unable to stand up. One of the prisoners helped him and accompanied him to one of the rooms. A few minutes later, prisoners were heard screaming from the room they went into, declaring Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh was dead.”

How many more such testimonies need to be heard, the doctors wondered? What has happened to our humanity if we can live in a country that allows such a genocide to continue and our tax dollars to support it? Included in that so-called support is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an Israel-US front that distributes aid as a form of Russian roulette, where young children are picked off by snipers, running barefoot to faster escape the bullets while trying to get food to feed their families.

“This is not a war, this is an extermination campaign,” said Dr. Nidal Jboor, a Michigan internal medicine specialist and a co-founder of DAG. “From the concentration camps of the Holocaust, to the killing fields of Cambodia, to the concentration zones Israel is building across Gaza, and now the American-backed death distribution centers, the genocide is the same.”

“This institution is not moving with the majority of their constituencies,” said Tlaib, pointing to the Capitol dome behind her. “And it’s shameful because if they polled their constituents to ask if they wanted another dime spent on continuing to support another war crime in Gaza, they would tell you ‘hell no’,” she said. “We say enough is enough.”

The post “Everything Beautiful in Their Lives is Gone:” US Physicians Read Aloud the Searing Testimony of Desperate Doctors and Patients in Gaza    appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Afghan evacuees boarding American aircraft during Operation Allies Refuge in 2021.

In February 2022, a British Royal Marine officer—often among the brightest—made a mistake while seconded to a UK Special Forces base at Regent’s Park barracks in London. He was trying to sift through thousands of false claimants. His task: reduce the number of bogus and potentially dangerous applicants. He believed he was protecting his country.

He emailed a spreadsheet to the wrong people. On it were names of Afghan men and women who had helped the UK. Some had fought. Some interpreted. Some did quieter work. It listed where they lived—and with whom. It also included over a hundred UK special forces and intelligence personnel, plus other government staff.

It was, in effect, a kill list. Handed out by accident.

To keep the Taliban from seeing it—without knowing if they already had—the UK government asked the courts for silence. Also, what if those UK names were passed on to Russia, China or Iran? They got it: an injunction. No one could speak. The truth was buried—not like a hatchet, more like an Afghan peshkabz—so people could be rescued. I repeat: so people could be rescued.

Not all were.

They said 100,000 were at risk. About 18,500 got out. Secret routes. Back channels. The cost? Nearly a billion pounds. The total Afghan resettlement bill? Six billion? Numbers should be easy to count. People are not. Alarmingly, defence sources now said only one in sixteen people in the breach might be genuine—might. The rest with no link to the Armed Forces. There were even whispers of attempted blackmail by one Afghan. Whispers can be pernicious, even if true. Understandably, the real claimants still stranded in Afghanistan were no friends of those exploiting the leak.

The secrecy broke only last week when the courts lifted the injunction—by then a super-injunction, meaning even its existence could not be reported.

For some Afghans, it wasn’t until the morning of 15 July that they received news of it—through emails sent by the UK government in English, Pashto, and Dari. Lawsuits began. At last count, over 600 people were seeking damages. Manchester-based Barings Law is handling many. They take a maximum of 25 percent, so may make over £100 million in fees—though they say they’re giving voice to people who lost homes, livelihoods, and liberty.

It’s such a mess that most Brits who were once there themselves feel sick to their stomachs. Remember, Brits had no warning of Biden’s sudden decision in August 2021 to abandon the Afghans. No time to look after the Triples or interpreters. Most Afghans who escaped did so after 2021. Around 36,000 through official routes. Another 4,500 came after the leak. Nearly 7,000 more are on the way.

Passage wasn’t guaranteed. Vetting takes time. Some still wait. A UK broadsheet published just under 130 photos of Afghans from the list reportedly killed by the Taliban.

I remember seeing many Afghans in Kabul and Helmand working with the UK—men and women genuinely believing they were building a peaceful, post-war Afghanistan, even as some of their politicians fled to the Gulf with some of the cash.

