Category Archives: Authoritarianism

Progressive Democratic plan for 2026

younger and better-looking, maybe, but still representing the Democratic Party

The Center for Working-Class Politics and Jacobin Magazine, from the vaguely left wing of the Democratic Party that includes Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have released a study entitled “Working-Class Social and Economic Attitudes: An Analysis,” which recommends a strategy for calibrating an appeal to working class voters sufficient to re-take the U.S. Senate.

Their conclusions are hardly different from any that mainstream Democrats may have drawn from their stinging rebuke in 2024: stay away from social issues (“identity politics”), focus on bread-and-butter economic issues, strengthen the social safety net, but don’t even dream of tackling head-on the rot at the heart of America’s Capitalist economic system. And even after Gaza you still won’t find the words “war” or “foreign policy” in the CWCP-Jacobin report. America’s #1 budget expense — war — doesn’t even rate a mention.

For the “progressive” Democratic authors of this report, the Democratic roster is already filled with sufficient careerists and machine Democrats — if only they employ “careful persuasion” — to woo back the red-hatted American voter with a carefully calibrated, poll-tested, and lab-grown shpiel.

“We have presented a comprehensive analysis of the attitudes and preferences of working-class Americans, all against the backdrop of the Democratic Party’s decisive defeat in the 2024 presidential election. The relevance is clear: over the past several decades, the Democratic Party has increasingly pivoted away from the working class, leaning into a misguided assumption that they would still retain a large enough voter base to be electorally successful. Kamala Harris’s defeat proves the weakness of that assumption. The only realistic hope the Democrats have for building a political base capable of winning national elections and taking consistent control of the US Senate is to win back a significant portion of the working class. Our analysis offers insights into how this might be achieved. Our findings suggest that the Democratic Party would be wise to capitalize on the working class’s strong preference for policies that are economically egalitarian — particularly predistributive policies that involve strengthening worker rights and leverage as well as existing universal social insurance and health care programs — while deemphasizing potentially divisive social policies. Several of the economic policies we analyzed here, such as those concerning increased job security, wages, and worker power, would make a strong foundation for a successful campaign.

The right candidates for this plan are out there. And given our findings, the Democratic Party would be wise to embrace such candidates, while eschewing those politicians on its current roster that have comparably little to offer the working class. The stakes couldn’t be much higher. The second Trump term has combined authoritarian populist rhetoric with a slash-and-smash approach to the federal government that threatens to undermine democracy as we know it and can only result in a greater concentration of wealth at the top and a hollowed-out state incapable of solving our biggest national problems.

Yet at the same time, working-class voters’ skepticism toward government and government spending poses a serious challenge to progressives who advocate bold, transformative economic policies. While such programs might be necessary to turn around decades of neoliberal policies that have left so many working-class communities behind, careful persuasion is still needed to win back working-class trust. This is both an indispensable task and an extraordinarily difficult challenge given the current state of working-class attitudes. Nonetheless, if we have any hope of undercutting Trump’s savvy exploitation of populist resentment, it’s our only option.”

The Massachusetts Special Commission on Antisemitism

Former Massachusetts Teachers Association president Merrie Najimy rebukes anti-Palestinian innuendo from Rep. Simon Cataldo (D-Acton) at the State Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism hearing, Feb. 10, 2024

The Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism for K-12 Education in Massachusetts was established by the legislature in Chapter 140, Section 201(a) of the Acts of 2024:

“There shall be a special commission on combatting antisemitism in the commonwealth. The commission shall: (i) report on trends and data related to incidents of antisemitism in the commonwealth; (ii) make recommendations for the implementation of the United States national strategy to counter antisemitism; (iii) identify and evaluate existing efforts to combat antisemitism in the commonwealth; (iv) identify best practices from efforts to combat antisemitism in other states and jurisdictions; (v) evaluate the commonwealth’s hate crime statutes and whether any amendments would better protect residents from antisemitism and other similar forms of hatred; and (vi) recommend strategies, programs and legislation to combat antisemitism in the commonwealth. The commission shall submit a report of its study and recommendations to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate and the senate and house committees on ways and means not later than November 30, 2024.”

On July 2nd, 2025 the Commission released a draft report which is politically-biased, seriously flawed, and filled with inaccuracies and distortions. Much of the wording suggests it was ghost-written by the ADL. It was also an entirely expected report, given the skewed composition of the Commission, its co-chairs and their embroilments with the state of Israel. Testimony from organizations whose views differed from the Commission’s co-chairs and the overwhelmingly pro-Israel lobby groups appointed to it were discarded. The Commission could have simply written its report the first week of its existence and dispensed with the charade of public hearings at which those offering opposing testimony were attacked and insulted by Committee chairs.

For all these reasons the Commission’s recommendations must be soundly rejected.

Composition of the Commission

The Commission was chaired by: state Senator John C. Velis, who gushed about a junket he took to Israel paid for by the Israeli Foreign Ministry; Rep. Simon Cataldo, another great friend of Israel and its lobbyists; and Rep. Steven S. Howitt, AIPAC member and persistent MAGA sponsor of codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism into law. All of the Commission’s chairs uncritically support Israel.

Members of the Commission include DESE and other school officials, a pro-Israel DA, another state prosecutor, the “Tony Robbins” of education, and a disproportionate number of Zionist organizations, all of which paint opposition to Israel’s policies as “antisemitism.” A glaring, intentional deficit of the Commission’s work is that no opposing (non-Zionist) viewpoints were reflected, much less acknowledged, in the Commission’s report.

The Commission:

  • Salisbury MA Chief Thomas Fowler, past president of the MA Chiefs of Police Association (appointed by his own organization);
  • Rita Blanter, former Sr. Director, Jewish Family & Children’s Services, Boston (appointed by MA senate minority leader Bruce Tarr);
  • Robert Leikind, Director of the American Jewish Committee, New England (appointed by MA house speaker Ron Mariano);
  • Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston (appointed by MA senate president Karen Spilka);
  • Jody Kipnis, Co-founder, President and CEO of the Holocaust Legacy Foundation, Boston, which receives “not less than” $1.5 million from the Commonwealth (appointed by MA senate president Karen Spilka);
  • Jill Hai, Vice President, Massachusetts Municipal Association (appointed by her own organization);
  • David S. Friedman, Senior VP, Boston Red Sox and First Assistant Attorney General for Massachusetts under A.G. Martha Coakley (appointed by MA governor Maura Healey);
  • Peggy Shukur, ADL, Anti-Defamation League (appointed by MA house speaker Ron Mariano);
  • Ruthanne Fuller, Newton Mayor targeted by Turning Point as a “radical” (appointed by MA Municipal Association);
  • Paul Tucker, Essex County DA, received an “Honorable Menschion” from Jewish Journal in March 2024 for his endorsement of visits to Israel with other police officers (appointed by MA District Attorneys Association);
  • Aaron Polansky, Superintendent, Old Colony Regional Vocational Technical High School (appointed by MA Association of School Superintendents);
  • Constantia (Dena) Papanikolaou, Chief Legal Counsel, MA Dept. of Higher Education (appointed by MA Commissioner of Higher Education Noe Ortega);
  • Jamie Hoag, Chief of Staff, MA Attorney General Andrea Campbell (appointed by Attorney General Andrea Campbell);
  • Karen Sampson Johnson, DEI Director (at least in 2024), Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (appointed by MA Commissioner of Higher Education Noe Ortega);
  • Michael Memmolo, Executive Director, Mass Commission Against Discrimination (appointed by his own organization);
  • Dara Kaufman, Executive Director, Jewish Federation of the Berkshires (appointed by MA governor Maura Healey).

Disregarding Liberal Jewish and Palestinian Voices

A coalition of progressive Jewish organzations and Muslims, Together for an Inclusive Massachusetts Leadership Team (TIM) offered testimony to the Commission. None of the organizations – which included: Alliance for Water Justice in Palestine; Boston Workers Circle; Council on American-Islamic Relations, Massachusetts (CAIR-MA); If Not Now Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace Boston; Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA); Massachusetts Teachers Association Rank and File for Palestine; National Lawyers Guild – Massachusetts Chapter; and Sawa: Newton-Area Alliance for Peace and Justice – were ever cited in the draft report. Commission Co-Chair Simon Cataldo even treated members of TIM with contempt at a hearing on Febuary 10th, 2024.

TIM expressed well-founded concerns that:

  • the hand-picked Commission members have affiliations with organizations, such as the ADL, AJC, and JCRC, that exclude and seek to delegitimize an important part of the Jewish community.”
  • the ADL is open in its belief that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. This puts the ADL, and similar groups that purport to represent the Jewish community to the outside world, in conflict with the growing numbers of the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish community, who represent around 20% to 69% of the American Jewish community (depending on survey methodology).

TIM recommended that the Commission

  • conduct fair and open hearings so that everyone who wants to testify gets to testify. We believe that open discussion is the only way to develop a fuller understanding of antisemitism. Fair and open hearings are the norm for legislative and commission hearings;
  • seek diverse views at every Commission meeting by encouraging presentations by groups and experts not affiliated with Commission members who bring alternative viewpoints;
  • consider testimonty from “members of Together for an Inclusive Massachusetts [who] represent individuals and organizations who have witnessed firsthand, and in our communities, politically- motivated false allegations of antisemitism deployed as a way to silence, intimidate and punish actions that threaten US political support for Israel. There is a risk that political actors on or affiliated with members of the Commission will use this important state body to promote a discriminatory and anti-Palestinian agenda against the wishes of a significant part of the state’s residents.
  • stop labelling Palestinians who talk about their own life experiences as racist against Jews suggest[ing] that Jews are harmed by Palestinian humanity or that Jewish safety depends on silencing and erasing Palestinian humanity. This is a form of anti-Palestinian racism. Bigotry and discrimination against one group cannot be addressed by normalizing bigotry and discrimination against another group

As might have been expected, the Commission ignored all of TIM’s suggestions, doubling-down on marginalizing and insulting both non-Zionist Jews and Palestinians in its Draft Report.

Dubious statistics

The Commission repeatedly cites statistics produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for which there are no publicly verifiable case documents, only the ADL’s own subjective interpretation. The ADL’s history of confabulation is so long-standing that Wikileaks took the unusual step of labeling the ADL unreliable. In 2024 Jewish Currents published an assessment of the ADL’s statistical methodology and concluded that both data and methodology were “haphazard,” biased, unreliable, and ultimately useless in measuring and quantifying antisemitism:

“Ultimately, this haphazard approach — as well as the mode of data collection, which favors certain kinds of incidents and does nothing to ensure that it produces a representative sample — renders the audit unable to speak meaningfully to the prevalence or impact of antisemitism in the US. It remains an open question whether a sufficiently sophisticated methodology might produce a more reliable picture, and thus aid the task of combating antisemitism. But it is abundantly clear that the ADL’s audit and its uncritical representation in the media do not serve those aims.”

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) takes issue with the ADL’s politically-tainted “statistics” noting that the spike in “antisemitic incidents” is directly attributable to an arbitrary change in how the ADL counts them:

“Though it professes to document and challenge antisemitism, it openly admits to counting pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic: In 2023, the ADL changed its methodology for reporting antisemitic incidents to include rallies that feature ‘anti-Zionist chants and slogans,’ even counting anti-war protests led by Jews — including Jewish organizations the ADL designated as “hate groups.”

In Canada the situation is very much the same. A 2010 National Post article pushed back against Zionist organizations like B’nai Brith, which run “cynical campaign[s] to convince the world that Canada is a cesspool of violent anti-Semitism” and lauded more progressive Jewish organizations for questioning the “statistics.”

“Reporters politely overlook the fact that B’nai Brith’s definition of ‘incident’ is dumbed down: any web posting, stray comment or scrap of graffiti fits the bill. Most readers don’t stop to scrutinize how trivial these examples are: they just look at the impressive seeming bar graphs which purport to show a Jewish community in a constant state of terror.”

One of the progressive Jewish organizations mentioned, Independent Jewish Voices / Voix juives independents of Canada, took B’nai Brith’s “statistics” to task in a 2019 report (“The Use and Mis-use of Antisemitism Statistics”) and correctly characterized the ADL’s political agenda and history of attacking progressive movements:

“The ADL is a far less progressive organization than it likes to claim and is faithful to the same pro-Israel ideological agenda as B’nai Brith Canada. In a recent open letter urging progressive groups not to partner with the ADL, a coalition of more than fifty political and faith groups on the left stated that the ADL ‘has a history and ongoing pattern of attacking social justice movements led by communities of color, queer people, immigrants, Muslims, Arabs, and other marginalized groups, while aligning itself with police, right-wing leaders, and perpetrators of state violence.’”

This alludes to the #DropTheADL campaign, supported by over 270 progressive social justice organizations – including the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council, Jews Against Anti-Muslim Racism, Jews Against White Supremacy, Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, Jews Say No!, Nashville Jews for Justice, Progressive Jews of St. Louis, and The Jewish Vote. #DropTheADL writes that whatever credibility the ADL may once have had because of useful resources on white supremacy is nevertheless undeserved:

“We are deeply concerned that the ADL’s credibility in some social justice movements and communities is precisely what allows it to undermine the rights of marginalized communities, shielding it from criticism and accountability while boosting its legitimacy and resources. Even when it may seem that our work is benefiting from access to some resources or participation from the ADL, given the destructive role that it too often plays in undermining struggles for justice, we believe that we cannot collaborate with the ADL without betraying our movements.”

Despite multiple sources questioning ADL’s data and bias, the Commission simply takes the ADL’s word for it that a huge explosion of antisemitism just happens to coincide with Israel’s genocidal destruction of Gaza and mass murder of civilians.

The Commission also regurgitates ADL’s claim that the number of antisemitic incidents are under-reported. This supposition is another sign of the Commission’s unscientific orientation and the bias built into its report. The ADL itself admits that “for the first time in the history of [our] Audit, a majority (58%) of all incidents contained elements related to Israel or Zionism.” The fact that since 2003 the ADL now regards Constitutionally-protected protests as “antisemitic incidents” explains the supposed “explosion” of antisemitism and invalidates both their methodology and data.

ADL: A long history of smearing and spying

Since so much of the Commission’s report seems either cribbed from or ghost-written by the ADL, it’s worth taking a look at the ADL itself.

The ADL, originally founded in 1913 as a civil rights group, is today considered by many liberals and progressives to have devolved into little more than a mouthpiece for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. This has been the sad state of affairs since the founding of the state of Israel.

In 1993 the Village Voice published an article about ADL spy Roy Bullock. He was not only spying for the ADL, but at a time when Israel actively supported the Apartheid regime, also spying for South African intelligence:

“Over a 30-year period, he compiled computer files for the ADL on 9876 individuals [the LA Times estimates 12,000] and more than 950 groups of all political stripes, including the NAACP, the Rainbow Coalition, ACLU, the American Indian Movement, the Center for Investigative Reporting, Pacifica, ACT UP, Palestinian and Arab groups, Sandinista solidarity groups, Americans for Peace Now, and anti-apartheid organizations. Bullock, who even spied on the recently slain South African nationalist Chris Hani when he visited the Bay Area in April 1991, sold many of his ADL files on anti-apartheid activists to South African intelligence. Meanwhile, between 1985 and 1993, the ADL paid him nearly $170,000, using a prominent Beverly Hills attorney as a conduit in order to conceal its financial relationship with Bullock.

Last month, police raided ADL offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as Bullock’s home, confiscating computer files and boxes of documents. According to court records, Bullock’s files contained the driver’s license and vehicle registration information, in addition to criminal histories on individuals – much of which was allegedly stolen from the FBI and police computers. Bullock, 58, told the FBI that copies of virtually everything in his computer data base had been given to the San Francisco ADL office. “Based on the evidence,” says Inspector Ron Roth, in a police affidavit, “I believe that Roy Bullock and ADL had numerous peace officers supplying them with confidential criminal and DMV information.”

Besides the Feds, the ADL was also feeding information to various police agencies. In 2014 Mark Ames published “The Kings of Garbage, or, The ADL Spied on Me and All I Got Was This Lousy Index Card,” which recounted how the ADL fed information on him to the San Francisco Police. Besides Ames, the ADL had turned over “cards” on 12,000 victims of their spying to various police agencies, including:

“a Who’s Who of the Liberal Establishment: NAACP, ACLU, Greenpeace, ACT UP!, National Lawyers Guild, Mother Jones founder Adam Hochschild, reporters from the Los Angeles Times and KQED public television, and scores of local labor unions including the United Auto Works and Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers. The ADL operatives even spied on a handful of U.S. Congressmen, all Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, Senator Alan Cranston, Pete McClosky, Mervyn Dymally, and Ron Dellums of Oakland, head of the House Armed Services Committee. Many prominent Jews were also spied on, including Dr. Yigal Arens, the son of former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens.”

Thus caught red-handed, in 1999 the ADL was nevertheless able to skate free with an incredibly cheap settlement that had the additional advantage of serving as a fig-leaf for a “new, improved, progressive” ADL that now – all of a sudden – would now be a friend to the Black, Arab, and other minority communities it had been harming for years:

“Under the settlement reached in a federal court in Los Angeles on Monday, the parties agreed to an injunction whereby the ADL will purge certain information, such as criminal arrest records and Social Security numbers, from any files it holds on the plaintiffs.

The ADL also agreed to pay $175,000 for the plaintiffs’ legal fees and contribute $25,000 toward a community relations fund to be jointly administered by representatives of its organization and the plaintiffs. The fund will support projects aimed at improving relations among Jewish, Arab American, African American and other minority communities.

David Goldstein, the ADL’s attorney, said that by agreeing to the injunction, the ADL in no way admits guilt of any illegal activity.”

But all this domestic espionage was nothing new for the ADL:

“In the late 1940s, the ADL spied on leftists and Communists, and shared investigative files with the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the FBI. The ADL swung sharply to the right during the Reagan administration, becoming a bastion of neoconservatism. To Irwin Suall, […], the real danger to Jews is posed not by the right – but by a coalition of leftists, blacks, and Arabs, who in his view threaten the fabric of democracy in America, as well as the state of Israel. In the tradition of his ideological soulmate William Casey, Suall directed the ADL’s vast network of informants, who were given code names like ‘Scumbag,’ ‘Ironside,’ and – for a spy reportedly posing as a priest in Atlanta – ‘Flipper.’

For years, journalists and liberal members of the Jewish community knew the ADL spied on right-wing hate groups. As long as the targets were anti-Semitic organizations like the Liberty Lobby and Lyndon Larouche, no one seemed to be particularly troubled. But the Bullock case reveals that the ADL also spied on groups that have a nonviolent, and progressive orientation. This apparent massive violation of civil liberties may end with the ADL’s criminal indictment in San Francisco, where the investigation began. The human rights group faces possible criminal prosecution on as many as 48 felony counts, including an indictment for gaining illegal access to police computers. Says one source close to the West Coast investigation, ‘It is 99 per cent certain that the ADL will be indicted.’”

In the 1977 the ADL filed an amicus brief in support of Allan Bakke, a white racist who was challenging affirmative action.

Aside from its manifest problems with racism, the ADL is also Islamophobic and has made a practice of defaming Muslim clerics and Muslim intellectuals like Edward Said. The ADL takes the view that all Muslim opposition to Zionism is nothing but antisemitism.

  • In 2001 the ADL demanded that the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) exclude a Muslim from its annual civil rights conference.
  • In 2007 the ADL refused to recognize the Armenia genocide, deferring to Israeli interests. Then-Director Abe Foxman explained, “Most Jews understand it’s a very difficult choice. There’s very little I can do [for the Armenians, who can’t be brought back to life]. [But] I can put at jeopardy [ties with Turkey],’ he said. By siding with the Armenians, ’we put at risk some very important relationships that are important to the Jewish community worldwide,’because it could endanger the Turkish Jewish community and relations between Israel and Turkey.”
  • In 2010 the ADL opportunistically opposed the Park51 Islamic Center in New York, because the political moment worked in their favor.
  • In 2019 the ADL began sponsoring police trainings in Israel. However, because of the racist, violent training American officers received from Israelis used to mistreating Palestinians, an explosion of police brutality cases in the US resulted – serious enough for the ADL to consider stopping the trainings (the trainings continue).
  • Related to this, in 2020 the ADL spied on Tatjana Rebelle, a Black activist who two years earlier had worked with Deadly Exchange, a group that tracks American police training by Israeli counter-terrorist “experts.”
  • That same year, 2020, a leaked memo from the ADL (“stakeholders analysis memo”) revealed that it was formulating a strategy to defend Israel’s annexation of the West Bank while maintaining a “pro civil-rights veneer.” The Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism for K-12 Education in Massachusetts ought to read it, since they are precisely the sort of chumps the ADL sought to hoodwink.
  • In 2025, after Elon Musk delivered a Nazi salute at an inauguration rally for Donald Trump, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt covered for the Nazi, explaining that Musk’s salute was just an “awkward gesture.”
  • Also in 2025 the ADL praised the illegal detention of Mahmoud Khalil, who was persecuted by the Trump administration for his political views

National Education Association cuts ties with the ADL

On July 6th, the NEA’s 7,000 members, which include Mass Teachers Association members, voted to sever all ties with the ADL. It approved a measure stating that the NEA “will not use, endorse, or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), such as its curricular materials or statistics.” The rationale: “Despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be.” The NEA citied the hyperinflation of “antisemitism” charges in the schools, including attacks on NEA members.

“Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change,” said NEA delegate Stephen Siegel from the assembly floor.

According to an article in Labor Notes by Emmaia Gelman:

Merrie Najimy, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, recounted that in 2024 the MTA was tasked by its elected board of directors with creating resources for educators themselves to learn the history of Palestine.

The ADL improperly took those internal materials, cherry-picked elements to claim that presenting Palestinian perspectives amounted to ‘glorifying terrorists,’ and ‘manipulated [them]… to label the state’s largest union of educators as promoters of antisemitism,’ MTA leaders wrote in February.

The ADL followed with a barrage of denunciations of teachers and the union in state legislative hearings and the press. This resulted in the doxxing of MTA members, death threats against MTA staff, and anti-labor attacks that are still ongoing.

‘Why would we partner with an organization that does us harm?’ Najimy asked in the lead-up to the NEA vote.

The Israeli American Council: front for the Israeli government

Besides the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Jewish Federations are represented on the Massachusetts Commission. All advocate for continued settlement of Palestine by Jewish-only settlers. Although each of these organizations maintains connections with the Israel government, one other group mentioned in the Commission’s report stands out as a complete creation of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

The Israeli-American Council (IAC) was created in 2007 by Israel’s Consul General, Ehud Danoch and, according to a Nation article, has maintained deep connections with Israeli intelligence for years. In 2013 the IAC obtained additional financial support from casino mogul and Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, as well as Hollywood producer/investor and Biden donor Haim Saban. In 2014 a third billionaire, Adam Milstein, was appointed its chairman.

The IAC’s Miri Bar-Halperin provided testimony to the Commission.

To say the IAC’s politics are far-right is an understatement. On September 19, 2024 the IAC convened its three-day National Summit at the Washington DC Hilton, and it had all of the features of a MAGA Republican CPAC Hungary conference — militarists, authoritarians, enemies of civil liberties, propagandists, Christian Zionists, and even a wannabe dictator — two if we count Donald Trump’s surprise appearance at the event (the IAC actively promotes “His Royal Highness,” Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi for regime change in Iran).

