Human rights

“The situation is very disgraceful for all” – An Interview with Omar Vázquez Heredia

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 23/05/2020 - 5:23am in

The quarantine has sharpened the hunger ailing the Venezuelan people, as evidenced by the latest report of the UN World Food Program, and this has produced food riots. This is troubling because it further shows the despair of the working class over the level of misery it is enduring.

Read more ›

The post “The situation is very disgraceful for all” – An Interview with Omar Vázquez Heredia appeared first on New Politics.

Work. Democratize, Decommodify, Remediate

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 16/05/2020 - 5:19pm in

What follows is a manifesto that has been published today in its original in French in Le Monde and translated and published in 37 other places, which will be listed at the end of the text.

Working humans are so much more than “resources.” This is one of the central lessons of the current crisis. Caring for the sick; delivering food, medication, and other essentials; clearing away our waste; stocking the shelves and running the registers in our grocery stores – the people who have kept life going through the COVID-19 pandemic are living proof that work cannot be reduced to a mere commodity. Human health and the care of the most vulnerable cannot be governed by market forces alone. If we leave these things solely to the market, we run the risk of exacerbating inequalities to the point of forfeiting the very lives of the least advantaged. How to avoid this unacceptable situation? By involving employees in decisions relating to their lives and futures in the workplace – by democratizing firms. By decommodifying work – by collectively guaranteeing useful employment to all. As we face the monstrous risk of pandemic and environmental collapse, making these strategic changes would allow us to ensure the dignity of all citizens while marshalling the collective strength and effort we need to preserve our life together on this planet.

Why democratize? Every morning, men and women rise to serve those among us who are able to remain under quarantine. They keep watch through the night. The dignity of their jobs needs no other explanation than that eloquently simple term, ‘essential worker.’ That term also reveals a key fact that capitalism has always sought to render invisible with another term, ‘human resource.’ Human beings are not one resource among many. Without labor investors, there would be no production, no services, no businesses at all.

Every morning, quarantined men and women rise in their homes to fulfil from afar the missions of the organizations for which they work. They work into the night. To those who believe that employees cannot be trusted to do their jobs without supervision, that workers require surveillance and external discipline, these men and women are proving the contrary. They are demonstrating, day and night, that workers are not one type of stakeholder among many: they hold the keys to their employers’ success. They are the core constituency of the firm, but are, nonetheless, mostly excluded from participating in the government of their workplaces – a right monopolized by capital investors.

To the question of how firms and how society as a whole might recognize the contributions of their employees in times of crisis, democracy is the answer. Certainly, we must close the yawning chasm of income inequality and raise the income floor – but that alone is not enough.

After the two World Wars, women’s undeniable contribution to society helped win them the right to vote. By the same token, it is time to enfranchise workers.

Representation of labor investors in the workplace has existed in Europe since the close of WWII, through institutions known as Work Councils. Yet, these representative bodies have a weak voice at best in the government of firms, and are subordinate to the choices of the executive management teams appointed by shareholders. They have been unable to stop or even slow the relentless momentum of self-serving capital accumulation, ever more powerful in its destruction of our environment. These bodies should now be granted similar rights to those exercised by boards. To do so, firm governments (that is, top management) could be required to obtain double majority approval, from chambers representing workers as well as shareholders. In Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, different forms of codetermination (mitbestimmung) put in place progressively after WWII were a crucial step toward giving a voice to workers – but they are still insufficient to create actual citizenship in firms. Even in the United States, where worker organizing and union rights have been considerably suppressed, there is now a growing call to give labor investors the right to elect representatives with a supermajority within boards. Issues such as the choice of a CEO, setting major strategies, and profit distribution are too important to be left to shareholders alone. A personal investment of labor; that is, of one’s mind and body, one’s health – one’s very life – ought to come with the collective right to validate or veto these decisions.

Why decommodify? This crisis also shows that work must not be treated as a commodity, that market mechanisms alone cannot be left in charge of the choices that affect our communities most deeply. For years now, jobs and supplies in the health sector have been subject to the guiding principle of profitability; today, the pandemic is revealing the extent to which this principle has led us blind. Certain strategic and collective needs must simply be made immune to such considerations. The rising body count across the globe is a terrible reminder that some things must never be treated as commodities. Those who continue arguing to the contrary are imperilling us with their dangerous ideology. Profitability is an intolerable yardstick when it comes to our health and our life on this planet.

Decommodifying work means preserving certain sectors from the laws of the so-called “free market;” it also means ensuring that all people have access to work and the dignity it brings. One way to do this is with the creation of a Job Guarantee. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that everyone has the right to work. A Job Guarantee would not only offer each citizen access to work that allows them to live with dignity, it would also provide a crucial boost to our collective capability to meet the many pressing social and environmental challenges we currently face. Guaranteed employment would allow governments, working through local communities, to provide dignified work while contributing to the immense effort of fighting environmental collapse. Across the globe, as unemployment skyrockets, job guarantee programs can play a crucial role in assuring the social, economic, and environmental stability of our democratic societies. The European Union must include such a project in its Green Deal. A review of the mission of the European Central Bank so that it could finance this program, which is necessary to our survival, would give it a legitimate place in the life of each and every citizen of the EU. A countercyclical solution to the explosive unemployment on the way, this program will prove a key contribution to the EU’s prosperity.