The doors closed on 1 July. No fresh applications. The system is full. Or tired. Or both.

In Parliament, John Healey, the Defence Secretary, rose in a navy suit. His red-and-white tie matched the earlier ministerial red box. One report said the tie was askew. It wasn’t. It was straight as a blade. He said 900 primary applicants, plus 3,600 family members, had been relocated. Cost: £400 million. They’re reviewing policy. The Triples will be reconsidered. Vetting is strong, he said. He said many things. Notably, he didn’t seek political capital from the fact it happened on a Tory watch.

It was said Tory leader Kemi Badenoch had only just learned about the leak—having declined a security briefing months ago. Interestingly, former Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak called a General Election the day after a judge declared the super-injunction should be lifted.

Outside Westminster, people got on with it.

In London, Nooralhaq Nasimi built something. A refugee turned citizen, he founded the Afghanistan & Central Asian Association. They taught English, helped women, showed people how to live here without losing themselves. His daughters, Rabia and Shabnam, joined him—sharp, certain voices for the new Afghans.

Then there’s Dr. Waheed Arian. He came from war. Became a doctor. Now he heals by phone—telemedicine calls to Helmand. His way of fighting back.

But last week, the headlines were never about them. Nor were they just about false claimants. They were also about the Triples.

CF333 and ATF444. Afghan special forces. Trained by the UK. Fought beside them. Killed for them. Left behind by them. I remember such men at such bases as Camp Bastion and Lashkar Gar.

Often small, they moved like hawks. Five thousand served alongside UK Special Forces. Trained, equipped, paid by the UK. That’s not anecdotal—it’s in court filings and official assessments. What’s under scrutiny now isn’t their service, but how they were treated after 2021. But the figure—5,000—is solid.

When they tried to come here, they were turned away. The Ministry said they didn’t serve ‘closely enough.’ Meanwhile, dozens were caught and killed as referenced above. Others tortured. Some ran.

One, a former CF333 sniper—they call him Habibullah—lives in a shared hotel room in Worcester. Supported on about £9 a week. Eighteen months waiting for asylum. Perhaps even greeted by anti-migrant protesters who have no idea what he did for UK forces. Also unaware that only 4% of migrants are asylum seekers. He went on raids. He hid. He fled. He made it here—as I say, perhaps now only hearing people shout him down.

Another flew intelligence drones. Denied entry twice. Still in hiding. Maybe in a basement. Maybe listening for knocks. Maybe hasn’t seen daylight in days.

Johnny Mercer, former Veterans Minister, called the programme hapless. I met Mercer in Kabul in 2008 when he still wore the uniform. T-shirted, sometimes. Boots dusty. He had that look soldiers get—somewhere between angry and exhausted. Never lost his manners, though.

Now they’re reviewing it all. The Triples. The rejections. The silence. Some 2,500 cases are under new scrutiny. Mercer strongly believes that Afghan special forces who worked with British personnel—the Triples—should be here, for their own safety. ‘An uneasy but necessary rescue job,’ someone called it.

The leak, the injunction, the flights—all of it converges. Lawsuits mount. Politicians talk. It’s a numbers game now. Many made it. Many did not. Some wait. Some remember the promises. Some, not a small number, may well be bogus.

That’s the story. Brutal. Simple. Sad. The way most stories end when a state picks up a weapon for someone else, before being obliged by said masters to scarper.

I mean—what were we even doing in Afghanistan? It’s not like we gained any credit from the aggressive likes of JD Vance, who calls the UK ‘a random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.’ (All the more extraordinary that he chooses the Cotswolds for the family summer holiday this year.) And we all know ‘no new wars’ Trump has already overseen almost as many air strikes in five months as Biden in his whole presidency.

But I keep going back to the Royal Marine.

He sent the wrong file.

It was as simple—and as disastrous—as that.