Just the sort of group Massachusetts Democrats should be associated with.

Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism

Zionism is a nationalist ideology. Its adherents are called Zionists. Anyone can look this up in thousands of books and encyclopedae. Yet the Commission claims that “Zionist” is a “replacement slur.” To mention a group like the World Zionist Organization (WZO) is neither a slur nor evidence of a conspiracy theory since it refers to an actual organization established by Theodor Herzl, Zionism’s founder, in 1897, the year after he published Der Judenstaat. Today there are thousands of Zionist organizations in the United States, from liberal Zionist lobbies like JStreet to some with terrorist origins such as Betar, which is inexplicably permitted to operate on U.S. soil and which has been feeding deportation recommendations to the Trump administration.

Whether “liberal” or zealot, what unites all Zionists is the view that Israel must be able to maintain an ethno-supremacist state in which Palestinians, Christians, Druze, and bedouins are unavoidably second-class citizens – even those who hold Israeli citizenship.

Despite the claim of many Zionists that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic” state, for most Americans who have grown up in a secular democracy, ethno-supremacy and democracy don’t seem all that compatible. Thus, criticisms of Zionism are fair game, and criticisms of Zionists are also as fair as any of Christian Nationalists, who increasingly are political allies of Zionists.

While the ADL allows that not all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, it still maintains (as the Israeli state and most Zionist organization do) that Israel is “the national homeland of the Jews.” Not Israelis – Jews. Thus, to criticize the ethno-religious (and supremacist) foundation of the Israeli state, or the right of that state to its undemocratic, racist foundation, is regarded as antisemitic.

The IHRA Definition

This is most clear in one of the ADL’s most ambitious projects– pressuring state governments to adopt the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s IHRA “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” in to law. In the first quarter of 2024 alone the ADL spent $1.6 million on IHRA-related lobbying efforts.

The IHRA definition, whose first iteration was created in 2003 by Israeli minister without portfolio Nathan Sharansky as the “3D’s”, differs from non-Zionist definitions like the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and is focused more on shooting down criticisms of Israel than preventing actual harm to Jews.

Professor David Feldman at the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism in London characterizes the IHRA definition as “bewilderingly imprecise,” adding that “the text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not.”

Several of its examples (with exact wording below) include:

#6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

#7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

#8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

#10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

#11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The #7 and #11 of these examples are in complete conflict with one another.

Israel wants all Jews to identify with the Israeli state, if not make aliyah (relocate) to Israel, which has certainly become the preoccupation of many mainstream Jewish organizations. But when such organizations provide political cover or material support for Israel’s genocidal policies and actions, according to the IHRA “collectivity” example (#11) they are not to be criticized or held responsible for complicity with the murderous regime they support.

The “dual loyalty” example, #6, is perhaps best understood by anti-Zionist Jews whose identity as Jews is attacked by Zionists for not showing sufficient loyalty to the state of Israel. In a piece (“We need to be clear that Zionism is core to Jewish identity”) in The Jewish Chronicle written by Special Advisor to British Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch, Sonia Zvedeniuk argues that Zionism is a necessary component of Judaism:

“It is because denying a Jewish connection to the land is the process by which they legitimise their efforts to erase Jews from the river to the sea, and it begins with corrupting the meaning of Zionism, with repeating the lie that Israel is a product of a European secular nationalist ideology, not of a concept deeply rooted in a Middle Eastern religion.”

Since anti-Zionist Jews oppose Zionism and express their preference for American-style secular democracy, this does highlight how Zionists pressure other Jews to abandon American values for Israeli ethno-supremacism. In a religious context there are now many contemporary rabbis and philosophers, Shaul Magid and Judith Butler, among them, who reject framings like Zvedeniuk’s and seek to rescue Judaism from the chokehold of Zionism.

Example #8, “double standards,” would be fair if Western nations did not, at Israel’s request for double-standards, shower it with military, financial, and diplomatic aid and hold it to far lower standards than every other nation they have slapped sanctions on. Indeed, for America’s roughly 30 million Christian Zionists, Israel is not a normal nation but the reincarnation of the Kingdom of David, if not the 51st state.

Example #10, “drawing comparisons” with the Nazis, may be insulting but at a time when generals produce plans for, and members of the Knesset openly speak of, a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem – including dropping nukes on Gaza, putting all Arabs on transports to Africa, or openly defending the slaughter of civilians – such comparisons are unavoidable. The 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed multiple genocides, but the most well-known to most Americans is the Shoah throughout Europe – and the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Especially with hundreds of documented statements of genocidal intent by Israeli leaders and public officials, again, such comparisons are unavoidable and even deserved.

The “self determination” criterion (#7) is possibly the most problematic because no ethnicity or religion has an inherent right to its own state. If this were the case, then Kurds and Scientologists would each have their own republics and Utah would be an ethno-religious nation like Israel that persecuted every other religion and the non-white races.

In general, Israel’s is not the kind of democracy most Americans want, even though Christian Nationalists and white supremacists envy the supremacist state that Israel has created between the river and the sea.

For the Democratic Party controlled Massachusetts legislature to become a full-throated advocate of an Apartheid state is shocking and shameful.

More bad ideas from the Commission

Stacked as it is with Zionist organizations and spineless politicians eager to get lobbyists off their backs, many of the Commission’s recommendations are just plain bad ideas.

The Commission suggests using antisemitism curriculum from Facing History & Ourselves. This is not curriculum designed to inform as much as it is curriculum designed not to offend. But we wonder if the Commission has even read any of it themselves. One unit of the recommended curriculum considers Raphael Lemkin’s formulation of the term genocide. Today you can find a statement from the eponymous Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security entitled “Statement on Why We Call the Israeli Attack on Gaza Genocide.” We suspect the Massachusetts Commission, unlike the students they claim to be protecting, never really bothered to do their homework.

Besides the recommended adoption of the IHRA definition, the Commission dishonestly portrays it as the “official working definition of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” This is simply untrue. What is true is that former Republican governor Charlie Baker “proclaimed” that he intended to use the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s IHRA definition of antisemitism, but it was never voted into law. And in fact such legislation has been repeatedly shelved, most recently when the legislature sent Commission co-chair Steven S. Howitt’s latest attempt to a merciful death in committee on February 27th, 2025.

But that won’t stop groups like the ADL from trying to weaponize the “non-binding” definition whenever and wherever possible.

Of course the State must take strong measures to end discrimination against any of its citizens. However, the emphasis should be on ALL its citizens, not just some. Accordingly, several of the Commission’s recommendations ought to be reconsidered or scrapped entirely.

For instance, the Commission is not content with the reporting of verifiable hate crimes to the Massachusetts State Police Hate Crimes Awareness and Response Team (HART). Instead, it recommends that “this program should collect data on bias incidents – which may not rise to the level of a hate crime – in all K-12 schools. DESE and the Attorney General’s office should instruct all districts that every incident that might potentially constitute a case of bias, bullying, harassment or discrimination against individuals or groups of a protected class should be reported to this response program.”

Systems designed to collect unsubstantiated rumors and accusations from informants, then refer them to the state police and state attorney general for “investigation,” may be right at home in North Korea, China, Russia, Texas, and Florida, but they don’t belong in Massachusetts.

The Commission also recommends that Massachusetts schools adopt “Jewish American Heritage Month” – at a time when honoring (or for that matter defending) every other group of people in the United States is being attacked by the Trump administration. According to the MIRA Coalition, one in six Massachusetts residents is foreign born, with one out of eight citizens speaking one of the state’s dozens of languages.

There are not enough months in the year to similarly honor each of the Spanish, Portuguese, Asian, and European ethnicities who are part of the fabric of life in Massachusetts – not to mention other persecuted communities like the diverse Black communities and equally diverse LGBTQ+ community. Instead, the state of Massachusetts should defy the Trump administration by honoring everybody – not by selectively honoring the only group the Trump administration feels is worthy of protection at this moment.

Such a move would actually produce resentment toward Jews because of the aggressive lobbying by groups claiming to represent all Jews. It’s not hard to predict that this proposal would actually increase antisemitism – real antisemitism – in Massachusetts.

The Commission selectively cites Rabbi Ariella Rosen’s testimony acknowledging that Jews face antisemitism. They chose to omit testimony from Rosen, who leads a congregation in Northampton, strongly opposing several of the ADL’s (or the Commission’s) efforts. In a letter in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Rabbi Rosen warned of prioritizing “Jewish safety” over everyone else’s and of trying to codify the IHRA definition of “antisemitism”.

“Claiming ‘Jewish safety’ as an excuse to further a political objective leads to division, distrust and resentment, shutting down the critical work of discerning the difference between legitimate protest and true harm. Again, such actions claimed to be for the sake of Jewish safety can very easily lead to the opposite.

I urge the commission to resist any effort to codify a singular definition of antisemitism, in particular the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.”

None of Rosen’s reasoned arguments found their way into the Commission’s ghost-written report. In fact, no views from non- or anti-Zionist organizations were cited while most were from representatives of Zionist organizations over-represented on the Commission.

The Commission’s report footnoted testimony from: Rabbi Amy Wallk, a Conservative rabbi who met her future husband at an AIPAC event; Debbie Coltin of the Lappin Foundation, which runs a Youth to Israel program bringing children to occupied Palestine; Melissa Garlick, of Combined Jewish Philanthropies, whose funds provide services for Israeli military personnel; Molly Parr of the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts; Dr. Miri Bar-Halpern, an Israeli psychologist and activist with the Israeli American Council (a group founded by Israel’s Consul General Ehud Danoch in 2007 which works with Israeli intelligence to attack Israel’s enemies); Peggy Shakur of the ADL; and Rabbi Noach Koslofsky, a yeshiva teacher with the Lubavitcher sect, which plays a key role in Israel’s Right Wing messianic settler movement in the West Bank.

The Commission apparently thought it unimportant to address or even mention perspectives from Jewish progressives such as: Jewish Voice for Peace, which opposes the ADL’s involvement in schools; or from Palestinians who don’t think protesting their own genocide is antisemitic at all. It also refused to consider the views of civil liberties advocates like the ACLU.

Because of the skewed composition and bias of the Commission, and its exclusive concern with “Jewish safety,” it managed to ignore one aspect of antisemitism produced by adopting Zionism as the only framework in which to view Jewish communal life. In so doing the Democratic controlled legislature is indistinguishable from their MAGA brethren conducting similar hearings at the federal level.

In an article in the UCLA Law Review (“Defending Jews From the Definition of Antisemitism”), authors Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona make the case

“against such stretching of the definition of antisemitism and develop a novel legal framework to challenge it. Existing scholarship has shown that antisemitism is often weaponized against Palestinians and their liberation struggle. Widening the scope of this critique, we theorize an additional layer of harm imposed upon American Jews. We argue that the broadening of the definition of antisemitism has resulted in a narrowing of Jewish identity and a delegitimization of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish communities. Constructing Jewish identity along rigid and fixed lines, the contemporary legal definition of antisemitism imposes upon Jews a straitjacket of Zionism. […]

They then enumerate the legal harms to Jews from government interference in deciding what Jews ought to believe:

First, we argue that for many American Jews, criticizing Israel is a way to exercise their religious freedom. Further, we argue, the redefinition of antisemitism should be seen as a governmental interference in religion, deciding the content of Jewish identity, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Second, we argue that antidiscrimination laws should protect Jews who are targeted as Jews due to their political position. We recognize two types of discriminatory dynamics: (1) discrimination based on association and solidarity with Palestinians; and (2) discrimination based on stereotypes regarding how Jews ought to perform their identity.

Thus, for the Commission to place its fat thumb on the scales in a debate over whether all Jews are, or should be, Zionists is scarcely different from weighing in on whether all Jews are Shylocks. To insist on the normalization of Zionism by Jews is antisemitic.

But the Commission’s sins don’t stop with assaults on civil liberties. Their educational recommendations are equally unsound.

The Commission’s report contains a reference from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), which advises School Committees that

The task of selecting instructional materials for programs will be delegated to the professional staff of the school district. Because instructional programs and materials are of great importance, only those that meet the following criteria will be approved by the Committee:

  1. They must present balanced views of international, national, and local issues and problems of the past, present and future.
  2. They must provide materials that stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic and ethical values.
  3. They must help students develop abilities in critical reading and thinking.
  4. They must help develop and foster an appreciation of cultural diversity and development in the United States and throughout the world.
  5. They must provide for all students an effective basic education that does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, physical disabilities or sexual orientation.
  6. They must allow sufficient flexibility for meeting the special needs of individual students and groups of students.

What we find instead are concerted efforts from Zionist organizations like the ADL and the Israel-American Council to actually punish school districts for creating or adopting their own curriculum. The MTA’s curriculum, for example, which attempts to add a Palestinian narrative to teaching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was savaged by the ADL and other pro-Israeli lobbyists for actually adhering to the MASC recommendations.

Conclusion

The Commission’s recommendations are so blatantly biased that, if implemented, they will do far more damage than good. We strongly urge the Legislature to shelve this report along with Steven Howitt’s latest attempt to make Israel’s definition of antisemitism the law in Massachusetts.

The Declaration of Independence

“A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Nightmare

Johann Heinrich Füssli, The Nightmare, 1781

I had the weirdest, most vivid and disturbing dream in a long time last night. As with any proper nightmare, all the elements were drawn from my own experiences. In the dream I was returning from an immigrant rights conference in Germany (where I actually did volunteer at a refugee center in 2016). In the dream I was traveling with only carry-on luggage, had already checked through security, and was waiting for my flight back home.

In the dream a Turkish woman airport employee (?) comes up to me, points to my carry-on, and tells me I need to sort out an issue with the luggage. It seems I haven’t paid duty taxes and it needs to be inspected again. I’m not sure of the significance of the woman’s identity except that when I lived in Germany half a century ago my neighbors were all Turkish Gastarbeiter.

Then the woman informs me that I have to return to the security checkpoint, which I do obligingly, though with a little trepidation. As soon as I am literally two feet inside the glassed doorway, two burly American security officials grab me. In my dream I observe my own arrest as if I were watching another person. My hands are handcuffed behind me, not with ties but with steel handcuffs.

One of the officials informs me that I’m in violation of some law no one has ever heard of involving moving to Canada to avoid the draft, that I’m guilty of illegal emigration. Indeed, I lived in Canada after the Viet Nam War ended, and my draft lottery numbers had fortunately kept me out of it. So in my dream I know the charges don’t really apply to me. I remain calm and am simply annoyed.

Throughout the arrest, my emotional sense is that someone has made a stupid mistake but that it can and will eventually get sorted out. But there is also a feeling of dread that the government can find something, anything, even if it’s actually nothing, and I’ll end up in a jail cell if they really want me there. And then it dawns on me that I am not in the U.S. and I start to wonder where these people are going to take me.

The next moment I’m awake.

In my post-dream fog I still feel stunned. As the sun comes up and I return to the quiet world I always wake to, something is really different. I have a dark foreboding that soon the Administration will start using any pretext to round up and “disappear” Leftists and dissidents as they are now doing with the undocumented, asylum seekers, and birthright citizens, and intend to do with naturalized citizens.

I don’t know if all this means I need a shrink or not, but you don’t really need a shrink to know that the American Dream has now been replaced by a fucking nightmare.

Liberals pile on Mamdani

Is this free advertising for Giulani’s endorsed candidate, Curtis Sliwa?

It’s fair to say that everyone from the hardcore far right to the marshmellowy liberal center has been seriously unnerved by the victory of Zohran Mamdini, a Muslim and a member of the Democratic Party left, in the New York Democratic primary race for mayor.

The Right has lost its mind to the point you’d think that End Times were upon us and that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao had replaced the Four Horsemen.

Former shell of a shell of a shell Rudi Giuliani went on the Benny Show to call for Mamdani’s arrest. Trump sycophant and content-free Islamophobe Laura Loomer pulled every fire alarm she could find warning of a communist jihadi — from Africa! — taking over the city. Wingnuts like this one and this one depicted the Statue of Liberty in a burqa were Mamdani to become mayor.

Liberals played it a bit cooler but they had their own singular concern — Israel.

On the night before the primary Steven Colbert invited Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander onto his show and, after a few warmup questions, went straight to the Big Question, requiring an answer with no nuance but every reassurance that Zionism remained sacrosanct:

“Despite this being a New York City race, foreign affairs have become part of it, partly because this has become such a multicultural city,” Colbert led with. “And so I’ll ask the same question of both of you; I’ll start with you, Mr. Lander. Does the state of Israel have the right to exist?”

Neither candidate was offered the opportunity to answer the question of what sort of state Israel should exist as, so questions of a secular democracy or a single state in which everyone has precisely the same rights were never open for discussion. Which is precisely the illiberal position “liberals” take on Israel.

Lander answered the question first with an oxymoron, “I support the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Colbert then turned to Mamdani: “Mr. Mamdani, same question: does the State of Israel have the right to exist?” “Yes,” Mamdani quickly answered. “Like all nations, I believe it has the right to exist and a responsibility also to uphold international law.”

Both candidates chose the Liberal Zionist-approved formulation: two states with Israel preserving Jewish supremacy over its non-Jewish citizens, with the world pretending it’s a democracy. Everyone left the studio happy.

Despite Mamdani’s checking off all the correct boxes for the cameras, Democrats remained frosty to a candidate who has voiced reservations about both Zionism and Capitalism. The Forward reported that New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand refused to endorse Mamdani and condemned his support for international resistance to the Occupation. Axios reported that neither New York’s other Senator Chuck Schumer nor Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY) would be endorsing Mamdani either. Nassau County (NY) Rep. Laura Gillen called Mamdani the “absolute wrong choice for New York” and Nassau County Rep. Tom Suozzi also expressed “serious concerns” with Mamdani’s victory.

Axios also reported that Mamdani’s win had Democratic Party donors scrambling to find ways of breathing new life into the campaign of disgraced New York governor Andrew Cuomo.

And in an editorial intended to nip Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral aspirations in the bud, the New York Times suddenly felt it necessary to warn its readers that any outrage or anger over Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza and the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran (which no doubt contributed to Mamdani’s win) were actually expressions of “antisemitism.”

Never mind that a flood of Islamophobia had just been uncorked in the City and could easily have been the subject of NYT editorial chastisement. But there was no way that was ever going to happen. Ignoring all the Muslim bashing, the Times plowed ahead, bashing the Left for its supposed “double standards” regarding Israel.

The Times editors chose the brutal arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, the murder of Israeli embassy employees, and a gruesome arson attack in Boulder, Colorado for their readers to illustrate the severity of antisemitism (which is true enough) — but the well-documented daily slaughter of food seekers by Israeli occupation troops, systematic starvation of Palestinian children by Israeli policy, the head-bashing of anti-Zionist Jewish students in the U.S., McCarthyite repression and attacks on higher education demanded by far-right Christian and Zionist extremists — were all somehow irrelevant to any discussion of why people are so angry at Israel — or in the editors’ formulation, “antisemitic.”

The antisemitism “statistics” the Times cited are also questionable. Whatever passes for “antisemitism” nowadays is most often determined according to the IHRA definition which applies 16 tests, 11 of them related to Israel, to cast all criticisms of Zionism or the Zionist state as “antisemitism.” Other cases rely on largely unsubstantiated numbers from the ADL, a group Wikipedia considers unreliable, which has now abandoned any pretense of being a civil rights group and instead is little more than a domestic collaborator with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

If criticism of Israel is weaponized to inflate antisemitism statistics, what is the real level of baseless hatred of Jews? Thanks to pro-Israel zealots, we have no idea.

Aside from extremely rare cases of murder and physical intimidation — easily matched by the murders of Muslims, Sikhs, Latinos, Black and trans people, and now Democratic politicians — many of these so-called “victims of antisemitism” are snowflakes like Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Harvard student who alleged he was targeted as a Jew because not enough Muslim and Jewish anti-genocide protesters were getting their heads cracked open by police in the encampments he so hated. For his “courage” Kestenbaum became a darling of Trump’s GOP.

Or Yoav Segev, a Harvard business student and son of two Israeli Foreign Ministry “diplomats,” who stepped on protesters as he tried to doxx them at a “die-in” and ended up claiming that he was the victim of assault. Both were student members of the Brandeis Center (not to be confused with the university), a far-right Zionist attack group whose secondary goals are dismantling DEI and affirmative action.

The New York Times appears to subscribe to the old Zionist saw that Jews are always the victim, no reason, no exceptions, and this inexplicable, primeval force has led, precisely now, to a spike of “hate crimes” unrelated to anything happening in the world. In emphasizing ahistorical antisemitism the Times essentially invokes biblical Amalek.

The more mysterious and inexplicable any phenomenon is, the better propaganda it makes. Statistics that portray anti-Israel protests as antisemitic are no longer burdened by having to account for actual geopolitical events like the slaughter of civilians or unprovoked military assaults on other countries. No sir. Just chalk up every expression of disgust or anger at Israel’s actions to an eternal, mysterious — even biblical — source. Needless to say, arguments like the Times’s are irrational hogwash.

Part of the unfairness of all Jews taking the blame for the crimes of Zionism is that mainstream Jewish organizations, from Jewish federations to congregations, insist on conflating Zionism with Judaism. Mainstream Jewish institutions have embraced Zionism in a death grip so tight that Jews who regard Zionism’s immoral nationalism as diametrically opposed to Judaism’s ethical values are marginalized and reviled as “self-hating” by their own communities. A good example is New York’s YeshivaWorld magazine, which attacked Brad Lander in precisely this way.

It was no coincidence that the New York Times’s “reminder” of the sins of Left “antisemitism” appeared so quickly following Mamdani’s primary victory. The Times not-so-subtly placed its fat thumb on the mayoral race by tag-teaming with MAGAworld to attack both Mamdani and the Left.

The Times perfunctorily dinged Trump for his crackdown on campuses — but not with much enthusiasm or consistency. The Times editors actually agree with Trump, Elise Stefanik, Virginia Foxx and the Brandeis Center that antisemitism is “exploding” on college campuses. Except that it is not, at least in comparison to Islamophobia.

If you read the studies that Harvard’s Task Force produced, 80% of Muslims feel unsafe on campuses — a much higher number than that of Jewish students — and this is largely because of the constellation of Zionist groups like Canary Mission which doxx Muslim students, because of police and government repression, and because their own cowardly university administrations have been collaborating with the Trump administration.

Trump’s State Department never targeted Jewish and Israeli students as it did Muslims (culminating with summarily withdrawing student visas and then “disappearing” them), but the Harvard study took far more seriously the hurt feelings of Zionist students whose Israeli hostage posters were ripped down.

Showing perfunctory “balance” by offering a couple of examples of right-wing antisemitism, the editors pointed a finger at Trump for dining with a Holocaust denier. But since the NYT itself denies the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, this only highlights the editors’ hypocrisy.

But the heart of the NYT editorial was to overtly push the pro-Zionist IHRA definition, to use it to excoriate the Left, and to discredit any mayoral candidates who just might, coincidentally, belong to the anti-Zionist Left:

“Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years.”

Sharansky, who worked for the Israeli Foreign Ministry at the time, concocted the IHRA definition, and his 3D test was its first iteration.

The NYT uses this handy multi-tool to elaborate upon various examples of supposed “double standards” on Israel — none of which are worthy of addressing here because such criticisms simply do not reflect double standards.