Environmental remediation. We should not react now with the same innocence as in 2008, when we responded to the economic crisis with an unconditional bailout that swelled public debt while demanding nothing in return. If our governments step in to save businesses in the current crisis, then businesses must step in as well, and meet the general basic conditions of democracy. In the name of the democratic societies they serve, and which constitute them, in the name of their responsibility to ensure our survival on this planet, our governments must make their aid to firms conditional on certain changes to their behaviors. In addition to hewing to strict environmental standards, firms must be required to fulfil certain conditions of democratic internal government. A successful transition from environmental destruction to environmental recovery and regeneration will be best led by democratically governed firms, in which the voices of those who invest their labor carry the same weight as those who invest their capital when it comes to strategic decisions. We have had more than enough time to see what happens when labor, the planet, and capital gains are placed in the balance under the current system: labor and the planet always lose. Thanks to research from the University of Cambridge Department of Engineering (Cullen, Allwood, and Borgstein, Envir. Sci. & Tech. 2011 45, 1711–1718), we know that “achievable design changes” could reduce global energy consumption by 73%. But… those changes are labor intensive, and require choices that are often costlier over the short term. So long as firms are run in ways that seek to maximize profit for their capital investors, and in a world where energy is cheap, why make these changes? Despite the challenges of this transition, certain socially-minded or cooperatively run businesses — pursuing hybrid goals that take financial, social, and environmental considerations into account, and developing democratic internal governments– have already shown the potential of such positive impact.

Let us fool ourselves no longer: left to their own devices, most capital investors will not care for the dignity of labor investors; nor will they lead the fight against environmental catastrophe. Another option is available. Democratize firms; decommodify work; stop treating human beings as resources so that we can focus together on sustaining life on this planet.

Signed on behalf of more than 3000 professors, scholars and scientists:

Isabelle Ferreras (University of Louvain/FNRS-Harvard LWP), Julie Battilana (Harvard University), Dominique Méda (University of Paris Dauphine PLS) Julia Cagé (Sciences Po-Paris), Lisa Herzog (University of Groningen), Sara Lafuente Hernandez (University of Brussels-ETUI), Hélène Landemore (Yale University), Pavlina Tcherneva (Bard College-Levy Institute), Ingrid Robeyns (Utrecht University), Olivier De Schutter (UCLouvain, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights), Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (UCLouvain), Elizabeth Anderson (University of Michigan), Philippe Askénazy (CNRS-Paris School of Economics), Aurélien Barrau (CNRS et Université Grenoble-Alpes), Neil Brenner (Harvard University), Craig Calhoun (Arizona State University), Ha-Joon Chang (University of Cambridge), Erica Chenoweth (Harvard University), Joshua Cohen (Apple University, Berkeley, Boston Review), Christophe Dejours (CNAM), Nancy Fraser (The New School for Social Research, NYC), Archon Fung (Harvard University), Javati Ghosh (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Stephen Gliessman (UC Santa Cruz), Stefan Gosepath (Freie Universität Berlin), Hans R. Herren (Millennium Institute), Axel Honneth (Columbia University), Eva Illouz (EHESS, Paris), Tim Jackson (University of Surrey), Sanford Jacoby (UCLA), Rahel Jäggi (Humboldt University), Pierre-Benoit Joly (INRA – National Institute of Agronomical Research, France), Michele Lamont (Harvard university), Lawrence Lessig (Harvard University), David Marsden (London School of Economics), Chantal Mouffe (University of Westminster), Jan-Werner Müller (Princeton University), Susan Neiman (Einstein Forum), Thomas Piketty (EHESS-Paris School of Economics), Michel Pimbert (Coventry University, Executive Director of Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience), Raj Patel (University of Texas), Katharina Pistor (Columbia University), Dani Rodrik (Harvard University), Hartmunt Rosa (Max-Weber-Kolleg, Erfut), Benjamin Sachs (Harvard University), Saskia Sassen (Columbia University), Debra Satz (Stanford University), Pablo Servigne PhD (in-Terre-dependent researcher), William Sewell (University of Chicago), Susan Silbey (MIT), Margaret Somers (University of Michigan), George Steinmetz (University of Michigan), Laurent Thévenot (EHESS), Nadia Urbinati (Columbia University), Judy Wajcman (London School of Economics), Léa Ypi (London School of Economics), Lisa Wedeen (The University of Chicago), Gabriel Zucman (UC Berkeley), and many others.

The full list of signatures can be found here, as well as an invitation to anyone else to sign the manifesto: www.democratizingwork.org

Published today in Argentina (Ambito), Brazil (La Folha de Sao Paulo), Perú (El Comercio), United States (Boston Globe), Uruguay (La Diaria), Peru (Disonancia), Chile (Radio UChile), China (Made In China Journal), Hong Kong (South China Morning Post), India (The Wire), Belgium (De Morgen; Le Soir), Czech Republic (A2larm), Denmark (Politiken), Estonia (Delfi), Finland (Helsingin Sanomat), France (Le Monde), Germany (Die Zeit), Iceland (Stundin), Italy (Il Manifesto), The Netherlands (De Groene Amsterdammer), Norway (Klassekampen), Poland (Gazeta Wyborcza; Krytyka Polityczna), Portugal (Diário de Notícias), Spain (Publico; El Diario; La Vanguardia); Switzerland (Le Temps), Turkey (Cumhuriyet), United Kindgom (The Guardian), Australia (The Guardian), Israel (Davar), Morocco (Média24; Lakome2), Tunisia (La Presse; Assahafa), and here at Crooked Timber.

Disgraceful! Starmer Caves in to Board’s Racist Demands over Black Women MPs

Mike put up a piece on Saturday reporting that Labour leader Keir Starmer had caved in to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and reprimanded two leading and highly respected Black women MPs, Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

These two ladies offended the Board because they appeared in a conference on Zoom, whose audience included Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, who asked questions. The Board objected, as Jackie and Tony were two of the many people smeared as anti-Semites and expelled from the party. One of the noxious Ten Pledges that the Board persuaded Starmer and the other leadership contenders to sign was that no Labour member would share a platform with someone expelled for anti-Semitism. Hence Marie van der Zyl, the Board’s current president, sent in a complaint about the incident to Starmer calling for him to deal with them.

However, the Board’s complaint is wrong for a series of reasons. Firstly, Jackie and Tony weren’t actually expelled from the party for anti-Semitism. And as Mike says, saying that they’re anti-Semites simply because the Labour party said so has less weight than gossip.

Secondly, the two women weren’t sharing a platform with the two accused. They were merely in the audience. The fact that the van der Zyl and the Board chose to attack the two women anyway not only shows their determination to attack them, but also their failure to understand how Zoom works. Perhaps they’re like the American congressman, who was so ignorant about the internet when it first emerged in the ’90s that he asked if you needed a driver’s licence to go on the information superhighway as it then was.