The post The Afghan Kill List appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Egyptian-born Omar El Akkad had studied in the United States and been 10 years a journalist when, in the summer of 2021, he became an American citizen. Covering the War on Terror in Afghanistan and at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay exposed him to the “deep ugly cracks in the bedrock of this thing they called “the free world.” Yet he believed the cracks could be repaired – “Until the fall of 2023. Until the slaughter.”

The slaughter was Israel’s razing of Gaza following Hamas’s rampage into Israel on October 7, 2023. The Israeli assault escalated to include massive bombardment, enforced hunger, destruction of hospitals and schools, bulldozing of dwellings deprivation of medical care, torture and the slaughter of tens of thousands of men, women and children. The onslaught caused Akkad to despair for Gaza’s Palestinians and for his adopted country, whose financing and weapons enabled it. He channelled that despair into the rage that inspired this excellent and troubling book.

One Day, Everyone Will Always Be Against This is neither polemic nor memoir, although it contains elements of both. Akkad’s prose is an appeal to readers not to wait for “one day” in the distant future to resist injustice not only in Gaza, but in the wider world: “In the coming years there will be much written about what took place in Gaza, the horrors that have been meticulously documented by Palestinians as they happened and meticulously brushed aside by the major media apparatus of the western world.” When the killing ceases, as with genocides of native Americans, Tasmanians, Namibia’s Hereros and Namas, Armenians, Jews and Tutsis, it will be too late.

Akkad’s condemnation of U.S. policy in the formerly-colonized world sits uneasily beside his choice to live and raise his children in the land that torments people who, like him, are brown or Muslim or doomed to live under American-supported Arab dictators or Israeli occupation. His rationale is as simple as it is understandable: “I live here because it will always be safer to live on the launching side of the missiles. I live here because I am afraid.”

He is unafraid to speak against the Biden administration’s veto of United Nations resolutions calling for ceasefires in Gaza (“untroubled when they say a ceasefire resolution represents a greater threat to lasting peace than the ongoing obliteration of an entire people”) and its termination of funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that was the primary supplier of food, medical care and education to Palestinian refugees. Yet speaking out seems futile. As the author of the award-winning novel American War and sometime columnist, he does not spare himself and other writers for political impotence: “What is this work we do? What are we good for?” He quotes Egyptian-American poet Marwa Helal:

this is where the
poets will say: show, don’t tell
but that
assumes most people
can see.

Too many seek refuge in propaganda that what is being done to Palestinians is necessary. Akkad quotes an Israeli newspaper post’s headline from seven months prior to October 7: “When Genocide is Permissible.” Palestinians are killed every day in Gaza, “but the unsaid thing is that it is all right because that’s what those people do, they die.”

This book is not devoid of hope, which he finds in resistance that can be positive (“showing up to protests and speaking out”) and negative (“refusing to participate”). He praises students “risking expulsion and defamation, risking their livelihoods, their entire careers” and Jewish protestors “being arrested on the streets of Frankfurt, blocking Grand Central Station in New York, fighting for peace.” Their efforts, however ineffective, absolve them of the culpability of waiting for everyone else to be “against this.”

Charles Glass is a writer, journalist and broadcaster, who has written on conflict in the Middle East, Africa and Europe for the past 50 years. He was ABC News Chief Middle East Correspondent from 1983 to 1993 and has covered wars in Lebanon, Syria, Eritrea, Rhodesia, Somalia, Iraq, East Timor and Bosnia-Herzegovina. His many books have dealt with the First and Second World Wars as well as contemporary Middle East history.

The post To Resist Injustice in Gaza and the Wider World appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph Source: Wikideas1 – CC0

The United States is responsible for half of global spending on defense.  The Trump administration is committed to spending more than $1 trillion dollars on defense, and this figure doesn’t include the hundreds of billions devoted to the intelligence community, the Department of Energy, the Veterans’ Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security.  There is huge waste in the defense budget, and the major culprits in this department are the unneeded modernization of U.S. strategic weaponry and the so-called Golden Dome national missile defense.  The enormous cost and technological deficiencies of the U.S.-supplied, European-based missile defense system adds to the huge bloat in U.S. defense spending.