There is no other nation that the United States throws so much money at, devotes so many UN vetos to, provides so much funding for (in even our domestic budgets), or is so often involved with in military aggressions — as Israel. Furthermore, since the end of South Africa’s apartheid state, Israel has been unique in the world as the only pro-Western state anything like Afrikaaner South Africa.

Historically, Israel is an aberration, an anachronism, a relic that still embraces 19th century nationalism and 18th century settler-colonialism. It is a state that historian Tony Judt predicted would not and could not survive into the 21st century in its present form. In 2003 Judt wrote with amazing clarity: “The true alternative facing the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians.”

Liberals seem to have a preference for the worst choices.

So if anything is a double standard, it is the coddling of Israel by the U.S. and other Western imperialists, who routinely slap sanctions on savage, repressive regimes that violate human rights — but not Israel. While these nations themselves claim to embrace secular democracy and the rule of law, and in the U.S. Democrats claim to oppose Christian nationalism, they spare no effort to promote ethno-nationalism abroad, undermine democracy even in their own countries and to violate domestic, international, and moral law in defending one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet.

Trump’s and Israel’s tag team war on Iran

a B-2 getting ready to take off to bomb somebody, somewhere

In most American coverage of the US bombing of Iran, there is an implicit acceptance that Iran “had it coming,” that after all it is a fanatical regime everyone understands is building a bomb to destroy Israel. We can thank Israel and its fleet of lobbyists for this narrative. We can also thank institutions like the New York Times, which endlessly recycle Israel’s talking points. Last week the NYT’s editorial board published a weasel-worded op-ed which contained this:

“A nuclear-armed Iran would make the world less safe. It would destabilize the already volatile Middle East. It could imperil Israel’s existence. It would encourage other nations to acquire their own nuclear weapons, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.”

Naturally Israel’s own nukes or it’s ongoing genocide of Gazans weren’t mentioned and the article went on to describe the main defect of Israel’s bombing Iran:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has acted to destroy Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons without first shoring up allies’ support.”

So according to the NYT editors, it’s not that bombing Iran is unwise or bad — they’ve already told you why they approve — it’s that Israel has thoughtlessly failed to get sufficient American support for its aggression. What the editors of the New York Times want is bloody war — but with an AUMF that specifically includes Iran:

“If Mr. Trump wants the United States to join the Israeli war against Iran, the next step is as clear: Congress must first authorize the use of military force.”

Where Liberals seem to part company from war hawks is solely in objecting to the current inhabitant of the White House doing bombing unilaterally; in their liberal world military savagery requires a war powers resolution — not even passing the Constitutional bar for Congress to actually declare war. In other words; it’s not bad for the United States to attack another country for no good reason; it’s simply how you go about doing it.

But in a post-nuclear world, does anyone think that any nation can responsibly build nuclear weapons without eventually using them?

Not really. Americans almost universally believe restrictions on nuclear weapons should be placed solely on Iran. Not on the U.S. itself, which actually used nuclear weapons on human beings — twice. Not on India, which has become an authoritarian, ethno-nationalist state like Israel or Hungary and frequently rattles sabres at Pakistan, another nuclear power. No restrictions on Russia, China or North Korea, who are serious nuclear rivals. Demanding “no nukes” of any of these three would only serve to highlight our own hypocrisy.

And of course Americans don’t fear the nukes any of the European nuclear powers — the UK or France — who are habitual partners in American and/or NATO-led colonial-imperialist adventures. Nor from Israel — the most reckless, bloodthirsty regime in the Middle East, possessing between 90 and 300 nukes, a nation that over the last 24 months has bombed pretty much every one of its neighbors.

No, somehow in the homogenous Western narrative only Iran must be prevented from having nukes.

Let us recall, however, that China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the EU, the United States, and Iran all signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on July 14, 2015 in Vienna. It came into force on January 16, 2016. The agreement called for Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear technology, placed limits on enrichment, set milestones for verification of peaceful uses of the technology, and provided a path to removing sanctions from Iran. The agreement anticipated “that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security.” And Iran was sticking to it.

Netanyahu has been selling war on Iran for years. He finally closed the deal.

But true to American and Israeli contempt for international agreements and the rule-based order, both objected to the JCPOA so Trump abandoned the agreement in his first term, on May 8, 2018. Despite the U.S. withdrawal from JCPOA, it hypocritically insisted that Iran stick to the agreement even while slapping additional sanctions on Iran in violation of the JCPOA. When Biden became president, he went through the motions of re-joining the agreement. But, like Trump, his goal was to re-negotiate a more restrictive JCPOA than Iran had originally signed, appease Israel’s lobbyists, preserve Trump’s sanctions, and show that Democrats could be every bit the war-mongers as their MAGA brethren. For all his dithering and excuses, Biden could have simply re-committed to the original JCPOA.

There are 32 countries with nuclear programs, and only a handful of them have weapons programs. Despite the Israeli propaganda thrown at us for decades, each time ringing the alarm that Iran is mere weeks away from nuclear weapons, Iran has plenty of legitimate uses for nuclear technology that have nothing to do with weapons or even nuclear power. Especially because of Western sanctions.

Typical commercial uses of nuclear technology include: food irradiation; sterilization of medical instruments and equipment; radiation therapy for insect control and crop protection; inspecting welds and materials in manufacturing; gauging and measurement in various industries; and radioisotope-based analysis for analyzing materials and detecting impurities.

Medical uses include: radiation therapy to treat various types of cancer; nuclear medicine techniques such as PET scans to diagnose and monitor disease; radioisotope-based therapies for targeted cancer treatments, such as thyroid cancer; sterilization of medical instruments and equipment; radio-pharmaceuticals for diagnosing and treating cancers, cardiovascular disease, and neurological disorders; diagnosing and monitoring bone density and osteoporosis; and nuclear medicine research.

Specific radioisotopes often used for cancer treatment include: technetium-99m, for diagnostic imaging and cancer treatment; iodine-131, for thyroid cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging; molybdenum-99, for diagnostic imaging and cancer treatment; samarium-153, for pain relief and cancer treatment; and radium-223, for prostate cancer treatment.

After the US overthrew a secular, democratic Iranian government, it installed Shah Reza Pahlavi. Israel and the US both supported this monster. Iran’s nuclear program was just fine as long as it was in the hands of a US-approved tyrant.

The 32 countries with nuclear technology represent over half the world population. Within these 32 countries (Israel won’t admit to having a nuclear program), there are 440 power plants and all of them require some sort of enrichment or processing. Armenia with 2.1 million people has nuclear power. Other nations under 50 million people with nuclear power include: Argentina; Belgium; Bulgaria; Canada; the Czech Republic; Finland; Hungary; Netherlands; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan; Ukraine; and the United Arab Emirates.

Of the nuclear weapons states, France, with two-thirds the population of Iran, has 58 nuclear stations. The UK, also two-thirds the size of Iran, has 15.

All of these countries have programs much like the one the US just bombed at the behest of Israel. Miraculously, we have not bombed Switzerland or Canada. Yet.

In all of this is the inconvenient truth that Iran has never had a weapons program. If the Trump administration has any proof that Iran does, they won’t show us. The EU, the IAEA, various U.S. national security assessments, and even an opinion only weeks ago from National Security Advisor Tulsi Gabbard — before Mafia Don Trump leaned on her — was that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, Trump appears to be getting his “intelligence” from Israel and a small group of dubious “experts”, according to the Independent. These “advisors” include: Stephen Miller; Steve Witkoff, a luxury real estate developer; Steve Bannon; Marjorie Taylor Greene; Lindsay Graham; Tom Cotton; Candace Owens; John Ratliffe, a former CIA director with close ties to Israel; and a pro-Israel general, Michael Erik Kurilla.

When asked on Air Force One about Gabbard’s previous assessment, Trump shot back, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.” Similarly refusing to acknowledge the discrepancy between European and previous U.S. assessments that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons — and Trump’s “experts” — Marco Rubio was asked on “Face the Nation” where Trump’s “intelligence” came from. “It doesn’t matter!” he screamed at news anchor Margaret Brennon. “That’s irrelevant!”

The Israeli-American Council, a front for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, wants to restore the Iranian dictator’s son to power.

For over 30 years American foreign policy makers have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran. Recall Senator John McCain singing “Bomb, Bomb Iran” to a Beach Boys tune 18 years ago. In the intervening years there were two Gulf wars — fought on equally spurious intel. Civil liberties were a casualty, a huge surveillance and police state were built, and the power of the President to declare war was handed over to him on a platter by a cowardly Congress using “war powers resolutions” which bypass the Constitutional requirement that it is Congress that declares war.

Ultimately, war hawks and Israel’s lobbyists found a president who didn’t give a damn about war powers resolutions or even Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Nor anything else in that wrinkly old document.

The “Art of the Deal” maker simply made a side deal with Israel, and in so doing blindsided the American Congress, lied about a two-week timetable during which Congress might have given him war powers anyway (so much for the New York Times argument), and then had his White Supremacist Crusader-tatted defense chief send B-2’s to bomb Iran.

Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have been deer in the headlights since the election, unable to get Democrats to fall into line. Some of them — for example, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, former Clinton aide Jamie Metzl, and others — actually cheered the illegal bombings and sang Trump’s praises.

California Congressman Rohit Khanna penned a piece in the Nation arguing for support for his bipartisan war powers resolution, which so far has only a small number of cosponsors. In the Senate Tim Kaine of Virginia filed a similar resolution, which does nothing but attempt to claw back powers ceded to the president in previous AUMF agreements, and only in regard to Iran. Congress is neither bold enough nor smart enough to terminate all AUMFs and forcefully exercise its Constitutional rights.

Texas Congressman Al Green did actually file articles of impeachment citing Trump’s usurpation of Congressional powers. Not only is bombing a nation and killing hundreds of civilians without Congressional approval an unconstitutional act, doing so as an professional courtesy for [another] genocidal regime and lying to Congress about it ought to result in impeachment, prison, or the firing squad.

But neither resolutions nor articles of impeachment have accomplished anything more than to give Congress a platform for grand theatre. If we really want to hold criminal presidents accountable, the Department of Justice needs to stop treating them as emperors and to start prosecuting them. But because the Constitution unwisely placed the Department of Justice under the Presidential branch (which Washington felt was too similar to a King), prosecutions of a sitting president are virtually impossible. Any trials of past presidents must be held when a new regime comes to power. For that a simple DOJ memo would suffice.

But none of this alters the insanity and the depravity of bombing Iran in the first place.

A few nights ago I listened to Mehdi Hasan’s interview with Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute. Parsi knows more about Iran than Trump, his kooky Iran war panel, Hegseth, Rubio, Cruz, Schumer, Jeffries, and both Clintons put together. Parsi’s own father was jailed by the Shah and then again by the Ayatollah, so you don’t have to tell him about the sins of the Islamic Republic. Parsi also gave a shorter interview to CBS Mornings.

In both interviews Parsi alluded to the JCPOA, which was doing its job and was something Trump should not have abrogated. And for all the contempt in which Parsi holds the Iranian regime, he nevertheless does not regard Iran as a bunch of fanatical lunatics. Iran’s responses have been measured, restrained, strategic, and its counter-attacks have been measured and proportionate. For example, Iran called the White House to warn the U.S. of the reprisal missiles to Qatar in order to minimize loss of life.

Parsi has a pretty good idea of what comes next. And it’s a completely rational response on Iran’s part. Parsi told CBS Mornings, “I frankly think that what has been done here [by Trump] more or less guarantees that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state five to ten years from now.”

Iran and every other target of American foreign policy and military “intervention” have surely noticed that the only country that the U.S. will not bomb is one with nuclear weapons.

So the bombing of Iran is the result of the conventional wisdom — of both the Dr. Strangeloves and also the liberals who mumble in their sleep that Iran is a “fanatical” state.

Because of ingrained, irrational, and institutionalized American hostility toward Iran, our Israel-influenced refusal to accord Iran’s non-defense nuclear program the same rights as dozens of other nations (especially Israel), or to honor an international agreement both nations signed, Iran has now been forced to start developing nuclear weapons in earnest.

And, now, as Israel and the U.S. contemplate even more bombings, there’s a quick solution for this too.

Iran can simply acquire nukes from Russia.

Once upon a time…

Let me tell you a story

Once upon a time there was a sheriff’s son… let’s call him Jimmy Lee.

Jimmy Lee lived in an old plantation built by slaves on Indian land, on a lovely lane lined with trees covered in Spanish moss. Jimmy had been given every advantage in a world constructed expressly for people of his complexion. But still he was unsatisfied. There were few rules for a boy like Jimmy Lee. He graduated from killing cats as a tyke, to tipping over Black families’ outhouses as a teen, to beating Black folks up as an adult, even blinding a young man in a particularly violent incident, eventually joining the Klan — all while Daddy Lee groomed him to be the next sheriff.

Daddy Lee had no qualms about stealing from county taxpayers to finance extravagant toys for himself and young Jimmy. The pampered son naturally had a collection of hand guns and semiautomatics, quite the bachelor pad, and Daddy’s old Chevy 454 SS pickup. He was brash and hard-assed. He was the envy of even liberal townfolk.

Jimmy Lee’s Apocalypse 6×6

But now, with all the money Daddy had managed to siphon from the county, good ole Jimmy now also had an Apocalypse 6×6 Dodge Hellcat with 707 horses and a reworked chassis. The goddamn thing looked like a frigging armed personnel carrier and scared the shit out of all the neighbors — which of course was the whole point.

A youthful career of unpunished theft, assault, and arson eventually led Jimmy to home invasions and fraudulent home foreclosures, made possible only through the quasi-legal machinations of Daddy Lee, judicial cronies, and several banks. Within short order Jimmy and his friends had taken ownership of almost half the homes on the other side of the tracks that marked the town’s racial boundary.

Jimmy Lee

One day Jimmy simply broke into a Black doctor’s home, Glock in hand, his masked friends carrying bats, knives and AR-15’s. This time the home owner put up quite a fight but still ended up in the emergency room at his own underfunded Black clinic. The doctor’s friends and neighbors protested, of course, and launched a fruitless legal effort to reclaim the beloved physician’s home from the invaders. They even mounted a boycott of businesses that supported Jimmy Lee and his corrupt father, but legislators labelled them racists and terrorists, enacting dozens of laws to criminalize victims and shield the perpetrators.

The entire system was stacked against them. Even the small town papers always seemed to side with Jimmy Lee or Daddy Lee. Nevertheless, the case became so well-known outside the county and engendered such outrage that a deal was reached — Jimmy Lee would stay in the invaded home, but the doctor and his family got to stay in the basement while everyone but the actual owner decided what was fair. Town liberals heralded this new “two family” arrangement as the best and only viable resolution to such cases — which were quickly multiplying.

Daddy Lee

But the arrangement rankled Jimmy Lee, who believed he was entitled to the entire house. It rankled his pride. It rankled his sense of white superiority and entitlement that this… this clearly inferior doctor was treated with kid gloves and was allowed to stay in Jimmy Lee’s house, albeit in the basement.

As the anger welled up in Jimmy Lee’s veins, he’d periodically stomp down the old wood basement stairs to give the doctor a thrashing to remember. Or he’d kill one of the doctor’s cats, destroy some furniture, or traumatize his children. In his heart of hearts what Jimmy Lee really wanted was to murder them all in the most grotesque manner imaginable. But the time wasn’t quite right.

One day it was the doctor’s turn — long overdue, if you ask me — to erupt in rage. He left his basement and found some of Jimmy’s buddies in their stolen homes and killed them in their beds. Having made his point the doctor went home to his little house — the only home he knew — and waited.

Unfortunately for the doctor, whatever little public sympathy there was for his situation rapidly went up in smoke. Every county deputy, every sheriff and deputy and police officer from every surrounding county — even the state police — were called to the good doctor’s house to deal with him. And of course Jimmy’s Klan buddies showed up too, armed to the teeth.

By the end of the day, the doctor’s house was splinter and ash. The doctor was no more. His children were no more. Every one of his neighbors was no more. All of their houses lay in ruin. The level of destruction was unimaginable. It was like a hundred seasonal hurricanes had blown through the little Southern town.

Jimmy and his Klan buddies — even the forces of “law and order” who had joined in — were so convinced that no one would ever hold them accountable that they filmed the entire orgy of murder and destruction and posted it on social media. And it turned out that they were right — no one ever did hold any of them accountable.

And so, unpunished and undeterred, Jimmy Lee climbed back into his Apocalypse 6×6 modified Dodge Hellcat 707 and turned his gun sights on everyone who had tried to stop him.

The end. Nighty night.

Down the Slippery Slope we go

June 2025, California National Guard deployed by America’s wannabe dictator

Written by slaveholders who never imagined that anyone but wealthy white plantation owners would ever be running the country, the United States has one of the most vague and dysfunctional Constitutions and system of government in the Western world.

Antidemocratic design choices like the US House of Lords (the Senate), our peculiar Electoral College, the inability to hold no-confidence votes to end a government, together with all the mood swings of voters and the periodic and arbitrary re-interpretations of law by a broken, partisan judicial system drive citizens of every political persuasion mad.

The level of corruption, criminality, cowardice, and hypocrisy within every branch of this system of government is astounding and only keeps growing.

Last month Supreme Court approval ratings dropped below 50% for the first time in five years. Since being elected, Donald Trump’s approval ratings have dropped 12 points and are now at 41%. Coming in dead last in being trusted by Americans, Congressional approval ratings are now at 37%.

We no longer have a government that governs by the consent of the governed.

Instead, our rulers are a lawless band of pardoned criminals and oligarchs who have set about to loot the country, destroy anything of use to working people, and are doing a bang-up job of reprising Germany of 1933. Not to mention participating in a genocide and threatening us all with World War III.

Naturally, would-be dictators are sensitive to criticism and don’t much appreciate hearing from the hoi polloi.

Last week we experienced Trump’s unusual mobilization of the National Guard in California and an illegal deployment of U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I guess we had it coming. We find nothing wrong with sending in the Marines on other people’s streets to intimidate and/or murder them — or as we like to say, to “keep peace” — so it was just a matter of time before it happened to American citizens too.

June 2025, U.S. Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, attached to Task Force 51, police Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Watching Angelinos stand up for their undocumented friends and neighbors must have been a shocking, unwelcome sight to MAGA Americans whose ideological roots trace back to the aptly-named No Nothing Party, which had a platform remarkably like their Führer’s.

One of MAGA world’s many conspiracy theories is that of the paid “crisis actor.”

Magnified by social media and the rightwing press, a narrative emerged that the Los Angeles ICE protests and the “No Kings” demonstrations were funded by George Soros, always the go-to Jew that MAGA antisemites accuse of “bankrolling” any protest or progressive effort they don’t like.

The Washingon Examiner dismissed community outrage at masked men in unmarked cars operating like Stasi agents with no warrants. Instead they figured it had to be a “well-funded” effort by Democratic operatives to “make them appear spontaneous and grassroots.” If only Democrats would fight like that — or at all.

The New York Post ran out of fingers coming up with new culprits — immigration rights groups, the Chinese Communist Party, Code Pink, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), various terrorist groups and individuals — not to mention your grandmother in Pasadena.

Others imagined they recognized the fingerprints of lefty tech mogul Neville Singam and the service employees international union SEIU on the protests. Naturally, ICE, which has now become Trump’s Republican (or perhaps Praetorian) Guard, assaulted the SEIU president and arrested him on Trumped-up charges. Several Democratic elected officials shared similar manhandling. Thuggish beat-downs of the loyal opposition were a prominent feature of the Sturmabteilung.

It was inconceivable to any of these racist morons that people might come out into the streets to show solidarity with their friends, coworkers, and neighbors. After all, people like this can’t imagine solidarity with anyone except perhaps other white Christian nationalists.

Josh Hawley, “brave heart” (left). Josh Hawley: frightened little wabbit (right)

One of the biggest racist morons of them all is Senator Josh Hawley. You’ll remember him as the puffed-up provocateur who stood behind a protective police shield egging on January 6th seditionists, but who ran like a jackrabbit when his neo-nazi buddies actually breached the Senate.

Hawley — a hypocrite with clearly selective outrage for protest — is now playing the well-greased part of Joseph McCarthy by launching a witch hunt against the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights and at least one socialist group, the PSL.

Without a shred of proof or bothering to enumerate any specific cases of lawbreaking other than the Constitutionally-protected right to protest and (yes) disrupt, Hawley accuses both of “financing and materially supporting the coordinated protests and riots” and providing “logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions.”

Threatening each with “referral for criminal investigation,” Hawley’s fishing expedition is asking for each to provide:

  1. All internal communications, including emails, text messages, chat logs, and messaging applications, relating to protest planning, coordination, or funding.
  2. All financial documents related to protests, demonstrations, or mobilization efforts in Los Angeles or elsewhere relating to immigration enforcement.
  3. All third-party contracts or vendor agreements, including any arrangements with event organizers, transportation providers, security personnel, or communications consultants relating to immigration enforcement or the Los Angeles protests, or similar protests elsewhere.
  4. Grant applications and funding proposals that relate to or reference immigration enforcement.
  5. Travel and lodging records for individuals or groups supported or reimbursed in connection with protest activities.
  6. Media or public relations strategies, including talking points, press releases, and coordination with journalists or influencers relating to immigration protests.
  7. Donor lists.

That’s quite the shopping list.

* * *

Treating dissent as terrorism is precisely how the Nazis began hounding the German Left in 1933. And we all know how that turned out.

The Captains’ Coup

Daniela Melo and Timothy Walker are editors of Wilfred Burchett’s book, The Captains’ Coup, an account of Portugal’s Carnation Revolution. The couple are Massachusetts professors both well-steeped in Portuguese politics and history. While bookstore browsing in Lisbon they came across Wilfred Burchett’s book in Portuguese translation, then attempted to locate the original English edition. The hunt for Burchett’s original manuscript plays a small but intriguing part in the introduction to the book, and Melo and Walker’s scholarly notes (and the occasional correction of Burchett’s errors) serve readers very well.

Burchett’s “you are there” reporting is exciting and very readable, while at the same time he provides much-needed background into the dismal conditions in both the industrial centers of Portugal and in the Alentejo and other agricultural areas.

In 1974 Burchett dropped everything to travel to Portugal to observe the Carnation Revolution (still in progress) and to interview many of the major protagonists, the minor characters, and everyday people who participated in shutting down the world’s longest-running empire (at that point) together with a brutal fascist regime.

Burchett’s accounts give you a sense of how desperate the Portuguese people were. He paints a detailed picture of the brutality, senselessness, and economic recklessness of conducting multiple simultaneous colonial wars in Africa. At one point 57% of the Portuguese economy was devoted to wars in Africa, with horrendous casualties of the young men of the bourgoisie and a growing number of working class army and naval officers.

Even as the Portuguese dictatorship was playing colonizer, Portuguese workers were themselves colonized by European and American corporations which treated them as disposable equipment and relied on PIDE, the Portuguese secret police, to crush any labor disturbances. Absentee landlords created many levels of misery for those from whom they stole traditionally communal land. The peasantry was overwhelmingly illiterate and the Church, particularly in the North of Portugal, played an exceptionally reactionary role in mis-informing parishioners and in collaborating with the fascists.

