Archives: Articles

By Amir Nour

“Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures and destroys it” (Frantz Fanon)[1]

Uncomfortable Truths

In October 2003, late New York University professor and internationally renowned historian Tony Judt wrote an essay in The New York Review of Books (NYRB) entitled “Israel: The Alternative” [2]

The reaction to this outstanding article was swift and vicious and, in the case of the American response, verged on hysteria.

In effect, within a week of its publication, the editor of NYRB had received several thousand letters on Judt’s essay – more than on any in its history – and the Jewish Professor, who, up to then, had been widely respected for his core commitment to justice and intellectual honesty and loudly acclaimed for his lucid studies of 19^th and 20^th century social history, in particular his panoramic study[3] of Europe after World War II, became, almost overnight, the object of great furor, defamation and ostracism. 

Readers, among whom numerous renowned scholars and heads of Jewish organizations, accused him of belonging to the “Nazi Left”, of hating Jews, of denying Israel’s right to exist; distinguished professors at American universities canceled their NYRB subscriptions;

Andrea Levin, executive director of the “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America” accused him of “pandering to genocide” and being “party to preparations for a final solution”; Alan Dershowitz of Harvard made the analogy with Adolf Hitler’s “one-state solution for all of Europe”, and David Jeffrey Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, charged him with advocating “genocidal liberalism”.  

Judt’s essay opened with the sentence:

“The Middle East peace process is finished. It did not die: it was killed”, followed by the notion that “The president of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line”. 

He went on to contend that Israel “has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a ‘Jewish state’, a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism”; that it

“remains distinctive among democratic states in its resort to ethnoreligious criteria with which to denominate and rank its citizens. It is an oddity among modern nations, not as its more paranoid supporters assert because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state; but because it is a Jewish state in which one community, Jews, is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place”;

and that

“In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one”.

He also cited the prominent Labor politician Avraham Burg who wrote:

“After two thousand years of struggle for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality’[4]. Unless something changes, Judt declared, “Israel in half a decade will be neither Jewish nor democratic”. He then uttered the “anathema” that “the time has come to think the unthinkable”, that is “the bringing to an end of Israel as a Jewish state, and the establishment in its place of a binational state of Israelis and Palestinians”.

In his essay, Prof. Judt explained that, in one vital attribute, Israel is quite different from previous insecure, defensive microstates born of imperial collapse in so far as it is a democracy, hence its present dilemma due to its occupation of the lands conquered in 1967. Israel, he said, faces the following three “unattractive choices”:

• It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class Arab citizens;
• It can continue to occupy “Samaria”, “Judea” and Gaza, whose Arab population added to that of present-day Israel will become the demographic majority, in which case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of unenfranchised non-Jews) or it will be a democracy. But logically it cannot be both;
• It can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population, either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain both Jewish and at least formally democratic, but at the cost of becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.

As Judt put it, the historian’s task is precisely

“to tell what is almost always an uncomfortable story and explain why the discomfort is part of the truth we need to live well and live properly. A well-organized society is one in which we know the truth about ourselves collectively, not one in which we tell pleasant lies about ourselves”.

Driven by such a principled position, he reacted to the flood of criticism of his contradictors by reiterating his conviction that the solution to the crisis in the Middle East lies in Washington. On this, he said, “there is widespread agreement. For that reason, and because the American response to the Israel-Palestine conflict is shaped in large measure by domestic considerations, my essay was directed in the first instance to an American audience, in an effort to pry open a closed topic.

Many readers have castigated me for heedlessly engaging so volatile a subject without due regard for the sensitivities affected. I respect those feelings. But, like Yael Dayan, I am very worried about the direction in which the American Jewish community is moving; reaction to the essay suggests that this anxiety is well founded”.

He added that

“Actually, Zionism has always been at war and its very identity is a function of conflict, struggle, and mutually exclusive claims on history. From the outset, and long before the Holocaust could be invoked in mitigation, the leaders of the Zionist project regarded the indigenous Arab population of Palestine as their enemy. More than a century ago, the Zionist writer Ahad Ha’Am[5] observed that the settlers ‘treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly on their territories, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and boast at having done so’. To the extent that little has changed, it is understandable that many readers would dismiss my reflections on a binational state as a crazy fantasy”. 

Until his death in 2010, Judt remained faithful to his principles. For him,

“an injustice was committed: How should we acknowledge this and move forward? Indeed, even the very existence of Palestinians was once hotly disputed. In the later 1960s, at a public meeting in London, I was tartly informed by Golda Meir, Israel’s future prime minister, that I could not speak of ‘Palestinians’ since they did not exist”.  

In the aftermath of Judt’s death, Mark Levine wrote an article[6] in which he expressed his sorrow for the scope of the loss, not just of the man, but of the type of scholarship, of the way Professor Judt taught those willing to learn about how to approach and utilize history. He pointed out that the historian’s willingness to tell “uncomfortable stories” was not embraced by US government, and informed that few politicians paid much attention to Judt or invited his counsel; no evidence is found of his ever having been called to testify before the US congress, and the White House made no mention of his passing, even though Barack Obama, the US president, has during his tenure invited well-known historians to the White House to help provide him with historical perspective on the numerous crises he faced. Levine concluded his piece by saying that Judt’s writings can inspire a new generation of scholars and activists in other cultures, including in the many societies of the global south:

“It is there, in Latin America, Africa, and the Muslim world, where the legacy of Judt’s call for a critically reflective social democratic political discourse might well be found. If American militarism, European myopia, corporate greed and the militant ideologies of numerous stripes do not doom them first”.