The Golden Dome missile defense system, as proposed by President Trump, is estimated to cost $175 billion. This cost is just for the initial three-year build, with ongoing operational and sustainment costs potentially pushing the total figure much higher. Some estimates from organizations like the Congressional Budget Office suggest a total cost between $161 and $542 billion over two decades. Since programs were first launched in the 1950s to build systems capable of intercepting incoming nuclear or conventional weapons, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on various missile defense programs.

Over the years, NMD has been a technical flop, having failed most of its tests.  The NMD system has flaws such as an adversary’s ability to use shorter range ballistic and cruise missiles that could “underfly” NMD.  The U.S. system could be defeated by numerous unsophisticated countermeasures and decoys that would overload the NMD system and create confusion.  Moreover, the U.S. system will never be tested in a realistic battle environment, and there is no assurance that a U.S. system could be effective against all of the many varieties of countermeasures.

Even a flawed NMD system will create instability in the nuclear community.  Russia would fear that the United States would feel protected by the so-called shield, and China would fear that its smaller nuclear arsenal would be compromised.  The level of instability could lead such non-nuclear states as Japan and South Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and thus weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty that has kept the number of nuclear states to nine.  If unchecked, proliferation would have no logical stopping point.

Laser-driven systems, launched in the atmosphere or in outer space, have still not resolved their problems, despite billions of research dollars by various administrations over the past four decades.  Testing of these systems has failed to produce credibility, and some of the tests have created a false reality by programming the flight characteristics of the targeted missiles and artificially identifying the test missile from the decoy.

Finally, there are alternatives to national missile defense, particularly the pursuit of arms control and disarmament.  The United States missed a major opportunity in the 1990s and 2000s, when Russia was weak and open to a strategic dialogue and China was still committed to minimal strategic deterrence,  Moreover, the last arms control agreement between the United States and Russia—the New Start Treaty—is scheduled to expire in January 2026.

The U.S. retreat from arms control and renewed commitment to NMD will only worsen the problem of nuclear proliferation as nuclear nations will pursue greater deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles and non-nuclear states, such as Japan and South Korea, could consider the deployment of nuclear weaponry.  The absence of any nuclear dialogue at present and the strained relations between the United States and both China and Russia are major contributors to the current state of international instability.  The Trump administration’s cut backs at the Department of State and the National Security Council as well as the politicization of the intelligence community will make it more difficult for the United States to enter a serious and substantive dialogue on any aspect of arms control.

Our European allies are opposed to a U.S. missile defense system because of the unilateral abilities it will provide for U.S. security and the risk of greater proliferation,  President George W. Bush’s abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty marked a major setback to nuclear stability because it created an incentive to produce additional offensive weaponry.    Overall, there is no reason to invest in a national missile defense system, and no reason to believe that, if we do, U.S. strategic security will be enhanced.

The post The Waste and Futility of the Golden Dome National Missile Defense System appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Donald Trump is putting in place the largest tax increase in the country’s history with his big import taxes (tariffs). We won’t know the full size of Trump’s taxes until after Liberation Day III (August 1), and probably not even then, but we already know that they are huge.

This is evident from the tariff revenue the government is collecting. In June the government collected $26.6 billion in tariff revenue. That is up from around $6 billion a month in 2024 before Trump’s tax hikes. The difference of $20 billion comes to $240 billion on an annual basis. Summed over a decade, as we do with other measures, this comes to $2.4 trillion.

This would be a substantial tax hike in itself, roughly $1,900 per household, but we know that the figure is almost certain to go much higher. Trump is threatening taxes of an additional 10 to 30 percent on imports from our major trading partners, such as Mexico, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. The tax take could easily end up being twice its current level, making Trump’s tariff frenzy by far the largest tax increase in US history.

While we have a great deal of evidence showing that US consumers will end up paying the bulk of these taxes, the Trump administration is in full denial mold. The first clear evidence of the tariffs’ impacts on consumer prices came with the release of June Consumer Price Index (CPI).