The Portuguese “revolution” was, true to the book’s title, more a coup. The Portuguese working class did not rise up in any Marxist sense of revolution. Although different elements of a disgruntled and worn-out military competed for the loyalty of the people, and though the “revolution” at first had some of the characteristics of peasant and worker revolts, particularly against the latifundia, rebellion was quickly quashed by the Socialist Party with a certain amount of acquiescence of the Portuguese Communist Party, which feared not only widespread strikes but that what the “captains” had unleashed could not be put back on a leash.

An Afterword by New Left scholar Tariq Ali attempts to draw lessons from the failure of the Carnation Revolution, fixing blame on the Communists, “ultra-leftists,” the Socialists, the CIA, and the Portuguese military itself. Ali quotes Lenin: “without the independent activity of the masses, there can be no revolution,” and he goes on to slam the various factions for suppressing the independent activity of the masses.

But at the end of the day, the Carnation Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, fomented by the sons of the privileged classes. To quote Lenin again, “without the independent activity of the masses, there can be no revolution.” As Ali points out, the Captains and the young bourgeois officer corps which spawned the revolution had also considered a Plan B – becoming executives in Capitalist enterprises in a modernized European social democratic state.

It didn’t take them long to get there.

Looking beyond the Democratic Party

a liberal rally: good vibes but no
demands

We absolutely need more mass mobilizations and protests as the country goes down in flames — especially as America’s own “Il Douchey” makes even more Mussolini moves, criminalizes anti-ICE and anti-genocide protests, violates the Posse Cometatus Act, stages self-congratulatory military parades like a North Korean despot, and as Congressional lackeys like Josh Hawley launch McCarthyite hearings of immigrant groups and the American Left.

I’m just not sure what to make of the “No Kings” events scheduled for June 14th.

No Kings is a project of Indivisible, which in turn is a project of Democratic operatives and former Democratic Congressional aides who decided (in typical Democrat fashion) that the Tea Party movement’s successes could be mimicked. Only thing is, they do it half-heartedly, sporadically and unconvincingly, and they completely lack any program to truly fight back.

There is nothing inherently wrong with attending one of these feel-good events. I’m sure the mainstream press will report that X number of people showed up to protest Trump. But they won’t be able to report on exactly what the organizers had planned – because there is no real plan.

How are Democrats going to challenge and thwart Trump and a MAGA Congress enjoying a temporary and only razor-thin majority? Where is the opposition?

Are any of “No King’s” Democratic organizers about to challenge Chuck Schumer’s increasingly out-of-touch and impotent sputtering and posturing or his go-along-to-get-along collaborationist “strategy”?

Do “No Kings” organizers want to replace the 95 fellow Democrats who sided with Republicans to “express gratitude” to ICE for “protecting” us from those evil gardeners, housekeepers, meat packers, textile workers, and roofers who pay into a system they will never benefit from yet lack the ability to switch borders on whim like Big Business routinely does?

Are “No Kings” organizers calling for a shakeup in their party’s leadership or condemning party members who voted for the Laken Riley Act which actually authorized the crackdown that now these organizers and their duplicitous party claim to be protesting?

No, not for one damned millisecond. The Democratic Party they shill for demonstrates each time their representatives in Congress vote that its values are not substantially different from the Republicans’. At the end of the day, street theater like “No Kings” is nothing but a safety valve, a way to let off a little steam, a cynical mechanism to defuse the righteous anger of working people betrayed by both parties.

We’d all be better-served by not putting all of our eggs in the electoral basket. Neither party represents us in elections and a healthy amount of hell-raising must be done outside the electoral arena.

Join an organization with a real program, dare I say a socialist one. Consider working with the kind of organization that autocrats fear enough to launch witch hunts against. One that grasps better than the toothless, Janus-faced, war-mongering Democrats what the true objectives of America’s lords and masters really are in dismantling every shred of democracy and governance, demonizing our “illegal” friends, coworkers, and neighbors, while rushing us headlong into war after war of aggression and genocide.

In short, if you really want change, friends, start looking beyond the Democratic Party.

The Nazi Seizure of Power

Freikorps Reichsbanner, Magdeburg, 1925

The Weimar Republic was every bit as militarized as the United States and it revered its military and its veterans in much the same excessive manner. Particularly in Prussia, there were numerous militias, the Freikorps, some dating back centuries, which served as veterans associations, recruitment pools, and as reserves for the imperial army.

One of these was the Reichsbanner, literally the flag of the republic. While the Reichsbanner was officially a multiparty militia, it was closely tied to the German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the SPD.

In 1919 a different Freikorps militia, the Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen-Division, reporting to the newly-elected SPD government and its Defense Minister, together with elements of the German army, planned and carried out the assassinations of German communists Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. The killers, who ranged from the German Defense Minister himself to enlisted men, were all acquitted by a military court and the disposition of the case was approved by the SPD. The two victims, after all, were despised communists.

By 1933, hostile to both Kommunisten and Nationalsozialisten alike, the remaining SPD-oriented militias calculated that navigating a timid middle course would save not only the republic but themselves from metastasizing fascism. The story of how this strategy failed spectacularly, and how the Reichsbanner was systematically erased by Nazis, is told in William Sheridan Allen’s book, The Nazi Seizure of Power (1973).

So when the Trump administration begins demanding personal loyalty oaths from individual military units and purging elements displaying any independence or concern for the Constitution, think back on the following passage from Allen’s book (p. 180):

The Reichsbanner, with all its plans for instant mobilization, had its members struck down one by one, its leaders imprisoned, beaten, hounded from their jobs and their homes without any resistance from the organization as a whole.

Perhaps the basic reason for this was that there was no Nazi coup d’état. Instead, there was a series of quasi-legal actions over a period of at least six months, no one of which by itself constituted a revolution, but the sum of which transformed Germany from a republic to a dictatorship.

The problem was where to draw the line. But by the time the line could be clearly drawn, the revolution was a fait accompli, the potential organs of resistance had been individually smashed, and organized resistance was no longer possible. In short, the splendid organization was to no avail; in the actual course of events it was every man for himself.

The Thalburger Reichsbanner itself was ready to fight in 1933. All it needed was the order from Berlin. Had it been given, Thalburg’s Reichsbanner members would have carried out the tested plan they had worked on so long — to obtain and distribute weapons and to crush the Nazis. But Thalburg’s Reichsbanner would not act on its own. The leaders felt that single acts would come to grief, would possibly compromise the chance when it finally did come, and would, in any event, be a betrayal of discipline. They felt that their only hope was in common action, all together, all over the Reich. Hadn’t the former SPD governor of Hannover, Gustav Noske, said that only a counterattack should be made? So they waited and prayed for the order to come, but it never did.

And while they waited the Nazis began tracking them down, one by one. Finally it was clear that there would never be an order…

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Gaza

Hiroshima, 1945

On August 6th, 1945 the United States was the first, and to-date the only, state to ever use nuclear weapons on human beings. At roughly 9:15 that morning a B-29 bomber dubbed Enola Gay dropped a bomb named Little Boy which, for maximum carnage, was detonated roughly 2,000 feet over Hiroshima, killing 10,000 Japanese troops, 12 Allied prisoners of war and 156,000 civilians in an unprecedented display of such a weapon of mass destruction. An exultant Harry Truman called it “the greatest thing in history.”

Three days later the U.S. repeated the atrocity in Nagasaki. On August 9th, another B-29 named Bockscar took off carrying a bomb nicknamed Fat Man intended for the city of Kokura. But because of poor visibility the bombing run was switched to Nagasaki and, once it had arrived, the secondary target was not visible either. But the show had to go on, so at almost precisely noon the crew of the B-29 dumped Fat Man anyway, several miles from the intended target, detonating it 1,650 feet above Nagasaki, obliterating half the city and killing 150 Japanese soldiers, 13 Allied prisoners, and 80,000 civilians.

Even today, many liberals mouth the line that Truman’s bomb saved American lives by ending the war. In the middle of a discussion with this writer about Hiroshima, the friend waved his hands in dismissal: “Hard things have to be done in circumstances not of our own making.”

But when you’re a superpower, as the United States has been since at least August 6th, 1945, almost every circumstance is of its making.

It is a presidential prerogative to be able to send hellfire missiles into someone’s bathroom window without consequence — a perk extended to Israeli prime ministers under U.S. protection. When Donald Trump fantasized about murdering someone with impunity in Times Square he was not only anticipating his own future impunity but describing that of every US sitting president. Trump is just the latest monster we have elected many times before.

“Hard things” and “hard choices” are hollow phrases used to defend the indefensible. They imply that only a select few, unencumbered by normal human, moral qualms or trifling legalities, are capable of making the tough decisions that “keep us safe.” An example from popular culture is the monologue delivered by a fictional Colonel Nathan Jessep in Aaron Sorkin’s “A Few Good Men.”

“You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? … You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.”

Naturally, no perversion of ethics or morality can be accomplished without the falsification of history to cast these “grotesque and incomprehensible” choices in the most favorable light.

If we are to believe such creatures, the Israel-Palestine conflict began on October 7th, 2023. A century of Israeli colonization, ethnic cleansing and land theft is completely irrelevant and instead substituted with vehement declarations that “Israel has every right to defend itself” — at least to the extent that any home invader has the “right” to defend himself from someone whose home he has invaded at gunpoint and tied to a chair.

Gaza, 2025

The American use of nuclear weapons on Japan was an uncanny precursor to Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki a combined 36 kilotons of TNT were used to level both cities. The kilotonnage dropped by Israel in its latest war dwarfs that dropped by the Allies on Dresden — and even the 25 kilotons dropped on Baghdad in 2003. By July 2024, provided unlimited munitions by the Biden administration, Israel had dropped 36 kilotons of munitions on Gaza. The past year, with Trump’s complicity, that number has only increased.

Israel has now surpassed all previous records for the number of kilotons of weapons used to snuff out human life in a relatively small area.

Truman’s mendacious justifications for dropping the Bomb were very much like Netanyahu’s excuses for the total destruction of Gaza and the genocidal slaughter of Palestinians. Of the 226,000 Japanese killed, only 20,000 were military casualties. Virtually every justification for dropping the Bomb recited by Truman, Oppenheimer, Department of Defense officials, or echoed by a compliant, cheerleading media until they became “true” was spun from a tissue of exaggeration and lies.

But not everyone bought it. General and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower dismissed the human costs of slaughtering so many civilians: “Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of ‘face’. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

J. Samuel Walker, Chief Historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.”

Katie McKinney, Scott D. Sagan, and Allen S. Weiner argue in Lawfare and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that today the 1945 bombings would be considered a war crime and that

“The archival record makes clear that killing large numbers of civilians was the primary purpose of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima; destruction of military targets and war industry was a secondary goal and one that “legitimized” the intentional destruction of a city in the minds of some participants. The atomic bomb was detonated over the center of Hiroshima. More than 70,000 men, women, and children were killed immediately; the munitions factories on the periphery of the city were left largely unscathed. Such a nuclear attack would be illegal today. It would violate three major requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions: the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. There could be great pressure to use nuclear weapons in future scenarios in which many American soldiers’ lives are at risk and there is no guarantee that a future US president would follow the law of armed conflict. That is why the United States needs senior military officers who fully understand the law and demand compliance and presidents who care about law and justice in war.”

“In his first radio address after the bombing of Hiroshima, President Harry S. Truman claimed that “[t]he world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”Footnote1 This statement was misleading in two important ways. First, although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities, an army headquarters, and troop loading docks, the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women, and children was hardly “a military base” (Stone Citation1945, 1). Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on August 6, 1945 were Japanese military personnel (Bernstein Citation2003, 904–905). Second, the US planners of the attack did not attempt to “avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” On the contrary, both the Target Committee (which included Robert Oppenheimer and Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves of the Manhattan Project) and the higher-level Interim Committee (led by Secretary of War Henry Stimson) sought to kill large numbers of Japanese civilians in the attack. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was deliberately detonated above the residential and commercial center of the city, and not directly on legitimate military targets, to magnify the shock effect on the Japanese public and leadership in Tokyo.”

Sun Tzu wrote of the “selective, instant beheading of military or societal targets to achieve shock and awe.” The Nazis called it Blitzkrieg. The U.S. doctrine of “Shock and Awe” was codified in 2005, two years after the “Battle of Baghdad.”

“Shock and awe” — or whatever you call the use of massive force for terror — always expresses itself in genocidal rage and is fed by domestic racism. During World War II Japanese American citizens were rounded up (euphemism: “interned”) and placed in concentration camps.

“internment” orders

White Americans were even given instructions on how to differentiate a “Jap” from other Asians:

how to spot a “Jap”

In 1942 Fortune Magazine managed to roll up every Japanese stereotype together with a call for the destruction of “medieval” Japanese society and its false gods:

Fortune Magazine calls for civilizational destruction

Today the aims of Israeli generals and Israel’s far-right government are no different — vent racist genocidal rage on a despised population through the disproportionate use of military power, ostensibly to demoralize the enemy but in fact designed to scrape him off the face of the earth.

A recent Haaretz poll showed that a shocking 82% of all Israelis approve of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Last year a couple of podcasters broadcast an episode (since removed) of a podcast called “Two Nice Jewish Boys,” expressing not only their approval of ethnic cleansing but of genocide.

“If you gave me a button to just erase Gaza, every single living being in Gaza would no longer be living tomorrow, I would press it in a second,” Eytan Weinstein, co-host of the Israeli English-language podcast Two Nice Jewish Boys, said in an Aug. 9, 2024 episode. His co-host Naor Meningher went on to reiterate several times that he would press that extermination button “right now,” adding that “most Israelis would.”

And if you think these two psychopaths represent Israel’s fringe, both genocide enthusiasts hosted Deborah Lipstadt, Joe Biden’s “antisemitism” advisor, on one of their episodes.

Add to this the thousands of social media posts by Israeli troops in Gaza self-documenting war crimes and looting. All this is in line with incitement so frequent and numerous that Law for Palestine has documented incitement by more than 500 Israeli legislators, journalists, and the military calling for the annihilation of Palestinians.

While the disproportionate use of weaponry is based on hate, not strictly self-protection, the very nature of such wars always betrays the true aims of the colonial powers that use them.

When an imperialist power has virtually unlimited armaments for “Shock and Awe,” every day is an opportunity to terrorize smaller nations — or share its munitions with geopolitical allies.

When an imperialist power chooses warfare designed to cripple and demoralize “societal targets” through the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, it is always and predictably accompanied by an enormous loss of civilian life. And that is by design when you are not fighting an enemy as much as subduing a nation.

The generals have long ceased worrying about how many women and children they will slaughter. But, more importantly, the imperialist powers deliberately choose these tactics in order to reinforce hegemony and destroy global (or local) rivals.

As we peel away the lies and propaganda that America’s many wars and military adventures are built on — lies that also permeate the teaching of history, particularly around race — we need to question the propaganda we are continuously fed. A lazy, tractable media is always more than happy to repeat the conventional wisdom or reprint an official story, even verbatim, but sometimes they reveal (as the Washington Post did not that long ago in a story about the Bomb) some new finding based on diving into archives to see how history was really made.

This is what happened with contemporary scholarship on Palestine. Until Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Rashid Khalidi and others began poking around Israeli archives, the “official story” went something like this:

“In 1947 the Zionist leaders accepted the UN partition plan, which was rejected by the Arabs, who united to launch a war to expel the Jews from Palestine, a war during which Israel narrowly escaped destruction. In the course of the war, the Palestinians fled at the behest of Arab leaders. Later, Israel sought a peace which has always been refused by every Arab state.”

What the “new historians,” many Israeli, actually discovered was that Israel had long planned to completely depopulate Palestine of Arabs, and in 1948 they came close to finishing the job. 80% of Palestine — over 500 cities, towns and villages — were emptied of Palestinians through murder and terror.

References to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by one of the planners can be found in the diary of Yosef Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Transfer Committee and Chief of land confiscation operations. On December 20, 1940, Weitz referred to a plan later referred to as Plan Dalet in his diary: “The only solution is a Land of Israel devoid of Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. They must all be moved. Not one village, not one tribe, can remain. Only through this *transfer* of the Arabs living in the Land of Israel will redemption come,” he wrote.

The Zionist “solution” to the Palestinian Problem was formulated more than a year before the Nazis came up with a similar “solution” to the Jewish Problem.

But this is all Zionism 101. “Transfer” was the 1940’s Zionist term to describe ethnic cleansing. Israelis still use it and mean it in its original sense. Theodor Herzl had written in 1896 in his own diary, “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.” In the 1950’s another plan, Operation Yohanan, was conceived to ship to South America any remaining Arab Christians who had not been “transferred” in the 1948 Nakba.

75 years after the Nakba, Israel is still trying to eliminate Palestinians. And in 2025 it even revived the “South American” plan — this time the end of the line for “transferred” Palestinians was to be Africa.

To the average liberal Zionist American or Israeli, such narratives are unimaginable cognitive dissonance and are rejected out of hand as blatant antisemitism. Nevertheless, they are unpleasant historical facts that must be reckoned with honestly — just as the truth behind bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki is unimaginable to a liberal American because he simply cannot bring himself to believe that his country could ever commit a crime so heinous.

140+ days into the Trump administration many Democrats fondly remember the last president a bit too wistfully. For the average liberal, Joe Biden is credited with making “hard choices,” even as the enthusiastic self-described “Zionist” signed on to assist Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

But Biden’s choices were never that difficult to make because every president surrounds himself with national security advisors, generals, admirals, lobbyists, donors, a handpicked defense secretary, relies on the assistance of Congressional and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee members from his own party (people like Bill Keating), or has been delegated war powers that actually belong to Congress, by men exactly like himself.

Foreign affairs experts call this assemblage of homogenous and self-reinforcing decision-making “The Blob” — institutional group-think by a revolving door of business and foreign policy interests and lobbies, some foreign. Within the “Blob” there are no principled positions, no out-of-the-box solutions, only pre-approved policy based on the expectations of interests that have paid to bring the president to power and keep him there.

All of this fosters legal and moral isolation as well. Who in the Blob is going to remind the President that genocide is wrong? At the end of the day, such creatures don’t make hard choices at all; they play the parts they were hired, or appointed, to play. This is, after all, how Capitalism works. Only after they leave government (men like Matthew Miller) do they occasionally screw up the courage to tell the world that the boss was wrong or that they themselves were lying to the public.

Of all the dismal aspects of American foreign policy madness, the worst may be the almost messianic belief that America has a divinely ordained “exceptional” mission in the world, that it must maintain a military edge at all cost, must be allowed to operate freely on foreign soil or interfere in the affairs of other nations at any whim or minor provocation — that only the United States has valid national interests. There is only one other nation that shares such a messianic view — Israel.

Unburdened by conventional morality or ethics, swatting away trivial Constitutional and legal barriers to illegal acts, surrounded by ideological clones, and armed with an almost fundamentalist religious belief about the nation, a president’s “tough” decisions are actually quite easy, fairly rote. He simply does what he is paid to do. All the rest is public relations.

As for the rest of us, the lies we tell ourselves about the abilities and decency of these “exceptional” men to make “hard choices” to “keep us safe” — this just keeps us electing sociopaths and genocidal maniacs, always voting against our own interests.

Let them in

There is no precise date, in our long history of the ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, creating the institution of slavery and slave patrols, maintaining racist immigration laws, perverting justice to maintain Jim Crow, or cracking down on dissidents, when we finally became the police state that we are today. But here we are.

Today’s proliferation of cameras and license plate readers, the near-constant surveillance of citizens, the policing of speech and thought, warrant-less searches, ballooning police budgets, a now trillion dollar military budget, increasing police militarization, the metastasis of an already vast “Homeland Security” apparatus, the transformation of “La Migra” into a Republican Guard, razor wire on border walls and even rivers, and exemptions to accountability for killer cops, federal “law enforcement” officials, or for sitting presidents — all of this is the logical consequence of creeping American institutionalization of authoritarian control and a contempt for real justice, if not democracy itself.

“If you want an emergency,” so goes the street expression, “call the cops.” Well, we’re in the middle of a five-alarm emergency that our police state has made possible.

We have lived with this police state so long now, that when ICE stops someone without a warrant and without identifying themselves, or grabs someone off the street, stuffs them into an unmarked van and whisks them away to a black site or a foreign prison, so conditioned are we to these screaming violations of the Constitution that we somehow regard the gestapo tactics as completely “normal.”

This week in Los Angeles some of us decided that none of this is normal.

In a further demonstration of unchecked neofascism, der liebe Führer deployed the California National Guard to quell demonstrations against massive, simultaneous ICE raids in LA. The demonstrations were nothing that the LAPD itself could not handle but Trump needed to make the point that he was in control — not only of the country, but of every state and every city.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, despite a brief post-election effort to make nice with MAGA World, accused Trump of “inciting and provoking violence, […] creating mass chaos,” [… and] “militarizing cities,” adding “These are the acts of a dictator, not a President.”

Newsom was certainly right about Trump’s dictator moves, but the Führer’s white supremacy and his desire to ethnically cleanse the United States of Muslims and Hispanics are an ugly side that most presidents have had the decency to keep under wraps, at least for the last few generations.

Jason L. Riley is a Wall Street Journal opinion columnist, a Conservative, and an enemy of DEI and affirmative action. Riley’s book “Let Them In: the Case of Open Borders” is all the more remarkable for this background and his affiliation with the Capitalist journal of record.

In his 2009 book, which still stands up today, Riley offers numerous arguments for welcoming America’s immigrants, legal and otherwise, rather than demonizing them as an undigestible lump in the belly of the beast. He reminds readers that even the late, practically sainted Republican president Ronald Reagan thought we ought to have open borders, free trade, and diversity. Yes, you read that correctly. Here’s Riley:

“In 1952, when the United States was still under the thumb of highly restrictive immigration quotas enacted in the 1920s, Reagan gave a speech endorsing open borders. In his view, America was ‘the promised land’ for people from ‘any place in the world.’ Reagan said ‘any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange land and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here.’

In a 1977 radio address, Reagan discussed what he called ‘the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.’

The next time you tune into Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager [recall Riley wrote this in 2009], contrast their take on immigration with Reagan’s. Reagan understood that immigrants are coming here to work, not live on the dole. He also grasped that natives and immigrants don’t compete with one another for jobs in a zero-sum labor market and that our policy makers would do better to focus less on protecting U.S. workers from immigrant competition and more on expanding the economic pie.

In his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for president, Reagan called for free labor flows throughout North America. Reagan knew that immigration, like free trade, which he also supported, benefits everyone in the long run.

Later in the campaign, in December 1979, Reagan responded to criticism from conservative columnist Holmes Alexander. ‘Please believe me when I tell you the idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years,’ said the future president. And conservatives calling today for a wall along the entire United States-Mexico border should know that Reagan was not a big fan of that prospect. ‘Some months before I declared,’ he continued in his response to Alexander, ‘I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico…… I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence.’

At the end of his presidency, Reagan was still invoking Winthrop. ‘I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it,’ he remarked in his 1989 farewell address to the nation. ‘But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.’”

Riley gives us a quick tour of the sordid history of xenophobia in the United States. He makes special mention of the Tanton network, which spawned a number of hate groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which influenced many now working in the Trump Administration and also local law enforcement officials now tripping over themselves to sign up to help the Führer Make America White Again.

One of Riley’s points — made in 2009 but even more valid today — is that today’s Republicans are racist zealots with a white supremacist agenda. And under Trump they have jumped from zealotry to criminality, sedition, and are well on their way to fascism.