Thirdly, while Starmer and the others are free to sign anything they wish, decisions affecting the party as a whole have to be ratified by conference. And the Ten Pledges weren’t. Starmer’s disciplining of the two women is therefore constitutional.

The Board’s complaint also looks more than a little racist itself. Zionism has a long history of collaborating with real anti-Semites and Fascists so long as its purposes are served. And these are frequently against the safety and wellbeing of the Jewish people as a whole. The Zionists in Nazi Germany supported the Nuremberg Laws, which defined Jews as racially distinct and incompatible with gentile Germans and signed the infamous Ha’avara Agreement in which the Nazis sent Jewish emigrants to Israel. During the War, the head of the Zionists in Hungary, Rudolf Kasztner, also made a pact with the Nazis to send tens of thousands of Jews to Auschwitz just so that a few could be sent to Israel. Israel has also supplied weapons and expertise to a string of Latin American dictatorships, including Guatemala when that nation’s government was exterminating the Mayans. When a neo-Nazi government took power in Argentina in the mid-70s and began persecuting Jews there, the Israeli government did not scruple to supply them with arms. Arms that were used against us during the Falklands War.

The Board defines itself as a Zionist organisation. It’s also politically right-wing, although perhaps not all its members are members and supporters of the Tories. And the Tories have hated Diane Abbott ever since she entered parliament in the 1980s. She was a left-wing firebrand, one of the first Black women MPs, who was determined to attack anti-Black racism. Over half of all the abusive messages sent to MPs go to her. She was one of those racially bullied by the Blairite plotters, according to the leaked anti-Semitism report. Not only did the scumbags reduce her to tears, but they told journalists where she was crying. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of Black anti-racist activist Marc Wadsworth, who was accused of anti-Semitism and reducing a Jewish woman to tears after he caught her passing information on to a Telegraph journo at a meeting at which he was speaking. Yet instead of suspending the plotters, Starmer instead has disciplined Abbott and Ribeiro-Addy.

The Board’s record when it comes to defending Britain’s Jews against Fascism is blotchy. In the 1930s when Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was marching through the East End of London in order to intimidate the Jewish inhabitants, instead of standing up to them the Board advised Jews to stay indoors out of the way. Fortunately many courageous people ignored it, and joined Irish people, trade unionists and Communists in blocking Mosley’s march and giving his storm troops a well-deserved hiding.

The Board also showed the same twisted mentality forty years later in the 1970s when the National Front was on the rise and trying the same tactics. Instead of attacking them, the Board turned its fire on their opponents, the Anti-Nazi League. Jews were forbidden to join the organisation or allow it to hold meetings in synagogues. This was ostensibly because its founder was an anti-Zionist, and they were afraid of Jews hearing anti-Zionist propaganda. But others suspect that it was because the Board itself had White supremacist views.

Tony Greenstein has written a piece on his blog taking the Board and Starmer to task for their treatment of Abbott and Ribeiro-Addy. He discusses the shameful behaviour of the Board towards British Fascism, and quotes Maurice Ludmer, the Jewish founder of the anti-Nazi magazine, Searchlight.  Ludmer wrote in issue 41 of the magazine

“In the face of mounting attacks against the Jewish community both ideologically and physically, we have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching an attack on the Anti Nazi League with all the fervour of Kamikaze pilots… It was as though they were watching a time capsule rerun of the 1930’s, in the form of a flickering old movie, with a grim determination to repeat every mistake of that era. “

The-then secretary of the Anti-Nazi League, Paul Holborrow, also wrote that they were under attack from the Board. Tony is annoyed that genuine anti-racists like himself are smeared as anti-Semites for opposing and criticising Israel, while genuine racists, like Katie Hopkins, were given an invitation by the Zionist Federation to attend their gala dinner and meet the Israeli ambassador, Mark Regev. As for the Board, its previous head, Jonathan Arkush, welcomed the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s a racist, and his cabinet included real anti-Semites. However, he got a pass because he supports Israel.

Abbott and Ribeiro-Addy issued an apology for their actions. They had no call to do so, being blameless and actually the real injured parties in this sordid case. Greenstein in his piece advises them to stand firm and act like two of the heroes of the civil rights struggle in America, Paul Robeson and Angela Davies.

Robeson was a member of the Communist Party, and was thus hauled before the House Inquiry on Un-American Activities. When McCarthy asked him if he was a Communist, Robeson refused to answer, challenging the senator instead to stand behind him the next time he voted and fish his voting paper out of the ballot box to see. Greenstein also doesn’t mention it, but it is a significant fact here that Robeson was also an opponent of anti-Semitism. He gave a concert in Moscow after the War at the end of which he sang a Yiddish song by the Jewish resistance fighters against Nazism. This was not just to celebrate the millions of Jews killed by the Nazis, but also the millions of Soviet citizens murdered by Stalin.

Angela Davies is a Black American civil rights activist, who last year, 2019, was given the Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award by the Civil Rights Institute of Birmingham, Alabama. However, the Alabama equivalent of the Board got mightily offended and complained, because Davies is a critic of Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians, which she compares to the police’s maltreatment of Black Americans. The Alabama Board complained, and then issued an embarrassed retraction and apology for their own racism when Davies stood her ground and called them out instead.

And the British Board deserves to be called out on its racism. It includes as deputies individuals like Robert Festenstein, an islamophobe who appeared in a Rebel Media video with Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League and Pegida UK. Arkush and van der Zyl have also appeared at meetings in which members of the audience sported Jewish Defence League T-shirts. The JDL is a Judaeo-Nazi organisation, whose predecessor, Kach, is banned as a terrorist group in Israel. Unlike the majority of modern Jews, who strongly reject any idea that their religion makes them superior to anyone else, Kach was founded by Meir Kahane, an extreme right-wing rabbi. He really did believe that Jews are superior to gentiles, and urged Jews to arm themselves. He also absolutely believed that the Holy Land belonged solely to the Jews, and demanded the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people.