There were sharp price increases in some of the items subject to large tariffs. For example, apparel prices rose 0.4 percent, appliance prices rose 1.9 percent, and the price of visual and audio products increased by 1.1 percent.

The overall price index outpaced wage growth, pushing real wages down 0.1 percent for the month. While wage growth data are erratic, as is the CPI, wage growth has been slowing in recent months. A slower pace of wage growth, coupled with more rapid inflation, will mean a reduction in real wages and living standards, after healthy growth over the Biden years taken as a whole.

Many commentators (including me) have been surprised that we have not seen larger increases in prices from the tariffs. There are two factors that likely explain why the impact has not been larger so far.

First, there was a massive accumulation of inventories in the first quarter as businesses rushed to stockpile imports before the tariffs hit. We had been accumulating inventories at an annual rate of just over $50 billion in 2024. In the first quarter, we accumulated inventories at a $207 billion annual rate. Businesses are now selling from this stockpile, on which they did not pay the Trump tariffs.

The other main reason is that businesses do not know the tariffs will stick. Trump seems determined to do his reality TV show routine where we all find out the tariffs after the next commercial break. This uncertainty is likely discouraging businesses from jacking up prices as much as they might otherwise.

That reluctance can be seen clearly in the auto sector. Car prices actually fell by 0.3 percent in June. It is likely that many manufacturers are reluctant to raise prices based on tariffs that may not stick. They are prepared to take smaller margins, at least in the short term, rather than risk pricing themselves out of the market. Over the long term, if the tariffs remain in place, they will almost certainly raise their prices to pass on much, if not all, of the cost.

One issue that Trump has repeatedly raised is the possibility that exporters will absorb much of the tariff. Past experience shows this is generally not the case. We have limited data to date, but thus far it does not appear that exporters are absorbing the Trump tariffs.

Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers put out a study last week that tried to make the case that import prices were falling relative to domestic prices, and thereby claimed this meant importers were absorbing the cost of the tariffs in lower prices. This is not a serious way to measure the effect of tariffs for the simple reason that we expect tariffs to raise the price of domestically-produced goods as well.

One of the points of a tariff, and certainly one claimed by Trump, is that it will promote domestic industry. Part of that story is that by raising the price of imports, it will make it possible for domestic competitors to also increase their prices, thereby getting larger profit margins. The larger profit margins are supposed to lead to more investment and output growth.

Since the price of domestically produced goods are expected to rise in response to tariffs, showing the relative movement of the price of imported goods and domestic goods tells us nothing. Rather, we would be interested in how the price trends of imported goods and domestic goods changed following the tariffs. Here’s that picture.

As can be seen, the price of core (non-fuel, non-agricultural) imports had been rising gradually in the year prior to Trump’s election, when people first began to expect tariffs. It has continued to rise modestly in the eight months since the election. If there has been any slowing of this increase it has been very small.

On the other hand, there has been a clear reversal of course for core goods in the CPI. The price of these goods had been falling at roughly a 1.5 percent annual rate from March of 2023 to August 2024. Since August the price of core goods have risen at roughly a 1.0 percent annual rate. If the trend of falling prices from last August had continued, goods prices would be roughly 2.0 percent lower today. Since we spend over $6 trillion a year on goods consumption, this 2.0 percent difference would translate into $120 billion in annual savings, roughly half the size of the tariff revenue we were collecting in June.

These calculations are obviously crude, but they should give us a rough idea of magnitudes. What it looks like to date is that we are seeing a substantial impact of tariffs on consumer prices. We will almost certainly see more impact over time from the tariffs already imposed, if they remain in effect, and we will see a much larger impact if Trump goes through with the new round of taxes promised for Liberation Day III.

In short, we are in fact seeing the largest tax hike in the history of the country.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

The post Contrary to What Trump Tells You, Higher Tariffs Mean Higher Prices appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.