* * *

If the current president has such unchecked power that his State Department can rule that a person about to take a citizenship exam is now a criminal, or effectively criminalize eleven million people by diktat, or enlist a vast army of racist sheriffs and police chiefs in his ethnic cleansing project, the next president (assuming we have elections again) can and must use similar powers to reverse this damage and ensure it can never happen again.

The next president must begin by dismantling the vast federal Police State, starting with ICE, and issue amnesties for everyone in the country, preparing a path to citizenship for people already here. All offshore prisons and black sites, including Guantanamo, must be shut down.

Only by changing the status of undocumented people will we eliminate the constant exploitation of their status as a political wedge. Take away the ability of the Far Right to declare them “illegals” or characterize them as “criminals and rapists” and you take much of the air out of the xenophobic grievances that animate these racists.

Without such a distraction, maybe we could finally get back to the job of making America a place for everyone, not merely a playground for billionaires and white supremacists.

Remembering Memorial Day

Unpunished American war criminal at Abu Ghraib

Today is Memorial Day, only one of several American holidays for celebrating our massive military and the enlisted personnel who “just follow orders” every time they bomb someone’s home, school, or hospital — and whom we excuse from having any moral agency. Even liberals thank some of these baby killers and torturers “for your service.” The sad fact is, there are just too many sadistic war criminals like now- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who enlist so they can murder and torture people without consequence. After 250 years of American history, everybody knows the dark purpose of the American military — and it’s sure as hell not “protecting ourselves.”

So today, as Americans remember Memorial Day and some of us shout USA! USA! USA!, let us remember that what this day really celebrates is not the bravery of these unquestioning, compliant servants of death, destruction and violence, but of America’s perpetual state of war on the rest of the world and its pursuit of dominance and hegemony.

Unquestioned American military support for
Israel makes possible the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza

America’s endless military adventures — almost always to put down uprisings against USA-friendly dictators, imperialism and colonialism, or to seize territory and resources from other nations — are only rarely launched for anything good. Today, as “we” celebrate “our” military’s “accomplishments” we ought to face the many tons of evil along with the precious few grams of good we’d rather focus on. The following is only a partial list of America’s many wars, most of them with the US playing the bully:

The American Revolution – Britain (1775-1783); Indian Wars – stealing indigenous land (1775-1890); Shay’s Rebellion – Massachusetts rebels (1786-1787); The Whiskey Rebellion – USA (1794); Naval war with France (1798-1800); Fries’s Rebellion “The Hot Water War” – USA (1799); Barbary Wars – Libya, Algiers, and Morocco (1800-1815); Putting down slave rebellions (1800-1865); War of 1812 – Britain (1812-1815); Invasion and annexation of Mexico (1846-1848); “Bleeding Kansas” – Slavery wars (1855-1860); Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry – USA (1859); United States Civil War (1861-1865); U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution (1893); The Spanish-American War – plundering Spain’s colonies (1898); U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War (1898-1899); U.S.-Philippine War (1899-1902); Boxer Rebellion – China (1900); The Moro Wars – Philippine Musliims (1901-1913); U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903); The Banana Wars – all over Central America (1909-1933); U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz – Mexico (1914); Pershing’s Raid Into Mexico (1916-1917); US involvement in World War I (1917-1918); Allied Intervention to undermine Russian Bolsheviks (1919-1921); US involvement in World War II (1941-1945); The Cold War (secret war with USSR and Communist China) (1945-1991); US undermining Palestine sovereignty (1948-present); The Korean War (1950-1953); America’s war in Vietnam (1956-1975); U.S. Intervention in Lebanon (1958); Invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965); The Mayaguez Rescue Operation – Cambodia (1975); Iranian Hostage Crisis and Rescue Attempt (1980); U.S. Libya Conflict (1981-1986); U.S. Intervention in Lebanon (1982-1984); U.S. Invasion of Grenada (1983); The Tanker War – “Operation Earnest Will” (1987-1988); U.S. Invasion of Panama (1989); Second Persian Gulf War “Operation Desert Storm” – Iraq (1991); “No-Fly Zone” War – Iraq (1991-2003); U.S. Intervention in Somalia (1992-1994); U.S. Occupation of Haiti (1994); US/NATO Intervention in Bosnia (1994-1995); U.S. Embassy bombings and strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan – Bin Laden War (1998); “Desert Fox” Campaign (part of U.S./Iraq Conflict)- Iraq (1998); Kosovo War – Yugoslavia/Serbia (1999); Afghanistan War – Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2021); Third Persian Gulf War “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (2003-2011); Intervention in Haitian civil conflict (2004); Intervention in Somali civil conflict (2006-2009); U.S. Operations against Al-Qaida in Somalia (2006-present); Libyan War – deposing Gadhafi (2011); Deposing Joseph Kony and the LRA – Uganda (2011-2017); ISIS War – Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya (2014-present); Arming Ukraine against Russia (2014-present); U.S. Missile Strike on Syria (2017); Persian Gulf Crisis (2019-2020) (2019-present); Bombing Sudan in behalf of Israel (2025); Bombing Somalia in behalf of Israel (2025); Bombing Yemen in behalf of Israel (2025).

To be continued and enlarged upon, no doubt.

Don’t be evil

Google’s aspirational slogan has only been realized in a museum

After my last post about Amazon I received a question about dropping Google. Rather than respond individually, here I’m going to offer my 2c worth on a hodgepodge of related topics. I’m sure I will receive more feedback that this or that company I’ve recommended below has sociopathic CEOs or a history of repugnant campaign donations. You do know that CEOs are highly likely to be sociopaths and even psychopaths, don’t you? Well, welcome to Capitalism! In general, the object here is to de-couple from some of the worst and most powerful tech bro’s on the planet. And in this post I take on: Google, a company that long ago dumped its slogan: “don’t be evil.”

Email

Google’s (as well as Yahoo’s, AOL’s, Microsoft’s and other biggies) primary attraction for most people is the free email. Who doesn’t like free? Unfortunately, most people are blissfully unaware that Google has been reading your emails for years. There are hundreds of companies that offer free email, but several I have personally used to replace Google email are: disroot.org; icloud.com; infomaniak.com; murena.io; proton.me; tutanota.com; vivaldi.net; and zohomail.com.

There are other companies providing low-cost (not free) email service hosted outside the US and not subject to Five Eyes surveillance (although the surveillance state is not really going to be deterred). A few I providers have tested are: countermail.com; mailbox.org; posteo.de; and startmail.com. Some are as inexpensive as 1€ (Euro) a month. You get what you pay for: in this case, better privacy.

Your choice of an email client is as important as the email provider you use. An email client is a specialized app that sends and receives email, maintains your contacts, and connects to your calendar. Apple’s Mail programs on MacOS and iOS are secure and private (and Apple makes email communications even more private with IP masking). On Linux, Claws, Evolution, Geary, and kMail are private and secure. On Windows, the built-in (Outlook “Lite”) client should not divulge data to third parties. Other apps that do not permit the contents of your mail folders to be sniffed by third parties include: Thunderbird (available on all desktop platforms and Android); emClient (Windows, Mac, and mobile); Betterbird (Windows, Mac, Linux); and Mailspring (Mac, Windows, Linux). In general you want an email client that uses only imap and smtp or the Windows exchange protocol.

Email clients that are not secure are those which collect passwords from your accounts and serve as intelligent front ends to multiple email accounts. These include programs like Spark Mail, BlueMail, Canary Mail, Edison, and even Microsoft Outlook for iOS. As friendly and capable as they are, these programs can cleverly organize your schedule and prioritize your inbox only by having complete access to both your passwords and the contents of your inbox. With the popularity of AI on the upswing, we’re going to see more and more of these apps popping up. They will all be threats to your privacy.

My recommendation: for best privacy, I’d use a paid, offshore email account with Thunderbird and PGP encryption or I’d use Proton Mail.

Cloud Storage

Another important feature for many Google users is their 15gb of free cloud storage. Once again, there are other companies that provide equivalent or even better services. You can replace Google cloud storage with: box.com; filen.io; infomaniak.com; mega.io; nextcloud (a network of providers who use a common set of apps); pcloud.com; or proton drive. One consideration is whether the provider offers cloud storage clients for each of the devices you use.

A caution: Microsoft offers a service called OneDrive, which MS Windows considers a “backup” device. This is either outlook.com’s “free” service offering 5gb or part of an Office365 subscription offering 100gb. Many people who think they are backing up their Windows systems are actually copying files to OneDrive storage. Blithely removing OneDrive could break something on Windows 11 if you’re not careful. My advice to anyone in this boat: first copy your data from OneDrive and then begin to systematically de-couple Windows from OneDrive.

My recommendation: Mega and pCloud.

Google Docs

Another feature for Google users is google sheets, google docs, and tools that are basically Microsoft Office in an online version. You can replace Google collaborative tools with LibreOffice, OnlyOffice, WPS Office, or the venerable Apache OpenOffice. If you need collaborative capabilities, try Collabora Online, an enterprise-ready version of LibreOffice.

My recommendation: LibreOffice.

Google Browser

For many people “Google” is synonymous with both their email provider, the browser they use to navigate the internet, and the search engine they use to look things up. In the following paragraph I am referring only to the browser you use to access the internet.

Google’s browser is used by 66.3% of users worldwide, Safari by 18%, Microsoft Edge by 5.33%, Firefox by 2.62%, Opera by 2%, and miscellaneous browsers 2%. Despite this apparent popularity — more likely that users generally don’t know they have other options — there are numerous privacy reasons to replace Google’s Chrome browser that I won’t go into here. Google has gifted the source code to its Chrome browser to the Open Source Chromium project, and Chromium serves as the basis for a number of third party browsers that have stripped out what is essentially Google spying and tracking code from their own versions. These Chrome-derived browsers can even use Chrome extensions. Microsoft’s Edge browser is one such example (although Microsoft has added their own spying and tracking mechanisms back into their code). Third party Chromium-derived browsers that respect your privacy better than Google include: Brave; Chromium; Iridium; Opera; and Vivaldi.

For Mac users, Safari is a great alternative, providing that you use a security extension to limit tracking by websites you browse.

Firefox is another completely separate browser with its own extensions and is regarded by many as more secure than Chromium (I tend to agree). Firefox has several spinoffs: GNU IceCat, LibreWolf and WaterFox are three of the more popular derivatives. The TOR browser is a hardened Firefox browser that uses the Onion routing protocol for supposedly secure surveillance-proof browsing, including to Dark Web sites. However, in my view it is doubtful that any system originally developed by the US military has anyone’s best interests in mind. So consider the Tor Browser to be insecure.

My recommendation: Brave and Firefox.

Search Engines

Finally, in common parlance “to Google” something now means “to search” something on the web. And with good reason. One study shows that Google searches represent over 90% of all searches worldwide, Bing 4%, Yandex 2%, Yahoo 1.3%, and Yandex (Russia) and Baidu (China) each less than 1%. Obviously, in Russia and China these numbers will be vastly different.

Google’s browser makes their own Google search engine the browser default, just as Microsoft makes Bing the default for its Edge browser and Brave makes its own Brave Search engine their own browser’s default. But using other search engines is simply a matter of navigating to a URL such as duckduckgo.com, search.brave.com, startpage.com, or qwant.com. You can also replace Google’s search engine in any browser by going into the browser settings and changing the default search engine to something more secure.

Just as a browser can slurp up your personal information without permission, a search engine may do the same by recording your search terms and IP address in logs that (1) are used to track your consumer preferences; or (2) can be subpoenaed or simply handed over to authorities without even a warrant. If you are concerned that your search on “Israeli genocide” or “abortion providers” might come back to haunt you, you just might want to replace your default search engine.

My recommendation: duckduckgo, brave search, and startpage.

Going Amazon-free

Word is, 20% of Americans are in favor of boycotting companies sucking up to Donald Trump. If you’ve sworn off Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter/X, and scrubbed your amazon.com account, good for you. There are all sorts of reasons for breaking up with these companies besides the fact that they’re collaborating with a criminal and a fascist.

One collaborator, America’s Second Oligarch, Jeff Bezos, owns much of the global economy: 2lemetry; AbeBooks; Accept.com; Alexa and IVONA Software; Alexa Internet; Amazon; Amiato; Amie Street; Annapurna Labs; AppThwack; Art19; Audible; Avalon Books; Back to Basics Toys; Bebo; Bezos Day One Fund; Biba Systems; Blink Home; Blue Origin; Body Labs; Bookpages; BookSurge; Box Office Mojo; Brilliance Audio; BuyVIP; Canvas Technology; Cloostermans; Cloud9 IDE; CloudEndure; ClusterK; Colis Privé; ComiXology; Convergence Corporation; Curse; CustomFlix; Digital Photography Review; Dispatch; Do.com; Double Helix Games; e-Niche Incorporated; E8 Storage; Eero; Egghead Software; Elemental Technologies; Emvantage Payments; Evi; Fabric.com; GameSparks; GlowRoad; Goo Technologies; GoodGame; Goodreads; Graphiq; Harvest.ai; IGDB; IMDb; INLT; iRobot; Joyo.com; Junglee; Kiva Systems; Leep Technology Inc.; Lexcycle; Liquavista; LiveBid.com; LoveFilm; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM); MindCorps Incorporated; Mobipocket; NICE; One Medical; Orbeus; OurHouse.com; Partpic; Pillpack; PlanetAll; Pushbutton; Quidsi; Reflexive Entertainment; Ring; Rooftop Media; Safaba Translation Systems; Shelfari; Shoefitr; Shopbop; Sizmek Ad Server; Sizmek Dynamic Creative Optimization; Small Parts; SnapTell; Souq.com; Spirit.ai; Sqrrl; Strio.AI; Tapzo; Teachstreet; Telebook; TenMarks Education; TextPayMe; The Book Depository; The Washington Post; Thinkbox Software; Toby Press; Tool Crib of the North; Touchco; TSO Logic; Twitch; Umbra 3D; UpNext; Veeqo; Westland; Whole Foods; Wickr; Wing.ae; Withoutabox; Wondery; Woot; Yap; Zappos; Zoox.

Many if not most of the corporations we are forced to deal with are just plain evil. Questionable lists of so-called “ethical” companies can’t be believed — some actually include insurance, pharma, and tech companies known to be highly un-ethical. Until people have finally had enough of Capitalism and Capitalists, we’re all in the sad position of having to choose between handing over our cash to outright Bond villains or slightly less evil oligarchs.

My own efforts to thoroughly cut ties with Jeff Bezos are roughly 99%. I discovered, even after dropping amazon.com, the Washington Post (whose editorials, Bezos has decreed, must now tow a pro-business line), Kindle software, and AbeBooks, that Goodreads was another Bezos company. Both The Story Graph and LibraryThing import a Goodreads library and both have mobile apps. Both work fine.

The last link will be my Audible subscription, which expires shortly. If you are considering a similar move, here are a few Audible alternatives:

Which Side Are You On?

The last year has been one hell of an eye-opener. One party is openly fascist; the other is the habitual party of war and corporatism, now tripping over itself to play ball with an incoming swarm of fascists.

For all the siloed activist groups fighting America’s many ills, there is still no major political party that faithfully represents working people, with principles that oppose (among other things) the American foreign policy and imperialism that have driven the genocide in Gaza.

And for all the letter-writing, stand-outs, polite calls to Congressmen and Senators, online petitions, Zoom meetings, teach-ins, and donations to “lesser evil” politicians, there is very little to show for it. By now most of us must know, at least at some level, that we are working at cross-purposes by supporting two parties of billionaires while fighting them on every injustice they create — thanks to the mandates we stupidly hand them at the polls, year after year, election after election.

We are well beyond reform of a system that, for my entire adult life, has waged war and regime change on the rest of the world and shows no sign of letting up. We are well beyond reforming a system that shows no interest in improving the lives of average people. And we are well beyond trusting any existing political party to fix it — especially the one that sells itself as the Lesser Evil. They’ve had their chance. Thousands of chances, actually.

The Democratic Party — the party of segregationists in the Sixties, of Viet Nam into the Seventies, Big Business in the Eighties, and Clintonism and wars in the Middle East from the Nineties until now — was never actually liberal, although many Americans (myself included) once held out hope that it could be.

In recent memory we’ve seen the Manchins, Sinemas, Kennedys, Fettermans and Gabbards abandon it outright or unabashedly prostrate themselves before the fascists. In recent weeks we have seen the supposedly “liberal” media make a beeline to Mar-a-Lago to suck up to the new Führer, and we’ve watched “liberal” tech bros suddenly go full MAGA. That one-time “liberals” can so easily flip an ideological switch is a sign of the inherent poverty and unreliability of liberalism.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. If you read history, capitulations by liberals occur at almost every time of economic or political crisis. But it’s not really a capitulation when they’re simply revealing what they actually stand for.

Predatory liberalism — not just the American variety, but in virtually every Western nation — is fundamentally illiberal — or it would not perpetually wage war on non-Western nations and the global South, both militarily and economically. If liberalism were not fundamentally lacking it might show some appetite for fighting fascism rather than continually making nice with it.

As Trump and his scavenging oligarchs begin to pick at and chow down on what is left of American democracy, it’s clearer to me than ever that the root cause of all this insanity is Capitalism. And the loss of the 2024 election was in many ways the rejection of the half-hearted, dual-faced liberalism of an important segment of the American middle class that still embraces it.

Middle class liberals — centrist Democrats for the most part, union bosses, professional and academic gatekeepers, corporate America’s upper layer of management, the MBAs, tax lawyers, financial advisors, well-remunerated technologists, inventors, developers, entrepreneurs, health executives, and opinion-shapers — for all their lawn signs and donations, they’re not really willing to risk privilege, status or employment by fighting the hand that feeds them.

As a politically ambiguous class they’re confused about which side they’re on. And for all their half-hearted activism, that side has never been squarely or decisively the side of justice for the poor and oppressed. Both Gaza and liberalism’s new accommodation with fascism bear this out. The reluctance to abandon the Democratic Party is another symptom.

In 1931, after being terrorized by Harlan County mining company thugs who invaded her house looking for her union organizer husband, Florence Reece wrote “Which Side Are You On?”

Regardless of where we are in this society, or where we came from, this is the central question facing America right now. And it’s a serious question that has to be answered honestly after considering what such a commitment really means.

Which side are you on?

The G7 Class of 2024

From left to right: Olaf Scholz; Justin Trudeau; Emmanuel Macron; Giorgia Meloni; Joe Biden; Fumio Kishida; and Rishi Sunak

If there’s one picture that best illustrates the collapse of confidence in neoliberalism it’s last Summer’s photo op of the presidents and prime ministers who make up the G7. This is an informal group of major economic powers who promote neoliberal and neocolonial economic policies and, despite the IMF’s formal ties to the UN, have their big fat fingers on the levers of the International Monetary Fund.

With the notable exception of neo-fascist Giorgia Meloni, this entire crop of investment bankers, hedge fund operators, and professional politicians pictured last Summer is either gone or on the way out — their positions soon to be occupied by conservative liberals (if ever there was an oxymoron), harsher conservatives, outright fascists, or fascist-friendly replacements. In many cases those departing came from parties claiming to be “liberal.”

Though faces may change and the parties may change, the basic government policies curiously remain the same. This is as true in Britain, Germany, Japan, or Canada as it is in the United States. You can vote for a “liberal” or a “conservative” but in either case you’ll get austerity, militarism, and neoliberalism. Just with different frostings in different packet sizes.

Here, then, is the G7 Class of 2024.

Kanzler Olaf Scholz of the German Social Democratic Party may have once been a left-leaning labor lawyer, but he soon drank the neoliberal and NATO kool-aid. Scholz suffered a no-confidence vote in December and is likely to be replaced by Friedrich Merz of the Christian Democratic Union, which has signaled its willingness to work with the the openly fascist AfD Party.

FORMER Canadian Prime Minister of the Liberal Party, a birthright PM (his father Pierre was also a Canadian PM), quickly entered politics after college. Since 1968 Canadians have had 30 years of prime ministers named Trudeau. Trudeau resigned a few days ago, offering the Liberals a chance to tap a back bench filled with bankers and economic tinkerers. But polls favor the Conservative Party’s Pierre Poilievre, a fiscal and libertarian conservative, Friedmanite, and crypto bro.

French President Emmanuel Macron, an investment banker, created right-of-center En Marche and Renaissance parties that have imposed austerity programs and pursued militaristic policies. Macron’s party trailed Marie LePen’s fascist party by 17 points in the June 2024 European Parliament elections and then suffered major losses in the July French election. Neither Macron’s Renaissance, the left-ish New Popular Front, nor LePen’s National Rally, has enough votes to control Parliament outright. LePen is expected to run again in 2027, but the power of the National Rally party, particularly on economic issues, is growing. Macron, who is still vulnerable to no-confidence votes, is essentially a lame duck who has promised to leave major issues to referenda on which National Rally will push even harsher policies.

Who says Italian fascism is dead? Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of the fascist Brothers of Italy cut her teeth as a student activist and served as a youth minister under far-right Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi. She claims to have a journalism degree but in fact Meloni studied “hospitality” at a technical college. Still relatively young (at 47) the telegenic career politician is a zealous pan-European fascist rated positively by 57% of Italian voters. The ruling class loves her as well: Forbes magazine rates Meloni the “third most powerful woman in the world.” Don’t expect her to leave office for quite some time.

FORMER U.S. President Joe Biden of the Democratic Party needs no introduction. Soft on segregation and a self-described Zionist, Biden worked for two seconds as a lawyer and makes a big deal of his working class roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. But long ago Biden ditched the working class when he began buying up houses he could scarcely afford. Among Biden’s many accomplishments are: greasing Clarence Thomas’s way to the Supreme Court by sliming Anita Hill, opposing school busing, writing broken windows policing legislation, authorizing massive expenditures for the military, pursuing a reckless foreign policy, and partnering in conducting a genocide. Biden’s participation in Israel’s war on Gaza very likely cost him the election.

FORMER Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of the Liberal Democratic Party is a former investment banker who introduced a “new capitalism” initiative that some tried to call a New Deal. But his economic reforms were undercut by austerity measures, increased military spending, and inflation. Like Biden, Kishida was a negotiator who cut backroom deals with far right nationalists to remain in power. In many ways Kishida was more popular outside Japan than inside. He survived an assassination attempt in 2023 (following Shinzo Abe’s in 2022). Last October Kishida was replaced by Shigeru Ishiba, also from the LDP. Like his predecessor, Ishiba is a conservative and a militarist.

FORMER British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the Conservative Party is a hedge fund magnate (just shy of a billionaire) who presided over a highly unpopular government which collapsed in July 2024. Sunak was replaced in the next election by the Labor Party’s Keir Starmer, a former federal prosecutor. Like Bill Clinton, Starmer has pushed his own party even farther to the right than it had been drifting. The new Liberal PM changes nothing for most Britons.

The Bibi Files

Alex Gibney is a co-producer of The Bibi Files, a new documentary directed by Alexis Bloom and available on jolt.film. In early 2023 Gibney received anonymous footage of police interrogations of Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, his wife Sara, son Yair, and high profile associates, including billionaires Arnon Milchan, [the late] Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, personal assistants, house and security staff, and hundreds of other witnesses to the Netanyahus’ crimes. The investigation, launched in 2016, is focused on the Netanyahu’s extortion of millions of dollars worth of luxury “gifts” in exchange for political access.