There’s a connection here to the militia movement that emerged in America during the ’90s. These were the successors to the Survivalists of the 1980s. They were arming themselves against the American government, which they believed had been corrupted by liberalism and was about to establish a murderous totalitarian dictatorship. According to their critics, such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre, the militias were White Supremacists with close connections to American Nazism and the Klan. However, according to Adam Palfrey’s Cult Rapture, an examination of American fringe culture in the aftermath of the Oklahoma bombing, there was also Jewish militia. This group also based their ideology on that of Kahane’s. Palfrey sees them, as well as the fact that the leader of one of the other militias was Black, that the movement as a whole wasn’t White Supremacist. I think he’s wrong, and it’s just that some parts of the movement were less strict in their racism than others, and were prepared to include Jews as fellow White Supremacists.

Now Arkush and Zyl did not meet the American Kahanists. But by speaking at meetings attended by their British cousins they have shown a culpable willingness to tolerate real Islamophobes with paramilitary sympathies. They deserve to be called out on this, as should the Zionist Federation for its endorsement of Hatey Katie.

Starmer should not be kowtowing to the Board and punishing real anti-racists like Abbott and Ribeiro-Addy. He should be backing them instead and holding the Board to account for their racism. As Angela Davies’ case shows, it can be done.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/05/02/keir-starmer-has-turned-labour-into-the-party-of-hypocrisy-and-racism/

https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-new-mccarthyism-zionist-board-of.html

 

Tony Greenstein on Anti-Semitic and Fascist Support for Zionism

In my last piece, I discussed Tony Greenstein’s examination of the leaked report into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Greenstein shows that report still uncritically accepts the existence of mass Jew hatred in the party, and the necessity of conducting a purge of members accused of it. But he shows that these allegations and the witch-hunt were entirely motivated by a corrupt political establishment, including and especially that of Britain’s Jewish community, which simply wanted to oust Corbyn and protect Israel and its decades-long ethnic cleansing of the country’s indigenous people. His article is an effective expose of the witch-hunt, its smears against decent, anti-racist people, like Tony himself, and the absolute stupidity of Corbyn and his team in complying with the smear merchants’ demands. As part of his case, Tony shows how real anti-Semites, far from fighting Zionism as Zionist propaganda claims, actively supported and promoted it. Tony writes

‘Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism just anti-Zionism 

One thing missing from any discussion of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is that Zionism has no interest in opposing anti-Semitism.

 ‘Maybe there was some kind of fiddling of the figures by the oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)

The above quote is from Boris Johnson’s book 72 Virgins published in 2004. As The Independent notes it depicted Jews as controlling the media, amidst a torrent of racial slurs and stereotypes. Yet the Board of Deputies and the Zionists said nothing. If their real concerns were about anti-Semitism then they would surely have said something?

Indeed when  Boris Johnson became Prime Minister  they fell over themselves to congratulate him. Johnson’s previous record as a racist, anti-Semitism included, was ignored. He was, after all, a strong supporter of Israel.

Imagine if Corbyn had penned such a book? Corbyn was criticised by the Zionists for not mentioning anti-Semitism when reviewing Imperialism by John Hobson, a standard academic textbook, because he didn’t mention that a few lines out of 334 pages were anti-Semitic. The hypocrisy of the anti-Semitism mongers is breathtaking but the authors of the Report never seemed to notice these double standards.

When Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, wanted to hold the First Zionist Congress in 1897 his choice of venue was Munich. The Jewish population promptly rose up in protest and accused the authorities of anti-Semitism. Why? Because the Zionist proposition that Jews formed a separate nation from other Germans meant that they were therefore aliens. This was exactly what the anti-Semites were saying.

Alfred Rosenberg, Minister for Ostland and the Nazi Party’s main theoretician, who was hanged at Nuremburg in 1946, wrote that

 ‘‘Zionism must be vigorously supported in order to encourage a significant number of German Jews to leave for Palestine or other destinations.’[Francis Nicosia, Third Reich and the Palestine Question, p.25]

As author Francis Nicosia noted, Rosenberg

‘intended to use Zionism as a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights’ and he ‘sanctioned the use of the Zionist movement in the future drive to eliminate Jewish rights, Jewish influence and eventually the Jewish presence in Germany.’ [TRPQ, pp. 25-26]

Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University and himself a Zionist wrote that:

whereas today non-Jewish criticism of Zionism or the State of Israel are often dismissed as motivated by a deeper anti-Semitism, in Herzl’s day an opposite non-Jewish reaction, one of support for the Zionist idea, might have resulted in a similar reaction. [Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany p.7]

When Herzl sought the support of the Grand Duke of Baden, the uncle of Kaiser Wilhelm II, for Zionism the Duke’s

‘chief misgiving was that if he supported the [Zionist] cause, people would misinterpret this as anti-Semitism on his part.’ (Diaries of Herzl]

Zionism was unique as a movement amongst Jews because it accepted that anti-Semitism was the natural biological reaction of non-Jews to the Jews in their midst. As Herzl wrote in his Diaries:

“In Paris… I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.” [The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, London: Gollancz, 1958, p.6]

This was in the middle of the Dreyfus Affair which culminated in the triumph of Emile Zola and the Republicans and a defeat for the clerical and military caste that wanted to restore the monarchy.