Top left: “democracy” demo in Tel Aviv. Top Right: Netanyahu quoting Don Corleone. Bottom left: fighting with police interviewers. Bottom right: Legacy.

Highlighting the kind of “access” being sold, Former Finance Minister Yair Lapid recalled that Milchan was seeking the continuation of an Israeli tax exemption and Netanyahu dutifully brought up the subject with Lapid. Netanyahu also personally intervened with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to have Milchan’s U.S. visa reinstated. It must be nice to be so fabulously wealthy that heads of state volunteer for personal concierge service.

Gibney has encountered numerous hurdles trying to get the film before audiences. For starters, The Bibi Files is banned in Israel. In addition, no major streaming service wants anything to do with it and the BBC has rejected it as well.

The physical files the film is based on fell into Gibney’s hands long before the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s genocidal response. Among those interviewed for the film was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who himself went to jail for corruption. Given how routine official corruption seems to be in Israel, the story was spiced up with the thesis that Israel’s long, cruel war in Gaza is simply Netanyahu trying to stay out of jail. And that Netanyahu’s political partners, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, represent a marriage of convenience with fringe extremist elements. Without the corruption investigation, so the film’s thesis goes, there’s no need for a coalition with Kahanists. Without the Kahanists, there wouldn’t have been a protracted war in Gaza. The problem all boils down to a freak constellation of circumstances.

Well, I’m not buying it.

Top left: “Kahane chai (lives). Top right: with Ben Gvir. Bottom left: Smotrich promising annexation. Bottom right: Smotrich denying existence of Palestinians.

The simplistic, ahistorical narrative is tailor-made for Liberal Zionists who would prefer to ignore the fact that the goal of Zionism has always been to cleanse the land of Palestinians (or to use a scriptural term expropriated by religious fanatics, to “redeem the land”). Every Israeli prime minister, from Ben Gurion forward, has followed the plan. One of Netanyahu’s “liberal” predecessors, Golda Meir, famously pronounced that “there is no Palestinian people.” Sentiments like Meir’s have been heard in the Knesset since Israel’s founding.

Netanyahu’s father Benzion was a secretary to Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, author of “The Iron Wall,” a polemic that argues that Jews must treat Palestinians as mercilessly as American settlers treated Native Americans. When we meet Netanyahu’s ultra-right son Yair, the filmmakers insist he is pushing his father to the right. But darling Yairi, sitting out the war in a heavily guarded Miami condo, is simply a chip off the old block of both his father and grandfather. And Netanyahu himself is simply the latest iteration of Prime Minister to do his part to “redeem the land” from its indigenous inhabitants.

The film would have you believe that one crafty Israeli has wrapped the entire American foreign policy establishment around his little finger.

As the film winds to its end, we see Netanyahu speaking before a Joint Session of [U.S.] Congress – his 4th or 5th such appearance. The film’s point is not that he’s a habitual partner in crime with the U.S., but that Netanyahu is an especially cunning operator with a phenomenal memory who has consistently wound U.S. presidents, Congress, and Secretaries of State around his little finger.

I’m not buying this either.

The filmmakers don’t bother to point out that, without U.S. weapons, funding and diplomatic cover, Israel could never have waged its war — any of them — in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, and elsewhere. The film also misses the opportunity to remind viewers of the famous words of current President Joe Biden: “if there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent it.”

The truth is: Israel is America’s proxy, its Middle Eastern attack dog.

The 2019 film King Bibi covers much of the same bibliographic ground as The Bibi Files, but makes a convincing case that Netanyahu is a product of the American far right. After he first returned to Israel from Boston, where the well-spoken MIT man was slumming as a marketing executive for a furniture company, Netanyahu was still regarded in Israel as an “American.”

But Netanyahu had a knack for marketing “fighting terrorism” to the Americans, and above all marketing himself to Israelis. With considerable encouragement, two campaigns run by Americans, American speech and elocution classes, and a stint as ambassador in Washington, Republicans came to like the young Israeli who sounded almost like them. Netanyahu soon became as indispensable to the American foreign policy and military establishment as the little nation he would go on to lead.

Where does fascism come from?

some of Trump’s “good people on both sides” (Charlottesville)

Our first Fascist president

Americans have finally come to the realization that Donald Trump really is a fascist. We got the first inklings when an ex-wife revealed that he kept Hitler’s speeches on his nightstand. But it’s never been a secret. Trump actually sounds like Hitler and acts like Mussolini. Even his own supporters don’t bother denying it since they themselves have been rubbing elbows with European fascists for years at CPAC conferences along with their spray-tanned Führer.

At least two of Trump’s new appointments, Pete Hegseth and Sebastian Gorka, seem to be fascists (Gorka even belongs to a pro-Nazi Hungarian order). Steve Bannon, Trump’s old campaign manager, has been trying to organize a fascist “Internationale” for years. Trump’s new Rasputin, Elon Musk, was raised in a fascist family that abandoned Canada for South Africa. It also came as no surprise to anyone when, barely a year into his first term, the German magazine Stern pictured Trump giving the Roman salute – better known as the Hitlergruß. Germans know a fascist when they see one.

Germans know a fascist when they see one

Fascist movement don’t just pop up out of nowhere. For sure, they have their autocrats, führers, caudillos, jefes, and strongmen; and of course they have a disaffected citizenry; but most importantly they represent they robber barons whose stream of barely-if-at-all-taxed riches will be affected by an annoying hoi polloi mobilizing to serve their own interests.

It is no coincidence that MAGA 1.0 really took off after the 2008 market crash and that MAGA 2.0 came back like a bad case of herpes right after the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement exploded.

As soon as anyone could say “Cheeto Hitler”, America’s rulers began banning books and cracking down on dissidents. Biden’s war on Gaza (yes, almost all the weapons came from the US) had a sobering effect on both citizens and rulers: it radicalized many of us and created a mass movement that questioned American empire, colonialism, and human rights violations — which proved to be one step too far for both the fascists and those claiming not to be.

For all of this, the unanswered, million dollar question remains: why did a large segment of the working class get 100% behind the fascists, while a similar-sized segment continues to fight them?

Sociologists, psychologists, and even political scientists have failed to adequately explain the phenomenon. Liberals are embarrassed to talk about class conflict or study what Marxists call the bourgeoisie. But we’ve had fascists at the door before, and the Marxists may just have the best analysis. So bear with me as I take you through how fascism has been studied — by liberals and Marxists alike — in the aftermath of National Socialism.

The Books

While Americans were busy trying to figure out whether Trump was or wasn’t a fascist, a huge number of books hit the market, each trying to define what fascism really is. But the emphasis in virtually all them is on the personal characteristics of fascist leaders or attempting to define the characteristics of fascist movements. None really deals with the class dynamics that push America’s ruling class to create and direct fascist movements.

Popular books making the rounds after Trump’s first election include: Timothy Snyder’s 2017 On Tyranny; Jason Stanley’s 2018 How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them; Levitsky & Ziblatt’s 2018 How Democracies Die; Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s 2020 Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present; and Masha Gessen’s 2020 Surviving Autocracy (to name just a few).

Liberals also dusted off their copies of Robert Paxton’s 2004 The Anatomy of Fascism and Hannah Arendt’s 1951 classic, The Origins of Totalitarianism. And we kept making trips to the bookstore. One new arrival this year was Ann Applebaum’s Autocracy, Inc: The Dictators who Want to Run the World.

All of these books are useful up to a point. But for each the focus is on diagnosis and classification. None deal with how people like Trump or his MAGA movement — or the German AfD, the French Front National, Spanish Vox, Portuguese Chega!, Dutch PVV, or Hungary’s Fidesz Party — actually come to power or how reactionary interests conjure these movements out of peoples’ anger, almost like alchemy.

Fascism is as American as apple pie

Fascism has knocked on the door many times in America’s relatively short history. After the Civil War fascists rolled back Reconstruction in what W.E.B. Dubois considered a counter-revolution, establishing a terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, which at one point had 4 million members. Eugenists and nativists created the “American Party,” better known as the Know Nothings. An offshoot of the KKK called the Black Legion actually attempted a coup. The Bund, a German-American group, famously held a massive rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939 — just as Hitler was constructing his 6th concentration camp — urging Americans to “take back their country” from the mongrel races, especially the Jews. George Lincoln Rockwell launched America’s first Nazi Party.

After the McCarthy period, which attempted to break a growing labor movement, more fascist groups emerged, such as the Traditional Workers Party, Stormfront, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Proud Boys, Patriot Front, Oathkeepers, and the Three Percenters. Many of them are now well entrenched in the police and military.

These were little more than a lunatic fringe until the Tea Party movement brought them into the political mainstream, welding them together with the Religious Right. The Tea Party “movement” — neither a legitimate movement nor even an organic upwelling of working-class sentiment — spun off hundreds of astroturf groups to do the ruling class’s dirty work. For instance, it was former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey who created Freedomworks and who wrote the Tea Party Manifesto.

When we actually look closely, America’s illiberal movements are usually orchestrated by moneyed interests. The John Birch Society, for example, was created by Massachusetts candy magnate James Welch. Today, like Welch, the Koch brothers, Miriam Adelson, the Hunts, Leonard Leo, and the Bezoses and Musks of this world don’t just dabble in politics; they expect something for all the money they lavish on autocracy and repressive politics.

Trump just appointed 14 billionaires to his executive team. One of them seems to think he’s a co-president. All will use their cabinet appointments to enlarge already obscene wealth and to shape society to their advantage. Add to this the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and hundreds more autocratic democracy-killers, all funded by right-wing billionaires. This, my friends, is what Capitalism has been doing to democracy since time immemorial.

an early “dictator-buffoon” hybrid

Fascists defining fascism

One of the best descriptions of fascism was written by a fascist, Benito Mussolini. His Doctrine of Fascism (1932) rejects liberal social democracy, socialism and syndicalism (Mussolini was previously involved in both), as well as the classical liberal notion of the individual. Instead, for Mussolini, everything must serve the state — in Italy’s case, a nation eager to recreate the glory of Rome. It was Mussolini who gave fascism its name, from fasces, a Roman image depicting rods bound together with an axe, symbolizing the power of the state over an individual.

For Mussolini the state was supreme. Individuals were only important in terms of their function within the state. Only the state conferred morality and identity: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Like contemporary fascists, Mussolini rejected internationalism (which he correctly associated with socialism). Contempt for liberal democracy meant that single-party rule and authoritarianism were ideals, not defects. Contempt for the individual and worker’s organizations meant corporatism, by which the state would direct the economy (a complex maneuver since fascists certainly weren’t about to privatize corporations).

Fascist militarism is intrinsic because force and brutality, both by the military and the autocrat himself, are necessary to maintain an authoritarian state. Finally, fascism promises to create a “new man” unencumbered by conventional morality, weakness, hesitation, or qualms. As a replaceable human widget completely dedicated to the nation-state and dependent upon it for meaning, the new man abandons the materialism inherent in both capitalism and socialism.

Adolf Hitler’s conception of fascism, developed in two volumes of his autobiographical rant, Mein Kampf (my battle), covered much of the same ground as Mussolini’s but obsessed over the racial purity of the German nation-state. Hitler’s theories of Aryan supremacy and Jewish degeneracy led to the Nuremberg Laws (based on American Jim Crow), a host of antisemitic laws that purged Jews from the Civil Service and elsewhere, and embraced a weaponized form of Social Darwinism. Many forget that the first victims of Nazi extermination were average Germans with birth defects and mental health problems.

For Hitler Jews were a one-stop explanation for every ill in Weimar Germany; the removal of Jews would therefore address all these problems. Jews were Communists. Jews were Capitalists. Jews were internationalists. Jews were insular. Jews were diabolically clever. Jews were mental defectives. While expulsion and genocide had already begun, the “final solution” for Jews (complete annihilation) was finally formalized at the Wannsee conference in 1942. Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum (room to expand) was also a reaction to the limits placed on German nationalists by the victors of the first world war.

Psychological explanations of fascism

Although she was otherwise an astute political observer, Hannah Arendt, writing in The Origins of Totalitarianism, tied fascism’s appeal to lonely, atomized individuals. Her explanation resonates with modern readers for several reasons. It offers a mechanism by which the COVID epidemic could have contributed to the MAGA movement. Declining marriage and birth rates, alienation through social media and the breakdown of social institutions and consensus also fit tidily into Arendt’s essentially psychological theory.

Arendt wrote that, through propaganda and pseudo-science, alienated individuals can be easily manipulated into participating in the destruction of institutions they no longer believe hold any advantage for them, particularly when lies and propaganda are deployed. This includes the violation of laws and the rejection of social norms. Scapegoating and racial and ethnic intolerance are features of fascism and Arendt discussed in great depth the staggering number of refugees created in the wake of World War I — not so different from today’s global refugee crisis created by American wars in the Middle East as well as global warming.

Arendt is best known for her phrase “the banality of evil,” found in another of her books, Eichmann in Jerusalem. In it she maintains that Eichmann, in organizing a genocide, did so without really thinking, barely conscious he was committing crimes against humanity. Having abandoned his own humanity (as Mussolini and Hitler demanded of citizens of a fascist state) Eichmann also abandoned personal morality. This was a thesis that few believed and many, particularly other Jews, found offensive. In 2014 German philosopher Bettina Stangneth repudiated Arendt in Eichmann before Jerusalem. Stangneth’s thesis, developed from archival material unavailable to Arendt, was that Eichmann was every bit the monster everyone believed him to be, and was an ambitious, vain, calculating monster at that. But once again, all this was a debate about the psychology of a single fascist.

storming the Capitol, January 6, 2017

The Frankfurt School

From 1923 the Institute for Social Research founded at Goethe University in Frankfurt (Germany) was known for social theorists Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, and others collectively known as “The Frankfurt School” despite widely-differing analyses.

Their work — much of it written in exile — drew from disparate intellectual currents of the early 19th Century: psychoanalysis; Marxism; and Critical Theory, a method of analysis that looks at power structures. As fascism manifested in real time, the Frankfurt School had much to say about authoritarianism, mass culture, propaganda, ideology, and power.

While haphazardly integrating Marxist class analysis into its work, the Frankfurt School focused mainly on psychology and sociology. Theodor Adorno examined the authoritarian personality. Walter Benjamin viewed fascism as an aestheticized politic glorifying war and violence and as theatre or religious spectacle in which myth and propaganda mimic religious ritual. Wilhelm Reich theorized that fascism appealed to the sexually repressed who more easily submit to authoritarian control. Reich believed that fascism could not be fought merely politically but had to address human and mass psychology that made it so attractive.

Contemporary diagnosticians

Contemporary analyses echo many of the theories first developed by the Frankfurt School.

Jason Stanley describes the tools and strategies that autocrats use to cement their power: “us versus them”; the mythic past; “alternate facts” and propaganda; attacks on intellectuals and universities; appealing to “law and order” while demonizing minority groups as criminals; promoting a “traditional” hierarchical society (appealing to the religious right and to racists); attacking democratic norm; pushing the Overton window of unacceptable or criminal acts; and advocating or initiating political violence.

Timothy Snyder finds fascism to be essentially opportunistic, feeding on fear and unrest. He points out that fascists are given to apocalyptic rhetoric — “on the brink”; “American carnage”; “complete destruction of society by our enemies” — as well as associating the Leader with God.

Robert O. Paxton offers an excellent summary of fascism’s features (again, not its etiology) in one paragraph:

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Paxton enumerates five stages of fascism’s development: (1) the creation of movements, when a movement steps in to respond to a social crisis; (2) rooting or embedding of fascism within the political system (going mainstream); (3) seizing power; (4) wielding power; (5) radicalization or decline, where either the regime amasses even greater power or is finally repudiated by the people (or hung from a hook like Mussolini, or committing suicide in a bunker like Hitler).

Paxton observes that fascism seeks out elites who will control the economy or the military. Trump’s appointments and Project 2025 would seem to confirm this idea.

But is it fascism that seeks out elites, or elites that create fascism?

Since liberal analysis neglects class analysis and discounts internationalism, liberals often excoriate obvious enemies while letting their “friends” off the hook. Read Robert O. Paxton’s definition of fascism again and tell me how he has not just described to a “T” the Israeli state and its ultra-nationalist ideology, Zionism.

fascism ultimately depends on violence

The Marxists

While the liberal analysis of fascism offers insights into its characteristics and its repertoire of dirty tricks, Marxists can actually explain it.

The smoke had barely cleared following the Russian Revolution when fascism arrived to roll back social and economic gains of the revolution. Fascists openly declared war on socialism and socialists, leaving no doubt that their reaction was not a corrective to some vague social disquietude — as almost every modern commentator paints it — but a violent reaction to the growing demands and power of the working class.

While there are certain methods and strategies that fascist movements share, not all are alike. Each is typically shaped to fit the particulars of the nationalism being promoted. While liberals may argue about characteristics of fascism that differ among movements, Marxists have done a far better job of describing the mechanics of how fascists take power and mobilize part of the working class.

Here are a few who made contributions to understanding fascism using a class analysis:

Gramsci

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Communist, eventually jailed by the fascists, who wrote his famous prison notebooks behind bars. One of Gramsci’s observations was that fascism doesn’t always have to overpower or destroy its enemies; sometimes it simply operates by manufacturing mass consent. Gramsci examined how propaganda is used to accomplish this. He noted that one of fascism’s most important objectives — one that the wealthiest strata of society benefit from enormously — is the destruction of working-class organizations like unions and worker’s advocacy groups, replacing them with corporatist structures under state control.

In 1921 Gramsci wrote The Two Fascisms, describing how the fasci di combattiemento was created after the first world war, how disaffected veterans and farmers had been drawn into one form of fascism — weak and under-represented in Parliament — while urban shopkeepers and small businessmen were drawn into a second form with significantly more power in the legislature, and led by Benito Mussolini. Gramsci wrote that the two fascisms related somewhat differently to liberal and social-democratic parties. The urban fascists were only too happy to reach agreement with the social democrats (who were only too happy to give in to the fascists’ demands) while the rural fascists remained intransigent in the face of all the back-slapping and deal-making. Gramsci also gives us a clear sense that, by understanding precisely how fascism works and what its weaknesses are, we can better fight it.

ready to play ball with fascism

Zetkin

Clara Zetkin was an another early theoretician of fascism. In 1923 she wrote The Struggle Against Fascism setting out a Marxist theory of fascism. Her words sound modern even a century later — though to properly-conditioned Americans certain words (bourgeois, proletariat) will evoke a conditioned response.

“[W]e view fascism as an expression of the decay and disintegration of the capitalist economy and as a symptom of the bourgeois state’s dissolution. We can combat fascism only if we grasp that it rouses and sweeps along broad social masses who have lost the earlier security of their existence and with it, often, their belief in social order. Fascism is rooted, indeed, in the dissolution of the capitalist economy and the bourgeois state. There were already symptoms of the proletarianization of bourgeois layers in prewar capitalism. The war shattered the capitalist economy down to its foundations. This is evident not only in the appalling impoverishment of the proletariat, but also in the proletarianization of very broad petty-bourgeois and middle-bourgeois masses, the calamitous conditions among small peasants, and the bleak distress of the “intelligentsia.” […] At present all these layers are experiencing the collapse of the hopes they had placed in the war. Their conditions have become significantly worse. What weighs on them above all is the lack of security for their basic existence, which they still had before the war.”

By crushing government institutions that sustain liberal democracy, as well as by imposing austerity programs, fascists accelerate the immiseration and fragility of the working class. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump has tasked Elon Musk with precisely the job of destroying the civil service. As Zetkin explains:

“As a result there are countless thousands seeking new possibilities for survival, food security, and social standing. Their number is swelled by lower and mid-level government employees, the public servants. They are joined, even in the victor states, by former officers, noncoms, and the like, who now have neither employment nor profession. Social forces of this type offer fascism a contingent of distinguished figures who lend it in these countries a pronounced monarchist hue. But we cannot fully grasp the nature of fascism by viewing its evolution solely as a result of such economic pressures alone, which have been considerably enhanced by the financial crisis of the governments and their vanishing authority.”

Zetkin provides a detailed analysis of Italian and German fascism, its strengths and vulnerabilities, and lays out a strategy to fight it. One of those strategies is the United Front:

“But proletarian struggle and self-defense against fascism requires a proletarian united front. Fascism does not ask if the worker in the factory has a soul painted in the white and blue colors of Bavaria; or is inspired by the black, red, and gold colors of the bourgeois republic; or by the red banner with a hammer and sickle. It does not ask whether the worker wants to restore the Wittelsbach dynasty [of Bavaria], is an enthusiastic fan of Ebert, or would prefer to see our friend Brandler as president of the German Soviet Republic. All that matters to fascism is that they encounter a class-conscious proletarian, and then they club him to the ground. That is why workers must come together for struggle without distinctions of party or trade-union affiliation.”

Trotsky

Although Leon Trotsky served as foreign minister, defense minister, and economic minister under Lenin’s Bolshevik government and was considered to be the “second in command,” he was later regarded as an enemy of the state after Lenin died and Stalin came to power. Stalin forced Trotsky into exile in 1929 and between 1936-1938 Stalin initiated a campaign of purging political enemies called the Great Terror, which claimed 1.2 million lives. In 1940 Stalin finally assassinated Trotsky, who had sought asylum in Mexico. During Trotsky’s 12-year exile in various countries, the former foreign minister studied political developments and wrote voluminously. This was precisely the timespan during which European fascism emerged. And Trotsky had a lot to say about it.

In 1944 Trotsky wrote Fascism: What it is and How to Fight it. Fascism always arises during periods of deep crisis in capitalist countries because the ruling class uses discontent to create fascist movements, whose objective in turn is to crush revolutionary movements and protect capitalist interests.

Trotsky argues that what Marxists call the petit bourgeoisie (middle classes, small business owners, and skilled professionals) is affected like anyone else by economic collapse. However, they do not necessarily see their interests overlapping with what Marxists call the proletariat (instead let’s use marginal, gig, and blue collar workers). It is usually the petit bourgeoisie that first succumbs to the siren call of fascism.

From Capitalism’s perspective, the capitalist class (the 1%, let’s say) rolls out fascism as a last resort after all other methods of maintaining control have failed. Suddenly we get censorship, political persecution, enemy lists, as well as the suppression of labor unions, demonization of socialists and others who challenge the corporate-friendly state, its foreign policy, or its military/police. Sound familiar?

In order to accomplish its goals, fascism relies on all the tricks and techniques described previously. But then comes the violence. Mass fascist movements begin to target and scapegoat minorities, encourage violence and paramilitary thuggery. Trotsky predicted “Stand back and stand by” 80 years before Trump ever uttered the phrase. Eventually, shutting down unions and criminalizing leftist political groups is undertaken.

While liberals see fascism’s emergence as a consequence of the weakness or absence of revolutionary struggle (or even mass movements), Trotsky viewed fascism as the dialectical consequence of the rise of revolutionary struggle. Fascism, for Trotsky, is what you get when increasing demands for social change scare the hell out of the ruling class. Trotsky was very clear that working people can expect no help from social-democratic parties (i.e. Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, lets say) who often end up brokering deals with the fascists all too quickly once they take their seats in government.

The wildcard in all of this is that segments of a disaffected working class and a frightened petit bourgeoisie can go either way — right or left. Social democratic party half measures to relieve social and economic pressures rarely do anything more than shift the social democrats to the right in their efforts to compete in elections or convince voters they’re not radicals. This is why the Democrats lost the last election. By the time the social democrats have ceded most of their power to the fascists, there may no longer be elections.

Bonhoeffer: Vampire Hunter

I recently saw the trailer for “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Spy, Assassin.” It reminded me of another film with similar historical accuracy, 2012’s “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.”

As you might imagine, this is a film that has nothing to do with the actual, historical Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

As soon as it was released concerns arose that “Bonhoeffer” was primarily a vehicle for Christian Nationalism. The Bonhoeffer Society itself has condemned it. Even the cast of the movie has had misgivings:

STATEMENT: Lead Actors in “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Spy, Assassin” Speak Out Together Against the Misuse of Bonhoeffer’s Legacy

In Germany, Die Zeit published a scathing review, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: How Trump’s radical supporters weaponized Dietrich Bonhoeffer”):

https://www.zeit.de/2024/44/dietrich-bonhoeffer-theologe-donald-trump-unterstuetzer-gewalt

And an article in German Broadcast Culture read: “Fake News about a Nazi resistance fighter”:

https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/film-bonhoeffer-radikale-christen-usa-100.html

The film was produced by Utah-based Christian Nationalist media company Angel Studios and was adapted from a “biography” (in quotes for good reason) by Eric Metaxas, a right-wing talk show host and rabid supporter of the Orange Führer himself.

https://www.ywampublishing.com/p-1554-bonhoeffer-pastor-martyr-prophet-spy.aspx

The Baptist News didn’t like the film:

New Bonhoeffer film offers a mixed bag of emotions

And the Jewish online magazine The Forward had concerns about modern day Nazis falsifying history:

https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/677167/dietrich-bonhoeffer-todd-komarnicki-biopic-review/

So don’t bother with this garbage. In any case it won’t be long before you’re drowning in a flood of Christian Nationalist propaganda.

IAC National Summit 2024

img

The Israeli-American Council (IAC) is yet another node in a vast network of pro-Israel and Israel-linked organizations known as the Israel Lobby. As opposed to American Jewish groups which might embrace Zionism, the IAC is openly operated, and in apparent violation of FARA laws, by Israelis on US soil.

The IAC was created in 2007 by Israel’s Consul General, Ehud Danoch, and it immediately began recruiting dual (Israeli-American) nationals, primarily with backgrounds in American business. In 2013 the IAC obtained additional financial support from casino mogul and Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, as well as Hollywood producer/investor and Biden donor Haim Saban. In 2014 a third billionaire and convinced Zionist, Adam Milstein, was appointed its chairman.

To say the IAC’s politics are far-right is an understatement. On September 19, 2024 the IAC convened its three-day National Summit at the Washington DC Hilton, and it had all of the features of a MAGA Republican CPAC Hungary conference — militarists, authoritarians, enemies of civil liberties, propagandists, Christian Zionists, and even a wannabe dictator — two if we count Donald Trump’s surprise appearance at the event.

Kim Jong Un was unavailable

The DC Summit featured three days of workshops, among which the following were offered:

  • “Taking Antisemitism to Court” featured speakers from the Brandeis Center, the Lawfare Project, the National Jewish Advocacy Center, and IAC Action, which coordinates its efforts with right-wing Republicans.
  • “The IHRA Definition: A Tool for Fighting Antisemitism” hosted MAGA Republican legislators from Georgia, South Carolina, and Arkansas sharing tips with two Israelis from IAC for Action.
  • The “Civic Engagement” workshop was a hodge-podge of miscreants that included: Elise Stefanik, who represents Israel more reliably than her own Congressional district; Trump defender Alan Dershowitz; Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Falls Church, Virginia, son of Iran’s brutal Shah, who now supplements his CIA stipend by hitting the conference circuit; Shabbos Kestenbaum, who sued Harvard for not doing enough to shut down free speech; Christian Zionist actress Patricia Heaton; and several other nobodies from stage, screen, and television.
  • At “Head of the Snake: The Global Terror Network and Iran’s Leadership Role” Israeli defense analyst Yoav Limor moderated a discussion with: Elliot Abrams, war criminal, convicted felon, Gulf War cheerleader, and now one of Biden’s national security advisors; Victoria Coates, another warmongering American neocon and former National Security Advisor under Trump; and two Israeli terrorism “experts” — Boaz Ganor and Anat Berko.
  • “Tragic Awakening Documentary Film & Conversation” was a film screening by its director, Rabbi Raphael Stone, founder of the Clarion Project, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group because of its Islamophobic focus.
  • “The US-Israel Alliance Now and Tomorrow” was moderated by Israeli broadcast journalist Yuna Leibzon and included: Ofir Akunis, Likudnik and Israeli Consul General of New York; former Middle East envoy and “Israel’s Lawyer” Dennis Ross; former NSC advisor Victoria Coates; and Michael Oren, Israel’s former Ambassador to the U.S.
  • And, finally, for those who needed to hear justifications for the carpet bombing of civilians, there was “Ethics in Combat and the Law of Armed Combat” featuring: Alon Ben David, who specializes in “International communications” at Bar-Ilan University; Colonel Richard Kemp of the Gatestone Institute, a far-right Islamophobic advocacy group founded by Nina Rosenwald and funded by billionaire megadonor Rebekah Mercer, whose more recognizable members include John Bolton, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, R. James Woolsey, Dutch fascist Geert Wilders, and Amir Taheri, who has repeatedly been accused of fabricating stories about Iran.

A partial list of participants

Assessing the Damage

We are in the midst of another McCarthy era. Universities and public schools are under attack by organized witch hunts. Slanderous accusations of antisemitism are ending careers. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is being weaponized by Zionist “lawfare” organizations. Protests against Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza (not to mention the West Bank and over half a dozen Middle East countries) are twisted as endorsements of terror. Conversely, condemnations of Israeli terror are twisted as antisemitism.

It is rare that we encounter a single story involving Israel and its strong-arm tactics with so many moving parts. It is even rarer that we encounter one in our own backyard. The following story illustrates just how the state of Israel and unregistered agents and lobbyists, coordinating with American Zionist organizations and MAGA Republicans, can marshal the resources of federal investigators, police agencies and prosecutors, to threaten an Ivy League university and take down its president, throw a school district into chaos, and manipulate politicians — all to suppress protests of Israel’s war crimes and to ruin its critics.

The Inciting Incident

In the early days of Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza, pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up a “die-in” at the Harvard Business School’s campus in Allson. Yoav Segev, a Jewish Harvard Business School student, was attempting to surveil the “die-in.” As Segev stepped awkwardly over the bodies of prostrate protesters attempting to film their faces, he raised suspicions he was trying to dox them. Corinne Shanahan, a Harvard Law School student, felt Segev was filming “in bad faith, either to intimidate or dox” the protesters.

Shouting “exit!” and “shame!” student safety monitors told Segev to stop and, after he refused to leave, half a dozen students blocked his camera with scarves and banners. This included Divinity School student Elom Tetty-Tamaklo, a safety monitor, and also Harvard Law Review editor Ibrahim Bharmal. In what now appears to have been clearly a set-up, Segev claimed he had been “assaulted” and two of the camera-blockers were soon arrested by an undercover Harvard campus police officer working on a federal task force. As an editorial in the Harvard Law Record points out, both Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal were trying to protect protesters from Segev. Somehow the safety of this segment of Harvard students has been forgotten.

It was Segev’s father Ilan who emailed the Harvard University police (HUPD) with the complaint. The elder Segev knew just whom to contact using intelligence from an unnamed source, and he provided HUPD with the identities of two students, informing HUPD that the son wanted to press charges. Out of more than half a dozen students the two Segevs could have accused of “assault,” the two chosen were both men of color. A letter of support from Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine asks “why Tettey-Tamaklo, who is Ghanaian, was singled out from the other protesters as a threat?” While racism was certainly one possibility, another become apparent when we learn that Tettey-Tamaklo was a co-founder of the campus group Harvard Graduate Students 4 Palestine. He was targeted because he was the leader of the pro-Palestinian group.

While Segev is only 26, he owns a tony condominium in Boston’s South End purchased for just over $1 million and now valued at $1.24 mil. His parents, as we will see, are extremely well-connected. Tetty-Tamaklo, on the other hand, was a proctor from a poor country who lived in student housing, receiving meals as part of his aid package. Ibrahim Bharmal had been a member of the Harvard Law Review — that is, until Harvard’s Chabad rabbi Hirshy Zarchi, Harvard megadonors Bill Ackman, Jonathan Neman, and David Duel, 94 Jewish alumni, and the Brandeis Center, a Zionist “lawfare” group, all showed up with pitchforks demanding the two students’ heads on spikes.

The lynch mob

Both Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal face charges of Assault and Battery and Violations of Civil Rights. Although the cases against them are weak and have not yet been dismissed by Suffolk County DA Kevin Hayden, neither Tetty-Tamaklo nor Bharmal have court dates, much less convictions. Rejecting any presumption of innocence, Harvard punished the two without hearings anyway. Zionist attack groups further “punished” the two with character assassination. Someone set up a libelous webpage using Tettey-Tamaklo’s identity, and both are being doxxed by Canary Mission, a particularly repulsive Zionist attack group funded by deep pocketed donors, including the late Sheldon Adelson and Adam Milstein. Harvard quickly bowed to the well-orchestrated attack campaign, evicting Tetty-Tamaklo from his university housing. And after megadonor Bill Ackman demanded to know, “How does this man remain Editor of the Harvard Law Review?” Ibrahim Bharmal’s bio was yanked from the Harvard Law website. But still the Defenders of Israel weren’t done with their enemies.

The mob takes down a president

With the university scrambling to appease its attackers, donors like Bill Ackerman, long critical of both the Harvard Trustees and its President, as well as Zionist and MAGA organizations, demanded President Claudine Gay’s head — and those of the Trustees. On December 5th, 2023 Virginia Foxx (R-NC) launched her McCarthyite Congressional hearings at which a grandstanding Elise Stefanik (R-NY) outdid herself defending Israel while haranguing Gay and assaulting free speech and freedom of association. It was a shameful display of deference to a repressive, foreign regime.

Unfortunately, Gay’s spineless defense of student Constitutional rights and academic freedom at Harvard was nearly as shameful. Even Gay’s apologies and assurances were not enough to assuage the MAGA and Zionist zealots. After a month of “deeply personal and sustained attacks [that have] played out in […] the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls” the beleaguered university president had had enough. On January 2nd Gay stepped down.

An extremely weak case

Those who have seen footage of the Segev incident are hard-pressed to recognize anything resembling an assault. Adrian Walker writes in the Globe, “As someone who has covered crime in Suffolk County for decades, I’ll just say this: I can’t remember a weaker assault case. Not only does this case not clear the bar for prosecution, it doesn’t even approach it. Assault by scarf? Please stop it.” Thomas Nolan, a former Boston Police lieutenant, commented: “I didn’t see anything in the video that I would characterize as an assault and battery … or anything remotely approaching a civil rights violation.”

Barbara J. Dougan, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Massachusetts, found the politically-motivated prosecution of the two troubling: “As a lawyer who has represented the victims of hate crimes for 25 years, I view the way this incident is being handled as highly unusual. In my experience, police departments are unwilling, despite the victim’s wishes, to bring charges for incidents that don’t clearly rise to the level of a crime. […] I trust that Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden will take a good, hard look at the facts of this case when deciding whether to prosecute.”

More on the Segevs

But the story gets more interesting. Not merely another Jewish student at a school that is 25% Jewish, Segev junior is a student member of Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE), part of a pro-Israel “lawfare” group, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB). LDB has filed dozens of legal complaints of alleged “antisemitism” against universities and school districts all over the U.S. based on purported violations of Title VI protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sniffing for antisemitism is exactly what LDB does. It is reasonable to assume Segev was operating as an operative of LDB the day of his confrontation with protesters.

LDB was created by Kenneth L. Marcus, Donald Trump’s former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Not related to a similarly-named university, LDB has been at its game a long time and was party to the lawsuit which ultimately dismantled affirmative action admissions. Besides opposing affirmative action and launching a tsunami of Title VI lawsuits, LDF and JAFE also work to pressure universities to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

LDB’s interests overlap considerably with those of MAGA Republicans who, like Zionists, are fierce foes of DEI and affirmative action and reject any suggestion that the U.S. is or ever was a settler-colonial state. The nation’s 30 million Christian Zionists also see Israel as a model for a Christian Nationalist renewal in the U.S. Zionist and MAGA interests also converge in opposing anti-colonialist Middle Eastern studies programs and the faculty who teach courses on, critique, or even discuss settler colonialism with their students. Christian Zionists promote the IHRA definition, which will eventually result in arrests and punishment if fully weaponized. Maybe they’re just thinking ahead to the day when criticizing Christian Nationalism will result in similar repression.

Within MAGA World the accusations of “antisemitism” have been increasingly adopted and weaponized by grandstanders like Elise Stefanik, who libeled Segev’s “assailants,” and Mitt Romney, Harvard class of 1974, who signed a letter painting a melodramatic picture of “Jewish students [who] have locked themselves in dorm rooms across your campuses afraid for their own safety.” The fact that a Jewish student like Segev could feel safe enough — if not entitled — to wade through a field of protesters knowing he wouldn’t actually be harmed undercuts such rightwing talking points.

All of the chaos created by reckless and slanderous accusations is ultimately to the advantage of the Israeli government, which makes young Segev’s family background all the more interesting.

Segev’s father Ilan is a former Israeli diplomat who transitioned to American investment manager at Morgan-Stanley, where he manages portfolios sizable enough to attract the occasional lawsuit. Segev senior is founding Co-Chair of and donor to the Israeli-American Council of Boston, a member of the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN), whose leadership overlaps somewhat with the ICA’s. Segev donates to a variety of Boston-area institutions, including: the Jewish Community Day School, where he is a Director; the [former] Kehilla Schecter Academy, where he was also a Director; the Landmark School, a secular school for autistic children; and Newton-Wellesley Hospital, where he is on the Board of Overseers. Segev held diplomatic posts in Qatar and served as Israel’s Vice Consul in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2001 Segev visited Wake Forest University to deliver the Foreign Ministry’s message that Palestinians are entirely responsible for their own occupation, their loss of territory, and the many racist laws they are subject to.

Segev’s mother Shiri (Shira) is also a former diplomat with the Israeli Foreign Ministry and is now a financial compliance officer at Omniguide. She serves on the Boston Jewish Community Day School’s Board; like her husband is also a member of the Israeli-American Council; a trustee of the Gann Academy, a Jewish day school; Educating for Excellence, a pro-Israel education group; the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, where she is a director. Owing to their wealth and connections, the Segevs have a lot of friends in very high places.

IAC and ICAN

The Israeli-American Council (IAC) to which both parents belong is yet another node in a vast network of pro-Israel and Israel-linked organizations known as the Israel Lobby. As opposed to American Jewish groups which might embrace Zionism, the IAC is openly operated, and in apparent violation of FARA laws, by Israelis on US soil.

The IAC was created in 2007 by Israel’s Consul General, Ehud Danoch, and it immediately began recruiting dual (Israeli-American) nationals, primarily with backgrounds in American business. In 2013 the IAC obtained additional financial support from casino mogul and Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, as well as Hollywood producer/investor and Biden donor Haim Saban. In 2014 a third billionaire and dedicated Zionist, Adam Milstein, was appointed its chairman.

To say the IAC’s politics are far-right is an understatement. On September 19, 2024 the IAC convened its three-day National Summit at the Washington DC Hilton, and it had all of the features of a MAGA Republican CPAC Hungary conference — militarists, authoritarians, enemies of civil liberties, propagandists, Christian Zionists, and even a wannabe dictator — two if we count Donald Trump’s surprise appearance at the event. For a closer look at the conference, click here.

There are now between 200,000 and as many as one million people with Israeli citizenship living in the U.S. In the Boston are there are some 30,000. As an organization for Israeli expats, IAC shares much of its membership, some of its leadership, and — owing to its ongoing connections to the Foreign Ministry and IDF — it shares Israeli government objectives with other Israeli-American groups such as the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) and its sister group, the Israel-American Civic Education Institute (both headed by lobbyist Dillon Hosier). All three target American educational institutions and cultivate friends within MAGA World. For example, ICAN Massachusetts recently endorsed Steven Howitt, arguably the most right-wing representative on Beacon Hill.

ICAN and ICA have gone all out in attacking the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which supports a ceasefire and voted to develop materials that can be used for teaching the Israel-Palestine conflict. Joined at the hip in unsavory ways, MAGA World and the pro-Israel media both went into simultaneous attack mode.

Fox News commentator Kassy Akiva (Dillon) of the Daily Wire published an attack on Ricardo Rosa, who had been tasked with developing the MTA curriculum, and this was followed up by a press release from Steven Howitt, issued in the name of the Massachusetts House and Senate Republican Caucus. The Times of Israel and Canary Mission then attacked the MTA. Parents Defending Education and JNS, the Jewish News Syndicate, piled on, accusing the MTA of rank antisemitism, putting targets on both Rosa and Newton City Councilor BIll Humphrey, whose only crime was failing to fall in line by condemning the MTA. The Jewish News Service, the MAGA Patriot Post, and other far-right sites followed suit. It was quite the team effort by Israelis, the Israel lobby, and the American far right. Rosa showed me the death threats recorded on his phone.

One important objective of the Israeli-American Council — and the Israeli Foreign Ministry that created it — is shaping perceptions of Israel and Zionism within American educational institutions. In June 2016 the IAC hosted a meeting at its Newton headquarters, chaired by Ilan Segev, to which Mayor Setti Warren was invited. The Forward describes Newton, a city 30% Jewish, as “one of the most Jewish cities in the United States.” Ignoring how ludicrous such allegations are, Segev charged Newton’s schools with “sweeping antisemitism under the rug,” while Charles Jacobs, a notorious Islamophobe who led opposition to the construction of the Islamic Center of New England (since built), claimed the Newton schools were using maps of Palestine created by the PLO. For both Israel and its MAGA friends, talking points don’t have to be true. it’s all about manufacturing outrage.

Thomas Karns

Returning to the thread of the “assault” at Harvard we now meet Thomas F. Karns Jr., the campus cop who arrested Tetty-Tamaklo and Bharmal. Karns is a former Boca Raton police officer and Gulf War veteran. In 2019 he was briefly suspended for calling a Black colleague a “f—t n—r.” His LinkedIn page lists extensive training in computer forensics and provides references from at least one federal prosecutor. Karns set up Veritas ex Machina Consulting LLC in Marblehead MA in 2015. His organizational filing states the purpose was “digital forensic consulting and computer incident handling.” Karns’s LLC was dissolved by court order in 2019.

In 2008, in a strange echo of the 2023 incident, Karns arrested two Massachusetts residents during campus protests against Israel’s Cast Lead operation in Gaza. Karns was then wearing a track suit, not a police uniform, filming protesters. He later admitted he was “conducting plain clothes surveillance on a demonstration.” Karns illegally arrested the two for simply documenting his surveillance of pro-Palestinian protesters, not for committing an actual crime. In 2020 Karns was again seen monitoring Black Lives Matter protesters after George Floyd’s murder; his suspension for racist behavior the previous year seemed relevant to the Harvard Crimson.

A 2012 paper by the Massachusetts ACLU documented the practice of policing dissent in New England. The Boston Police Department routinely collaborates in federal task forces, violating the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of those it spies upon, just like the [private] Harvard University police. Although Harvard denied that Karns was operating as part of a federal task force, Massachusetts ACLU Legal Director John Reinstein pushed back: “They claim they don’t have a political surveillance ‘unit,’ but they do have a guy who goes out and takes pictures of people in peaceful demonstrations…” According to an article by Mike Damiano in the Globe, Karns testified in sworn testimony in another case that he was there as part of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Brigitte Karns

Brigitte Karns (Thomas Karns’s wife) is a Marblehead teacher and a fitness instructor at the JCC North Shore. She owns a registered “educational enrichment” company. It turns out that Karns is also deeply involved in pro-Israel advocacy — just like the Segevs, with both the Israeli-American Council and the Israeli-American Civic Action Network. When criticism of Israel’s carpet-bombing of Gaza surfaced at Karn’s school, she was so outraged that her first impulse was to shut down opposing views: “As you know, my parents are Holocaust survivors and most of my family lives in Israel and what you’re saying is incorrect. You need to stop.”

Karn’s wrath seemed focused on three fellow teachers, members of her school’s DEI committee. Karns’s simmering gripes surfaced at a June 10, 2024 webinar organized by a “who’s who” of far right Zionist organizations: ICAN, Massachusetts Educators Against Antisemitism (a front for ICAN), CAMERA Educational Institute, Christians and Jews United for Israel (CUFI), StandWithUs K-12 Educator Network, the “anti-woke” Combat Antisemitism Movement – and of course the Consulate General of Israel to New England.

On June 20, 2024, at a meeting again sponsored by the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) Brigitte Karns went after her fellow Marblehead teachers, specifically targeting Candice Sliney: “Marblehead has been knowingly supporting a hostile work environment of some of the Jewish teachers and students. The Marblehead Education Association is using intimidation tactics to silence Jews and then the administration is perpetuating antisemitic and anti-Israel ideology by remaining silent.”

Sliney — who is a member of the Marblehead Task Force Against Discrimination, which partners with the ADL to train students and teachers to fight antisemitism and discrimination — was astounded by Karn’s allegations: “Every single accusation was a lie. She has attacked my character, endangered my family and put my career at risk, with zero evidence.” Sliney urged the School Committee to hire an independent investigator. Voices from the community fortunately came to Sliney’s defense.

But Karns wasn’t finished with her colleagues. She went on testify to the psychic trauma of having to listen to fellow teachers condemn Israel’s war on Gaza: “This anti-Zionist interaction has left me feeling unwelcome and isolated at work. The encounter pierced deeply, shaking my trust in the place I work and with whom I work with. The silence from the administration and the union amplified my feelings of isolation. It’s like a double blow, being marginalized by a colleague and then having administration ignore my feelings and concerns.”

It’s really a shame that our fantasies of forcing everyone we interact with to adopt our own views and refrain from uttering contradictory ones can’t be realized, but at some point we need to pop out of it and accept reality.

Following Karns’s allegations, the Marblehead Current reported that the Marblehead Schools had been forced to conduct an “antisemitism” probe — at taxpayer expense. Schools superintendent John Robidoux signed an agreement specifying that “the district shall pay Kurker Paget at a rate of $360 per hour for the services of any partner of the firm and $160 per hour for the services of the firm’s paralegals, billed in six-minute increments. MPS will incur fees for the time Kurker Paget staff spend traveling in connection with the investigation.”

The Current also reported that the Marblehead schools did receive a number of letters accusing the schools of doing little to protect Jewish students. But most were identical, generated by a computerized form, and began with, “I am emailing you to show my support for the Jewish teachers that have experienced antisemitic/anti-Israel incidents in the Marblehead schools…”

Assessing the damage

To date, a handful of zealots, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Israel lobby, and its MAGA fellow-travelers, all working together, have managed to take down a university president, ruined the lives of two human rights advocates and at least one teacher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in hearings and needless studies, subverted free speech in universities and public schools, marshaled the powers of Congress, the FBI, the police, and the courts against Americans and those protected under our laws — and they’ve done it all without a single shred of oversight or regulation.