It was the Zionist acceptance of anti-Semitism as something that was natural, which could not be fought and only utilised, that was the basis of the collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists. When German Jews and world Jewry were aghast at the assumption of power by the Nazis in January 1933 and instituted a boycott, the Zionists only saw a golden opportunity. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister saw Hitler’s rise as:

a rare opportunity to achieve the “Zionist solution”, the only true solution to the problem of the Jewish people.’ [Yechiam Weitz, Jewish Refugees and Zionist Policy during the Holocaust, p.355, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 30, 1994 – Issue 2]

Dr Noah Lucas, a critical Zionist historian wrote that:

 ‘As the European Holocaust erupted, Ben Gurion saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism… Ben Gurion above all others sensed the tremendous possibilities inherent in the dynamic of the chaos and carnage in Europe… In conditions of peace,… Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism. … (The Modern History of Israel, pp. 187/8)

Ben Gurion’s deputy, Berl Katznelson was even more explicit. The rise of Hitler was

an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have [Nicosia, ZANG, p.91]

Nor was this attitude to anti-Semitism confined to the pre-State days. When there arose in Argentina in 1976 a neo-Nazi Junta, the first in the post-war era, it targeted Jews. The most famous victim was Jacobo Timmerman, Editor of La Opinion. He was released and deported to Israel after having been savagely tortured. With the advent of the Lebanon War, Timmerman fell out of love with Israel.

The Argentina Junta murdered up to 3,000 Jews. According to Juan Pablo Jaroslavsky of the Barcelona-based Commission of Solidarity with Relatives of the Disappeared

“Jews represented more than 12 per cent of the victims of the military regime while constituting under 1 per cent of Argentina’s population,” See Jews targeted in Argentina’s dirty war,

What was Israel’s reaction? There wasn’t one. Instead it took the opportunity of the United States’s decision to cut off arms sales to this vile regime to increase its own arms sales. During the Falklands/ Malvinas war Israel became the Junta’s main arms supplier.

retired Argentine pilots and military figures who testified that in 1982 they secretly flew to Israel, where they met with representatives from the military and defense manufacturers and returned with their plane loaded with light arms, mortars, air-to-air missiles and anti-tank weapons.

Not once did Israel condemn the anti-Semitism of the Junta. Zionist organisations in the United States instead defended the Junta, minimising its atrocities. The Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires refused to help or grant visas to Jews that the Junta declared were subversives. The Knesset refused to discuss what was happening in Argentina during the 7 year life of the Junta.

An article in Ha’aretz, Argentine-Israelis Urge Israel to Disclose Past Junta Ties describes how Wanda Clara and Marcus Weinstein appealed to Israel concerning the arrest and disappearance of their son Mauricio. Weinstein said he felt the Israeli diplomatic representatives

“cared little interest about the disappeared Jews, including his son and a second Israeli citizen.”

This is the bastard ‘Jewish’ state that Lansman and the Momentum authors of this Report defend with the sterile accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’.’

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2020/04/pt-2-labours-leaked-report-sad-sorry.html

This is a lengthy passage, which I’ve reproduced in full because it is such a comprehensive refutation of a central ultra-Zionist claim. Ken Livingstone was smeared as an anti-Semite and suspended from the party because he correctly stated that Hitler supported Zionism. Which the Fuhrer did, initially, through the Ha’avara agreement. And my brother, Mike, was accused of anti-Semitism in turn because he wrote a piece, The Livingstone Delusion, showing that the Spartacist newt-fancier was correct. Mike is currently suing the party for breach of contract for their treatment of him.

And the Israel lobby and its supporters are still making the grotesque claim that somehow Zionism = Judaism and Zionists are the Jews’ friends. In her response to  the decision of a judge in her ongoing case against Laura Murray that Murray had made a factual statement, which had a tendency to be defamatory – but crucially did not rule that it was – Rachel Riley claimed that he had ruled in her favour. She concluded her tweet by thanking all her supporters, whom she claimed were opponents of anti-Semitism and the friends of Jews.

While Riley has been the target of real anti-Semitic abuse, I believe, many of the people she has accused of anti-Semitism were simply supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. She accused them, and Corbyn himself, of being anti-Semitic, because he was a critic of Israel. And it seems that she also subscribes to the absolutely false belief that Zionism = Judaism, and Zionists are the most ardent defenders of Jews against prejudice and hatred.

But they aren’t. Time and again Zionists have been supported by real, genocidal anti-Semites and Fascists, to the point where they have actively colluded in the murderous persecution and genocide of Jews, so long as Israel’s interests are served.

It has frequently been the case that the Jewish peoples’ real defenders – and their greatest heroes – have been anti-Zionists. And it is these people, that the self-appointed witch-hunters have smeared and libeled, and twisted history through lies and propaganda to misrepresent themselves as the real protectors of the Jews.

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2020/04/pt-2-labours-leaked-report-sad-sorry.html

How Israel Legitimizes the Abuse of Palestinian Political Prisoners

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 28/04/2020 - 2:38am in

Each year Palestinian Prisoners Day comes and goes while the prisoners remain in their cells and their conditions worsen. The destructive effects that Israel’s imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians has on society cannot be overstated. Israel justifies its treatment of these prisoners with false claims that the Palestinian men, women, and children who languish in its jails are terrorists. These false claims must be rejected in their entirety. Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners, they are prisoners of conscience and must be viewed and treated as such by the international community.

Israeli claims that Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian struggle for liberation is terrorism are at the root of the prisoner issue. Because these claims are accepted as part of the larger Israeli narrative that demonizes Palestinians, Israel is able to justify incarcerating thousands of people. But it is false. The Palestinian struggle is legitimate, morally, and legally and the Israeli discourse, which characterizes it as terrorism is to be rejected completely.

 

Coronavirus and the release of prisoners

A statement released by the office of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, calls for the release of “every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views.” This followed an earlier call from Ms. Bachelet saying that governments must “take urgent action to protect the health and safety of people in detention.” 

Palestinian human rights organization  Adalah recently echoed the call by the United Nations for “urgent action to ensure the release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.” Among the conditions that make Israeli jails an optimal breeding ground for the virus, Adalah included, “dire detention conditions, including systematic torture and ill-treatment, pervasive medical negligence, overcrowding, lack of proper ventilation and access to sanitary products, including sanitizers and disinfectants, poor nutrition.”

 

The Israeli response

It was reported widely that Iran released tens of thousands of prisoners, including political prisoners, for this reason. However, there is no reason to expect that the government of Israel will comply with the demands made by the United Nations Human rights Commissioner.