New York Mayor Eric Adams is politically finished as a consequence of acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey. Robert Menendez’s career is over after acting as Egypt’s. Paul Manafort went to prison after acting as an agent for Ukraine. All of these men violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act in one way or another. And all of them were Americans. Yet somehow none of this applies to the Segevs and the “Israeli-American” and pro-Israel organizations running amok over the American political landscape.

In 2018 M.J. Rosenberg — who worked for AIPAC himself at one point — argued that AIPAC and lobby groups like it ought to be required to register under FARA laws. Rosenberg described the mind-bending loophole that allows such groups to function as agents for Israel (and apparently only Israel). If a similar loophole had been in place in the Fifties allowing Americans to act as agents for the Soviet Union, perhaps Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (no relation) could have avoided the electric chair.

The conclusion Rosenberg drew in 2018 is as relevant as ever today:

“No, AIPAC is not a ‘pro-Israel’ lobby. It’s the Netanyahu lobby and our laws should treat it as such […] As for the thousands of Americans gathered in Washington this weekend, they need to know one thing: They are not supporting the dream of a secure, democratic Israel at peace with its neighbors and the world. They are, unwittingly, supporting a right-wing political agenda that is placing Israel in ever-deeper peril and, frankly, jeopardizing its very existence.”

The Two State Lie

After years of illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, the only thing left of the “Two State Solution” is as a prop for liberal politicians and liberal Zionists to point at while doing nothing to advance any now clearly impossible partition plan.

The charitable or gullible may view these liberals as idealistic dreamers, but realists will recognize them for what they are — purveyors of an obvious, damnable lie. In truth, Israel and its colonial enablers will permit only an exclusively Jewish state — and this has always meant the inevitable mass-murder or expulsion of a people who will never renounce their claims on their own land.

Even when the opportunity has presented itself to create or move forward the idea of a Palestinian state – even a rump state or a disconnected set of cantons or reservations — the United States has rejected or vetoed the idea, pointing to its other gaslighting prop — the equally dead and pickled Oslo Accords — as the “only game in town,” as George Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell used to call it.

Oslo may be long-dead but it is still the straw man that US presidents and their Western allies recite while demanding that Palestinians negotiate directly with Israel — as if such were negotiations between states on equal footing. But since Israel has physically destroyed literally every Palestinian government (and that includes assassinating its leaders and negotiators), only the toothless, highly unpopular Palestinian Authority remains, and it has absolutely no mandate to negotiate with anyone.

Meanwhile, no American president has ever made any effort to hold Israel to account for its illegal settlements, actively worked for two states, or even presented a vision for one. That’s because for decades it has been impossible (not to mention embarrassing) to look at a map of the West Bank and explain to anyone with a straight face how a Palestinian state could ever be cobbled together from the tiny crumbs still left on the table. So when I hear liberal stalwarts like Elizabeth Warren mumbling “two states” I want to demand that she show me her detailed plan. Or shut the hell up.

As reasonable as a demand that the thief return the property he stole, or the home invader vacate the home he invaded, or that damages (criminal or civil) must be paid to a victim, no Western nation with its own sordid history of slaughter and displacement of indigenous people will will ever impose this sort of justice on a fellow settler-colonial state. When you think about it, this is nothing more than professional courtesy between rogue states.

But now, after 75 years of injustice and now an exceptionally well-documented genocide, the world is screaming for a solution to be found. Israel’s solution is to double down on every technique that created its Apartheid state in the first place — massacres and ethnic cleansing. The Zionist state remains committed to “thinning” the Palestinian population — as if it were a herd of animals, stealing even more land, and devising ever more creative schemes to push Palestinians into the Sinai, Jordan, or Egypt. But a previously inattentive world has been paying attention, and now Israel’s many crimes have justifiably made it a pariah.

AND YET American politicians are still on board with Israel’s slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and continued annexation. Republicans, including Donald Trump, have suggested that Israel “bounce the rubble,” drop atomic bombs, or “finish the job” — echoing genocidal calls openly and increasingly advanced by members of Israel’s Knesset and its public. The Democratic president, a self-described “Zionist,” generously funds the ongoing genocide, has placed boots on the ground and boats in the Gulf. His National Security Advisor and Secretary of State shamelessly lie about the scale and scope of Israel’s war crimes.

Democratic Party politicians avert their eyes from the victims of Israel’s genocide, and couldn’t bring themselves to allow a Muslim congresswoman to address their national convention (while allowing two Israelis the platform). They vote with Republicans to criminalize protests, vote for new laws to muzzle speech critical of Zionism or opposition to Israeli policies — all while continuing to hide behind Oslo and the fictive Two State Solution. And while the Democratic majority is too well bred to openly cheer for genocide like their Republican brethren, they still do everything they can to sustain the “lethal” slaughter.

Zionists interpret the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as a call to exterminate all the Jews. I doubt they actually believe this propagandistic “interpretation” any more than I do because Israel’s ruling party actually uses a similar formulation in its own platform. What is true, however, is that throughout all the territory it controls Israel — and no other people — maintains an actual One State ethnocracy by extreme violence. Again, literally from the river to the sea. This single state includes 5.5 million Palestinian subjects in areas occupied by Israel and Israel’s 9.1 million citizens, totaling 14.6 million souls.

Of this total population 7.2 million – a slight minority – are Jewish. But Israel’s One State Jewish minority is even smaller because up to a million Israelis don’t actually live in Israel and many of the Russian olim were admitted under an amended 1970 Law of Return which permitted non-Jews to immigrate (specifically to offset Arab demographics). So when you also factor in the Palestinian diaspora — between 6 million and 7 million people displaced by the 1948 Nakba — Jews represent only a third of the total number of people who have claims to Palestine.

This, together with the racist, repressive, even neofascist, nature of the Israeli state, perfectly justifies classifying Israel as an Apartheid state. As a state for only a fraction of its “subjects,” Israel maintains the status quo only through violence and terror, and it can’t even do this on its own.

As its colonial era Mandate expired, Britain turned over its military and colonial infrastructure to the Jewish Company, not the majority Palestinian population it had occupied. Since its founding, Israel has depended on hundreds of billions of dollars of American subsidies to its military, defense, tech, and energy programs. Billions of dollars in funding came from North American Zionist organizations, notably the private Jewish Federations and large donors. Like a failing tech startup, the Zionist state only exists by pumping more and more money into it. In the long run it is unsustainable.

France made Israel the nuclear power it is today. Russia armed it in its early years. Americans can’t have national healthcare, but between 15-20% of Israel’s defense budget is paid for by American taxpayers. In any other financial arena where expenses are properly scrutinized, from business to government to non-profits, throwing wads of cash at a recurring disaster is the very definition of insanity.

By at least 1990, with hope for a Palestinian state all but dead, it was obvious that a different version of the One State solution — not exclusively Jewish — would be necessary to end the madness of Zionism’s ruthless control over all of Palestine. Though different, several of these plans end exclusive Zionist control over Palestine by giving Palestinians a long-denied voice and exactly the same rights as Jews — security, respect for personal property, freedom of movement, a political voice, and the right of refugees to return to their communities.

Taxonomy of One State solutions

In 2005 Tamar Hermann, a liberal Zionist Israeli political scientist who now works at the Israel Democracy Institute, looked at the structure of four different One State solutions:

  1. a “unitary state” that denies the non-dominant nationality any rights, redress, or power
  2. a system that grants the non-dominant group [some] individual rights but no collective political rights or power
  3. a classical liberal democracy in which no nationality has special or collective political rights and where the relationship of citizen to state is not mediated by ethnic or religious membership
  4. a “parity-based” bi-national framework in which each nationality becomes a collective political unit and is accorded equal status and power regardless of size
  5. a “consociational” bi-national arrangement which recognizes ethno-national rights within “cantons” (preserving one aspect of the “two state” solution) while permitting freedom of movement and property ownership for both nationalities within all of Palestine

Although it’s a bit dated, Hermann’s taxonomy provided both a useful outline and an analysis of how Israel has systematically opposed both one- and two-state solutions. Note that Option #1 is the current reality, and the only reality acceptable to Israel and its Western enablers. Note also that various options that would address injustices toward Palestinians have been systematically rejected by elements of the Israeli Left, Right, and Center.

Early Jewish Bi-nationalism

As Hermann writes, Zionism ignored and discounted both Arab existence and resistance to displacement:

“For many devoted Zionists, it came as a severe blow to realise that implementing the dream of the Zionist movement – the ingathering of the Jews in the land of their forefathers and the building of a national home for the Jewish people – bluntly interfered with the life of the Arab community in the same land. Although warnings in this regard were expressed as early as 1907–08 (Epstein 1907/1908), awareness of the hostility that massive Jewish immigration created among the Arabs was minimal.”

But there were plenty of Jews who recognized the flaw in Zionism:

A small minority, however, rejected these strategies as early as the 1920s, denouncing them as immoral for disrespecting the national rights of the Palestinians and for putting the Jews and Arabs on a collision course. Instead, this minority position advocated a bi-national arrangement. Thus, in 1925 the Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace) group was formed with the aim of promoting Jewish–Arab understanding and co-operation.

The members of Brit Shalom, some of them prominent figures in the political or academic establishment, believed that the domination of one people by another would lead to severe friction and, eventually, war. At least in its early days, Brit Shalom’s bi-nationalism could be described as optimistic: it was meant to forestall the conflict before it ripened. Switzerland and Finland were the examples of successful bi-nationalism that encouraged Brit Shalom. In practical terms, the group advocated creating a legislative council based on Jewish–Arab parity, which would run the affairs of a bi-national state in which the two peoples would enjoy equal rights irrespective of their relative size at any given time.

The “Disturbances”

The wave of violent Arab riots against the Jews in 1929, known as the ‘disturbances’, were a severe blow to the group [my note: and should have been to the Zionists as well] since they suggested that time was running out faster than they expected. Brit Shalom warned that these ‘occurrences’ were not a sporadic, transitory phenomenon but the beginning of a national liberation struggle that would only get fiercer if not properly handled. Nevertheless, as noted, the chances for bi-nationalism to be adopted when other, more ‘natural’ options have not yet been tried, and failed, are slim.

Indeed, Brit Shalom was harshly attacked by the mainstream and accused of defeatism. The fact that they spoke their minds while the murdered Jews were not yet buried infuriated their rivals even further, and the Zionist establishment denounced them as either pathologically naive or traitors. It is important to note that the bi-national advocacy of Brit Shalom and its successors in the pre-state days was not echoed on the Arab side. Given their numerical superiority, the Palestinians rejected a parity-based regime.

Magnes

Detroit Jewish Chronicle, October 3, 1941 calling Magnes a “Quisling”

The “Ihud” (Union)

Apart from Brit Shalom, however, the group most identified with it is Ihud (Union), which was led by Martin Buber and Judah Magnes and was active from the early 1940s till the establishment of the state, though it continued its activities until the mid-1960s. Ihud was established in 1942, almost a decade after Brit Shalom had expired.

By that time the conflict was already an undeniable and very violent reality. Moreover, Ihud operated against the background of World War II and the catastrophe of European Jewry. Its members believed that bi-nationalism offered the only way of saving both the Jewish community in Palestine and the survivors of the Holocaust. They did not deny the Jewish people’s special attachment to the Land of Israel but maintained that together with the Arabs living in Palestine they must develop the country without one side imposing its will on the other.

In their submission to the Anglo-American Commission (1946), Magnes and Buber, who represented Ihud, argued, in stark contrast to the position presented by the Zionist establishment, that since both Jews and Arabs had a national claim to Palestine, it could neither be an Arab state nor a Jewish one. They also rejected the partition option, saying it was impractical and a ‘moral defeat for everyone concerned’. Instead, they recommended that a bi-national state be formed in which Jews and Arabs would share power. According to this parity-based model, Jews and Arabs would have equal representation in a democratically elected legislative council, and the head of state would be appointed by the United Nations Organisation, with each community exercising autonomy in cultural matters.

Zionism’s conflict with Jewish values apparent

Indeed, the bi-nationalism of Brit Shalom and Ihud had a strongly moralistic aspect. They saw it as a natural derivation of the Jewish tradition of antimilitarism – the victory of the spirit over the flesh. At the same time, they promoted bi-nationalism as the only practical solution that might be acceptable to both sides.

A brief appearance by Israeli Bi-nationalists

The tiny camp of today’s (2005) Israeli bi-nationalists can be divided into two subgroups. First there are those, mostly belonging to the radical, non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist Left, who favor this model per se. Second are those who would prefer a different scenario but have concluded that the existing geopolitical and demographic realities dictate bi-nationalism.

The bi-national idea was already raised by a few Israelis in the 1970s, and again, strongly but by very few, soon after the launching of the Oslo process. Political activists of the radical Left, such as Michael Warschawski of the Alternative Information Centre and others, warned against the pitfalls of the Oslo paradigm, claiming that the Palestinian state to be established in this framework could not be viable but would only be a Bantustan-type entity.

For this they mainly blamed the expansionist Zionist ideology and the Israeli government, while also criticising the Palestinian Authority’s impotence and inability to defend its people’s interests: ‘If Arafat had not accepted the conditions laid out at Oslo, this miserable agreement might have remained a mere position paper (Ben Efrat 1997; see also Pape 1999, Warschawski 2001). These activists called for the adoption of the PLO’s ‘secular-democratic state’ model, which they referred to as bi-national in essence. However, theirs was a cry in the wilderness; it was heard, if at all, only within small circles of the Left and was mainly understood in the context of the internal rivalries between the Zionist and non-Zionist components of the peace camp.

Until very recently, however, bi-nationalism was not a significant (albeit highly contested) option in the Israeli repertoire of possible solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian strife. Thus, when in the summer of 2003 the weekly supplement of the Haaretz daily published a lengthy interview with two public figures, Meron Benvenisti and Haim Hanegbi, in which both expressed their support for a bi-national, Israeli–Palestinian state, many within and outside Israel were taken by surprise. In this pathbreaking interview Hanegbi, a well- known figure of the radical Left, admitted to his initial support for the Oslo process (Shavit 2003).

Yet as time passed and the process seemed to be leading nowhere, he came to view Oslo as a mistake – a diversion of everyone’s attention to Israel’s rhetoric rather than its deeds, namely, the ongoing settlement expansion. Therefore, dwelling on sweet memories of his childhood in Mandatory Jerusalem amid Jewish–Arab harmony and coexistence, Hanegbi asserted that Israel was unable to free itself from its expansionist mentality since ‘it is tied, hands and feet, to its core ideology of dispossession and original mode of action’. His conclusion was that: ‘Only binational cooperation can save us. Only this can transform us from foreigners in our land to locals, to natives’.

More on the debate

Benvenisti, the second interviewee in this scandal-stirring article, is also a nonconformist but comes from the heart of the Israeli establishment. Having warned prophetically for years that the ever-growing settlement project was becoming irreversible, his shift to bi-nationalism reflects much frustration and pain: Israelis, like the Afrikaners in South Africa, should realise that the present discriminatory regime ought to be dismantled, since it has failed to impose its hegemony over the dominated collective, and replaced it with a regime of individual and collective equality. Like Hanegbi, Benvenisti also admits to making a mistake in the past – in his case, defining the Israeli– Palestinian struggle as a national one when the correct definition, he now acknowledges, is that of a struggle between natives and settlers/colonisers, resulting from the atavistic hatred of those who feel dispossessed by foreigners.

Separation, then, is no longer an option, and the entire Land of Israel should be regarded as a single geopolitical entity (Shavit 2003). Although in this interview Benvenisti did not describe the details of the bi-national arrangement he suggested, he mentioned some combination of a horizontal sharing of powers on a parity basis and a vertical (territorial) one, a federalist structure that would include the entire land west of the Jordan River and be divided into several ethnic cantons.

In an article published a few months later, however, Benvenisti advocated the consociational model, ‘which recognizes the collective ethnonational rights and enables cooperation in the government at the national level while guaranteeing well-defined political rights for minorities’ (Benvenisti 2003). He views such an arrangement as based on a cantonal division under a federal umbrella. Such an arrangement, he states, also enables maintaining ‘soft’ borders and constructive ambiguity, which facilitates handling symbolic issues such as Jerusalem and even the refugees and the settlers (ibid.). He also states his pessimistic bottom line: ‘I am not happy with what I have just suggested. . . . We are not going to have peace here. Even if there is some binational arrangement, it can only manage the conflict. At its outskirts, however, violence will always prevail’ (Shavit: 10–14, 2003).

The publication of the interview with Benvenisti and Hanegbi by a major Israeli newspaper brought strong aftershocks, including many letters to the editor and opinion columns in the printed and electronic press. Paradoxically, for reasons to be explained below, the most negative reactions came not from the Right but from the Centre and moderate Left, both supporting one or another version of the two-state solution. For example, Yosef Gorni, a mainstream Zionist historian, fiercely attacked Benvenisti, who is also a historian along with his other professional activities:

As Benvenisti knows very well, this approach [bi-nationalism] is a complete non sequitur. . . . This is essentially because of the national spirit and history of the Jews and the Arabs. Both peoples find it very difficult to have minorities in their midst. . . . Furthermore, this idea also has a deplorable moral aspect, as it is unthinkable to legitimate such collective discrimination, by which all other peoples of the region, besides the Jews, will be entitled to a national state of their own. (Gorni 2003)

Another mainstream critic (Shacham 2003) fiercely attacks Hanegbi: ‘better not to bamboozle us with some bi-national phrasing when what one actually means is a regular state, with a majority and a minority, with the majority defining the rights of the minority’ (ibid.). His criticism of Benvenisti is no gentler: ‘The use of the phrase ”bi-national paradigm”, which sounds so intelligent, cannot compensate for the total lack of thinking on how such a state can be established and function’ (ibid.). Shlomo Avineri, a prominent political scientist and former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, states categorically: ‘A binational state? There is no such thing. Simply put: nowhere in the world has a conflict between two national movements been resolved by squeezing two national movements, holding each other’s throats, into the boiling pot of a binational state’ (Avineri 2003). Clearly alluding to Benve- nisti, he continues:

What happened to them [i.e. the advocates of bi-nationalism who were not part of the radical Left but came from the mainstream] was that they simply collapsed in the face of the Palestinians’ determination and resistance and their readiness to sacrifice themselves, reaching the conclusion that Zionism can never win and hence should be given up altogether.

Interestingly enough, there is also some opposition to the Hanegbi and Benvenisti-style bi-nationalism on the radical Left, the traditional (albeit tiny) support base in Israel for the PLO-style, secular-democratic bi-national state. These voices maintain that dividing the entire country into cantons a la Benvenisti has a misleading ring of plausibility. Israel boasts a First World economy, while the Palestinian-populated areas belong to the Second or even Third World. In such a situation, where the Jewish cantons are ‘haves’ and the Arab ones ‘have-nots’, the chances of real equality under the new federal or other framework are practically nil. Yet the question is idle, the argument goes, because there is no apparatus for realising this concept anyway; there is nothing to motivate Israel, which has brought Arafat to his knees and divided the Palestinian national movement, to enter into such an adventure (e.g. Ben Efrat 1997).

As noted, the Right’s criticism of the ‘new school’ bi-nationalists was surprisingly mild, apparently because any plan that implies retaining the Land of Israel as a single unit is appealing – with some amendments – to supporters of that principle. Thus, in November 2003 the Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) Council released its own ‘bi-national’ plan as the solution for the conflict. It divides the entire historic Land of Israel into ten cantons, each of which would have cultural autonomy, with their boundaries delineated according to the ethno-national composition of the population in the specific region. These cantons would come under a federal umbrella.

However, according to this plan’s principle of division, only two of the cantons would be Palestinian, thereby guaranteeing a Jewish majority in parliament (Eid 2003). The right-wing activist and journalist Israel Harel proposed another bi- national model: ‘We should take the Arabs on both sides of the Green Line as one body and the Jews on both sides as one body, and give the Arabs Jordanian citizenship and the Jews Israeli citizenship’ (Harel, in Susser 2003). There are, however, moderate right-wingers who fear that if such positions are embraced, the bi-national reality may impose itself on the land and destroy the settler community from within.

Thus Yair Sheleg, a journalist living in a settlement yet writing in Haaretz (which is left-of-center on Israeli–Palestinian relations), urged his fellow settlers to agree to the two-state solution before it was too late. With their powerful opposition to evacuating even the smallest, most isolated outpost, Sheleg argues, the settlers have created a balance of deterrence with the government. Sheleg urges the settlers to stop pressuring the government and concludes: ‘In specific moments of their life, individuals often agree to undergo painful operations, including amputating this or another organ of their body so as to save their life. The same level of responsibility such individuals take regarding their private life could be expected from those who aspire to be in the leadership position regarding the good of the nation.

Glimmers of One State

In 2004, frustrated with an Oslo process that was going nowhere, with Israel still occupying Gaza and beginning to wall off Jerusalem, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alta) – who would shortly be succeeded by Hamas’s Ismail Haniyah – threatened that if there was no real progress in negotiations Palestinians would call for one binational state.

The United States, smack in the middle of a Middle East war of its own making, placed its heavy thumb on the scales, acting as the biased peace broker it has always been. Elliott Abrams, soon to become a convicted felon and an accused war criminal, was part of the American delegation tasked with making sure Israel would prevail. US Secretary Colin Powell “categorically” rejected a one state solution and demanded that Palestinians “wrest authority” from President Yasir Arafat. For its part, Israel rejected any sort of a Palestinian state.

And prevail Israel did. The 2006 elections which swept Fatah from power and ushered in Hamas were a consequence of Israeli intransigence and American connivance. The US and Israel had no idea at the time that anointing (and later funding) Hamas would eventually blow up in their faces so spectacularly.

Thus, rather than “Palestinians never failing to miss an opportunity” for peace, peace in Palestine has been systematically subverted by Israel and the colonial powers (notably the US) that created it. These parties have worked tirelessly, always behind the scenes, to scuttle any sort of just solution or compromise that would allow two peoples to live in peace on the land one party stole.

Apology

My last post addressed two letters in the New Bedford Guide concerning Zionism. One clearly defended it, while another by my friend Betty Ussach only sounded like it. I have known Betty for many years, worked with her on social justice issues, and, while I may not have been the only person to misread her intentions, I should have given her much more credit for what should have been read as a principled objection to Israel’s violence in Gaza, not the opposite. Another letter she published in the New York Daily News leaves no doubt as to where she stands. Betty, again, I’m really sorry.

While I am apologizing, the New Bedford Guide did eventually publish my response. As uncomfortable as the issue may be for some to confront, covering vital public discussions that have otherwise been banished from the local papers is an important function of the press. Anyone who, even belatedly or reluctantly, publishes unpopular views on the war in Gaza or Zionism is doing an important public service. I hope the NB Guide will keep it up because the other local news outlets aren’t.

While to some people Gaza may be somebody else’s war — a topic made radioactive because of cynical accusations of “antisemitism” or something having nothing to do with our national priorities — without American bombs, naval fleets, intelligence sharing, missile defense systems, vetoes at the UN, and cumulatively hundreds of billions of dollars of military aid to Israel, neither Israel’s Apartheid system nor their genocidal war on Palestinians would be possible. And everybody knows it — most of all the vast Israel lobby.

At some “Walter Cronkite moment” in the future, with almost every international body condemning the war and Israel’s Apartheid system, Americans are going to finally realize that pumping billions after billions to prop up a nationalist supremacist state is simply throwing bad money after bad.