Israel will not take action as a result of appeals to decency or humanitarian considerations. The state of Israel will respond only to severe pressure, sanctions, and the threat of diplomatic isolation. Israeli society will not demand that its elected officials act on this issue unless it suffers severe consequences. However, in the political climate that exists around the world today, it is unlikely the international community will act.

 

Funding for prisoner’s families

The Palestinian Authority provides stipends for the families of prisoners and for prisoners who have been released and are in need of financial assistance. Israeli authorities have made it their mission to stop this funding, withholding monies that are due to the Palestinian Authority, claiming that supporting families of prisoners constitutes financial support for terrorism.

Injustice cover

During the case of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) which I outline in my book, “Injustice, The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five,” funding for the families of prisoners was brought up. HLF had a program that provided financial support to the families of prisoners. It was perfectly within reason for HLF to offer this relief to the families knowing how desperate their conditions can become with the main breadwinner incarcerated by Israel. The Israeli claim was used against the defendants.

During the HLF trials, one of the arguments the prosecution made was that by providing financial support for the families of prisoners, HLF was not only supporting but actually encouraging terrorism. The government claimed that by providing relief to the families of prisoners, not only were HLF supporting terrorism they were, in fact, incentivizing it. They claimed that these stipends motivate Palestinians to become “terrorists.”

The funding for the prisoners and their families is crucial. In a reality where families must make do without a breadwinner and where the prisoner once released is often handicapped, traumatized, and unable to work. It is also a fact that in many Palestinian families, several members of the family were held in Israeli jails, sometimes at the same time.

One example that is well known is that of the Tamimi family from Nabi Saleh. The father, Bassem, the mother, Nariman, the son Waed the daughter Ahed, and even the younger son Mohammad, have all been arrested and sat in Israeli jails. The parents and the older brother have been held more than once.

Their story is just one of many. Not one of the Tamimi family had engaged in terrorism or violence, something which is true about the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians incarcerated by Israel over the years.

 

Zionist propaganda

There is a great deal of anti-Palestinian propaganda spread by Zionist organizations on various platforms. Some of this propaganda has touched on this issue, spreading misinformation about the prisoners.

One report published by the Zionist think tank The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs begins with, “The Palestinian Authority’s legislation and allocations of monthly salaries and benefits rewarding imprisoned and released terrorists, and the families of “Martyrs,” amount to $300 million annually. This financial reward clearly demonstrates the PA’s institutional commitment to sponsoring terror against Israel.”

Conflating Palestinian political activism and resistance with terrorism is an effective tool by which to demonize the Palestinians and their struggle for liberation. Even though it is completely false, it works, and the Zionists use it regularly. They create the false impression that providing for the families of men and women who languish in Israeli jails “incentivizes” Palestinians to fight Israel. One would think that without this money Palestinians would sit at home and refrain from demanding their rights. Indeed if Palestinian resistance was just senseless terrorism, senseless violence, one might think this was true.

But Palestinian Resistance – some of which is armed and most of which is unarmed – and political activism are the two reasons that Israel detains Palestinians and neither one is motivated by the stipend given to them or their families.

The same report makes the claim that “The PA maintains long standing legislation and payments to subsidize terrorists and their families.” This claim, that Palestinians are somehow motivated by the money they may receive and that this funding “subsidizes” their activities, is a draconian attempt to paint Palestinians as a people who are motivated by greed and hate rather than by aspirations of freedom.

Palestinian society must be commended for the care provided to political prisoners and their families, but the rest of the world is shamefully absent on this issue.

Feature photo | Protesters wave banners with a picture of jailed Palestinian uprising leader Marwan Barghouti, during a rally supporting hunger striking Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Nasser Nasser | AP

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

The post How Israel Legitimizes the Abuse of Palestinian Political Prisoners appeared first on MintPress News.

Vexatious Sneak Has Mike Suspended from Facebook

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 14/04/2020 - 7:02pm in

There are some very, very frightened people at the top of the Labour Party. Starmer’s and Rayner’s leadership has been embarrassed by the leak of an 865 page report that the party commissioned into its handling of the anti-Semitism crisis. This was meant to be handed over as evidence to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for their investigation into the crisis. But it was suppressed on the advice of Labour’s lawyers. Because it showed very clearly that the handling of the crisis had been marred and manipulated by the massive political intriguing of the Blairite apparat. This included senior party officials like Ian McNichol, the party chairman, Emilie Oldknow, presently the COO for Unison, who is Starmer’s choice to succeed Jenny Formby as General Secretary, the former acting head of the governance and legal unit, Sam Mathews, and Tom Watson.

These scumbags misinformed Corbyn about the scale of the problem while at the same time doing their best to prevent any action being taken about it, because they wanted to present Corbyn’s leadership as incompetent. It shows that the Blairites were hoping to establish Watson as an interim leader after the 2017 General Election, which they hoped would force Corbyn out. They were severely disappointed when he wasn’t. The director of the Governance and Legal Affairs Unit, John Stolliday, wanted to set up an electoral college system to prevent anyone from the Labour left becoming head of the party. In London the Party HQ operated a parallel election campaign which aimed to ensure that only right-wing Labour MPs were elected. And the report lists conversation after conversation showing the Blairite party bureaucrats sneering and vilifying left-wing MPs or party activists, looking forward to purging ‘1000s of Trots’ – who were defined as anyone left of Gordon Brown. They hoped to see Labour down 20 points in the polls, cheered at the prospect of him losing elections or being ripped apart by Andrew Neil.

Basically, they did everything they could to force Corbyn out, even debating whether they should vote for Tweezer against him.

Starmer’s team has now gone into defensive mode, promising an investigation into how the report was commissioned and leaked. As Mike points out in his post, this is very much Starmer and Rayner trying to cover their arses.

Labour anti-Semitism report: Starmer acts – to cover his supporters’ arses

As for the anti-Semitism accusations, the Blairites were determined to exaggerate and magnify it to undermine Corbyn. The report notes that around half of them came from a single individual, who spent his or her time going over emails going back years. Mike comments that ‘(i)nterestingly, Labour’s report appears to describe this individual as one “who is highly abusive towards Party staff and Party members and submits large numbers of poorly formatted and poorly evidenced complaints”.

And now someone like this has got Mike suspended from Facebook.

Mike wanted to put up his piece about the report and its suppression on the site. But no! This was definitely verboten! Because someone had complained about a piece he’d written in 2016. This was about the suspension of Clement Attlee’s nephew, and showed a meme of David Cameron as Hitler with a quote from the Fuhrer about the best way to remove people’s rights. You do it slowly, so they don’t notice. This apparently, violated Facebook’s delicate community guidelines, which don’t tolerate organised hate, terrorism, people trafficking, or organised violence and crime. Mike’s piece obviously doesn’t constitute any of the above, and so he’s written to Facebook protesting against his suspension. Which looks suspiciously like the work of someone very much like the deranged individual mentioned in the report. His piece is an attack on the way Cameron is taking away people’s rights and not remotely an endorsement of that or Adolf Hitler. As for the sneak who got him suspended, Mike says

If the complaints are similar to this, both Labour and Facebook should not only refuse to countenance any further correspondence from this individual, but should name and shame that person – to ensure they cannot spread their poison any further.

Who is it, Labour? Who is it, Facebook? Tell us now.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/04/13/after-the-report-the-backlash-facebook-bans-posts-on-vox-political-page-due-to-vexatious-complaint/

I’d say that the person responsible is almost certainly a member of the Zionist organisations in the Labour Party, possibly Labour Friends of Israel but also the Jewish Labour Movement. This was formerly Paole Zion, and states that it is Zionist, and the sister party to the Israeli Labour Party. The obsessive, monomaniacal trawling of previous social media posts is a strategy of ultra-Zionist campaign groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the David Collier ‘GnasherJew’ troll farm. You know, the people that smeared Jackie Walker as an anti-Semite, who thinks that the Jews were responsible for slavery, despite the fact that she is manifestly nothing of the sort. This is only speculation, but the demented conduct of this individual sounds a bit like that of Jonathan Hoffman, the former head of the Zionist Federation. He was also a member of the Jewish Labour Movement, despite very definitely not being a member of the Labour Party. He’s also known for his extremely disruptive behaviour at pro-Palestinian events, where he struts about waving the Israeli flag screaming at the speakers. And he and one of his friends were also up before the beak for their aggressive conduct towards someone else. On the other hand, all of the ultra-Zionists are aggressive and disruptive, so it could almost be any one of them.

Either way, someone in the Blairites and Israel lobby is definitely afraid of Mike and what he would say about this crisis. Good. To quote a certain horror movie slogan, I hope they’re ‘afraid… very afraid’.

Mike, Martin Odoni and Zelo Street have all published very extensive pieces about the report so far. They’re at:

Labour officers spent years stabbing Corbyn in the back, according to suppressed report

Labour anti-Semitism report: Starmer acts – to cover his supporters’ arses

Socialist Labour MPs demand action on leaked Labour report but Starmer’s too busy saving his officials

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/04/labour-anti-semitism-and-thrown-election.html

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/04/labour-leak-and-emily-oldknow.html

https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/this-dossier-must-be-published/

https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/early-thoughts-on-the-dossier/

https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2020/04/13/more-from-the-dos

Jewish Chronicle Folds – Real Fighters Against Racism and Anti-Semitism Not At All Bothered

Here’s a rather positive story from yesterday. According to Mike, the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish News have been forced to close. They’re blaming the lockdown, which has also damaged News Corporation profits so much that Murdoch’s minions wrote pieces in his wretched rags begging the public to buy newspapers. Which is something else that is highly amusing. Critics of the Chronicle and its foul editor, Stephen Pollard, suggested that the real reason might be all the money it’s being forced to pay in damages to all the people it’s libeled. 

The Chronicle was a right-wing, Tory rag. Its editor, Pollard, has written various pieces across the years claiming that the left, trade unions and Muslims are serious threats to western civilisation. It’s a list that once a time included Jews. That’s changed, because British Jews, by and large, are very assimilated and generally, but not uniformly, prosperous. Sixty per cent of the Jewish population is middle and upper middle class. It’s that wealthy, Tory voting section of the British Jewish population that the Jewish Chronicle spoke for.

It was also fanatically pro-Israel, and so was one of the worst in libeling and smearing the country’s critics, pro-Palestinian activists and over the last few years, Jeremy Corbyn, his supporters and the Labour Party as a whole. This included Mike of Vox Political, who the Chronicle and a number of other papers, including the equally repulsive and loathsome Sunset Times, smeared as an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Mike isn’t, never was, and never will be. Mike launched a successful appeal with IPSO, the press regulator, against those rags, and they were forced to print retractions. But this didn’t stop them continuing with their campaign of lies and smears against Labour.  Pollard’s spite wasn’t just reserved for those outside his newspaper’s staff. A few weeks ago he sacked long-time Chronicle contributor Prof. Geoffrey Alderman, an expert in British Jewish history. He gave no reason in his letter to Alderman telling him his services were no longer required, but many observers were in no doubt of the real reason. Alderman had committed the terrible crime of penning a piece in the Spectator stating that Corbyn wasn’t an anti-Semite but a friend to Jews. Pollard couldn’t tolerate the spectacle of the truth contradicting his smears. Alderman’s certainly no man of the left, and I think he’s a convinced Zionist. But this didn’t save him from Pollard’s wrath. Pollard himself isn’t Jewish, which led to the Chronicle’s  Jewish critics calling his thunderous exhortations to their community to support Israel ‘goysplaining’. In fact, critics of the smear campaign against critics of Israel, and Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, like Tony Greenstein have repeatedly pointed out that the Israel lobby is especially venomous towards Jews, who refuse to give their wholehearted and absolute support to a nation to which they do not belong, nor in many cases have ever been to.

Mike in his article reproduced the comments on Twitter from various people and organisations about the Chronicle’s collapse. And they had absolutely no regrets about the rag’s demise whatsoever because of its role in pushing the smears. In fact, they welcomed it. They included  organisations like the Jewish human rights group, Jews Sans Frontieres, Socialist Voice, and the newspaper/ site Dorset Eye. One commenter, John O’Connell, summed up the situation and said ‘What was once a proud and worthy voice for Jewish communities has in recent years become a Tories and Right Wing mouthpiece for Anti Myths and Rhetoric’.  Two of the people, Neil Clark and Andrew Feinstein, had been personally attacked and vilified by the Chronicle, and so weren’t sorry to see it go at all.

The people the Chronicle and the Jewish News smeared in their campaign of hate against Corbyn, the Labour Party and pro-Palestinian activists were decent, genuinely anti-racist people and opponents of anti-Semitism. The quality of British print journalism has been raised by their closure. Unfortunately, the rest of the scummy Tory press still seems to be going, though hopefully it won’t be too long before the Sunset Times and the Torygraph go the same way. It’s sad that some of the people being laid off will be ordinary, decent peeps, but the rag itself won’t be missed. However, as Nathaniel Gibbons pointed out, Pollard is now reduced to spouting his defamatory, racist bile in the Heil, Torygraph and Scum.

And Britain would only gain if those despicable rags followed the Chronicle into closure and liquidation.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/04/08/jewish-chronicle-to-close-with-staff-redundancies-the-quality-of-uk-media-has-improved/

A bold rethink of the international protection regime for forced migrants

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 09/04/2020 - 11:50pm in

A guest post by David Owen (University of Southampton).

T. Alexander Aleinikoff & Leah Zamore, *The Arc of Protection: Reforming the International Refugee Regime*, Stanford University Press, 2019.

This book is a bold attempt to rethink the requirements of an international protection regime for forced migrants as well as a significant challenge to the view I recently proposed in my own book (reviewed [here](http://crookedtimber.org/2020/02/19/an-important-new-book-about-refugeeh...) by Chris Bertram). Combining a revisionist history of the international refugee regime and a call for a contemporary widening of that regime, it traces proposes a set of principles and practices of protection that the authors take to be adequate to challenges of our current circumstances.

That the international refugee regime is far from well-functioning is hardly a controversial judgment and Aleinkoff & Zamore begin by sketching out the character of its failure and the relationship of that failure to the shift to thinking of refugees in humanitarian terms. As they rightly note, the 1951 Refugee Convention is much more focused than current humanitarian practice on rights and on the integration of refugees – as social, economic and even political agents – into their states of residence. Their reconstruction of the post-WW2 emergence of our current refugee regime provides the basis for the pivotal claim of the book, which is a rejection of what they term ‘the Modern Standard Picture’ (MSP) of refugee protection according to which (1) citizens are entitled to the protection of their basic rights by their home state, (2) a refugee is someone whose home state has failed to protect them so that they have had to flee from it and (3) international protection is a surrogate or substitute for the responsibilities of their home state implemented through the protection of another state. MSP is a widely held view (my own work may be seen as a version of it) but they argue that it cannot make sense of the focus of the Refugee Convention on overcoming obstacles to the rebuilding of refugee lives in the host state by establishing requirements on host states to provide some rights in forms equivalent to those enjoyed by citizens and the remainder in the form enjoyed by the most favoured immigrants: ‘if international protection is a surrogate for anything, it is the inability or unwillingness of the host state to protect and assist refugees in their territory’ (p.51). The simple but radical redirecting of the focus of refugee protection onto the obligation of the international community to provide the rights and resources for refugees to be able to rebuild their lives, to enjoy agency and welfare wherever they are, provides the basis on which their argument and proposals stand.

So what is the scope of international protection and what does it require on this view? Instead of seeing the Convention refugee threatened by persecution as the exemplary figure and hence focusing on widening the scope of refugeehood, the authors propose that the Convention refugee be seen as a special case among the broader category of ‘necessary fleers’, that is persons who are forcibly displaced in the sense that flight is a reasonable response to their circumstances. This is a view that they arrive at, in part, on pragmatic inductive grounds by noting that the international protection regimes has developed since 1951 in four important ways: (1) the classes of protected persons have significantly expanded, (2) protection activities by agencies such as UNHCR have developed beyond the 1951 Convention, (3) at least formally, refugee rights have expanded, and (4) the category of responders has come to include a wider range of agents (including development agencies). They propose the category of ‘necessary fleer’ as a basis for making moral sense of these developments.

The norm that such persons not be returned to danger should act as a general side-constraint on state treatment of necessary fleers but the aim of a protection regimes should be focused (in ranked order) on principles and practices of (a) rescue and safety, (b) enjoyment of asylum, (c) solutions, (d) mobility and (e) voice. The most novel feature of their proposal is their focus on mobility in proposing a strengthened return of something like the Nansen Passport (supplied to refugees in the interwar years) that would allow refugees to exercise agency and pursue well-being by moving between states that are members of international protection regime, for example in pursuit of work or relationships. They rightly note that, today, those forcibly displaced find themselves typically in a condition of enforced immobility, subject to ‘containment’ in the state of first refuge – and urge powerfully that enabling mobility would benefit necessary fleers and states alike if introduced in a controlled way. The book concludes with concrete proposals for the establishment of an international protection regime characterised by these features. Although a slim volume, this is a book packed with provocation and in its critique of MSP it firmly challenges orthodoxies of refugee ethics. It woke me from my dogmatic slumber.

Are We “All in This Together”?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/04/2020 - 3:57am in

The coronavirus crisis has provoked different reactions. Many have responded with compassion, kindness, and solidarity. Some have used it as another opportunity for money gouging, scams, and rip offs. Collective human warmth and love has battled cold individual selfishness and . . .

Read more ›

The post Are We “All in This Together”? appeared first on New Politics.

Thinking Critically About Regional Uprisings: A Roundtable

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 03/04/2020 - 12:54am in

This article was originally posted on the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP)'s website and printed in Middle East Report 292/3 (Fall/Winter 2019).

Read more ›

The post Thinking Critically About Regional Uprisings: A Roundtable appeared first on New Politics.

Pages