The Settler Colonialist and Ethno-Nationalist Roots of Zionism

An extensive examination of Theodor Herzl’s wittings and movement shows clearly that from its very beginnings to the politics and policies of the state of Israel today, Zionism thought has permanently and resolutely embraced the dominant European discourses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including anti-Semitism.

In his 1896 Der Judenstaat – “state ‘for’, or ‘of’ Jews” would be a literal and more accurate English translation – Theodor Herzl articulated his vision and blueprint for a future “Jewish state” in Palestine by highlighting his scheme as a venture beneficial to both the “current sovereign authority” – then embodied by the Ottoman sultan – and the European colonial powers “under whose protectorate” the new state would come into being and continue to exist: “If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine” he wrote, “we could offer to resolve Turkey’s finances. For Europe, we would form part of a bulwark against Asia there, we would serve as the advance post of civilization against barbarism”.

As recalled by Nora Scholtes in her thoughtful and thoroughly-researched study submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. in Postcolonial Studies[7], French Marxist historian and sociologist Maxime Rodinson is commonly said to be the first contemporary “Western” scholar to have re-placed Zionism/Israel within its colonial, and more specifically settler colonial, context. Rodinson recognized in Herzl’s propositions a clear manifestation of Zionism as a “colonialist phenomenon”:

“It would have been difficult to place Zionism any more clearly within the framework of European imperialist policies (…) The [Zionist] perspective was inevitably placed within the framework of the European assault on the Ottoman Empire, this ‘sick man’ whose complete dismemberment was postponed by the rivalries of the great powers but who, in the meantime, was subjected to all kinds of interference, pressures, and threats. An imperialist setting if there ever was one (…) The Europeanism of the Zionists made it possible for them to present their plan as part of the same movement of European expansion that each power was developing on its own behalf”.

In effect, throughout his writings and speeches, Herzl never missed an opportunity to present the Zionist idea as a quintessentially colonial project, one that would also serve the interests of the Europeans, and more broadly the whole of the “civilized” world. In his Der Judenstaat he wrote:

“The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness”, and in a speech he delivered in London in 1891, he declared: “We want to carry culture to the East. And once again, Europe will in turn profit from this work of ours. We will create new trade routes − and none will be more interested in this than England with its Asiatic possessions. The shortest route to India lies through Palestine (…) What could I, poor barbarian from the Continent, tell the inhabitants of England about these things [progress and industry]. They are our superiors in all technical achievements, just as their great politicians were the first to see the necessity for colonial expansion. That is why the flag of Greater-Britain waves over every sea (…) And so I should think that here in England, the Zionist idea, which is a colonial one, should be easily and quickly understood in England, and this in its most modern form”[8].

For Desmond Stewart, there is no doubt that “Herzl’s stencil for obtaining a territory and then clearing it for settlement was cut after the Rhodesian model”[9]. Mark Levene equally argues that Herzl “had an agenda that closely followed and sought to emulate the essential contours of European empire-building in Africa”[10]. 

It was thus within the context of Western colonialism in Africa that the idea of acquiring a territorial basis for the establishment of a “Jewish entity” was most contemplated, more precisely in the Uasi Ngishu plateau, near Nairobi, Kenya, and not in Uganda as is commonly reported. 

Nevertheless, although Herzl did not exclude the option that “The Society”[11] would “take what it will be given under a charter” in what he called a “neutral land” in order to materialize his colonial-Zionist project – since Argentina was another country envisioned for a possible mass settlement for the Jews – he was convinced that Palestine would be the most powerful asset in attracting a Jewish mass following. As the Jews’ “ever-memorable historic home”, he writes in Der Judenstaat, “that name alone would be a tremendously stirring rallying cry for our people”. Furthermore, it is reported that when it was known that Herzl was wavering on the option of Palestine as a Jewish homeland in favor of East Africa or South America, he received a Bible from William Blackstone, an American Christian Zionist, in which every reference to “Israel” or “Zion” had been underlined in red, together with a letter urging him to insist Zionists settle only in Palestine[12].

Ultimately, the East-Africa scheme proposed by the British, which was indeed hotly debated during the 6^th Zionist Congress held in Basel on 23 August 1903, was rejected, both because of a lack of support by the critical mass of Russian Jews and because the British government faced a strong local opposition on the part of British settlers in its African territories to the idea of a Jewish colony in the area. 

And so, by the time of Herzl’s death the following year, the East-Africa and Argentina options had all but vanished from the agenda of the Zionist leadership. In a 1914 article of German newspaper Die Welt, a special issue on the tenth anniversary of Herzl’s death, Herzl’s East-Africa proposal is described by Bernstein as a “historical derailment”, a desperate and well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided attempt at providing emergency help to Eastern Europe’s persecuted Jews. Herzl, he indicated, “grasped the Uganda-straw immediately after the pogrom in Kishinev (…) He impatiently searched for a quick rescue (…) even if only in the form of a ‘night shelter’. It was the greatest sacrifice that Herzl has made for his people. He sacrificed, even if only for a moment, his life’s ideal”[13].

From that point onwards, the new leadership concentrated all its efforts on the implementation of the most preferred solution, that is the creation of a purely Jewish state in Palestine, mainly by way of ethnic cleansing. The terminology of “ethnic cleansing” only in recent times entered popular vocabulary. The concept used by Zionist thinkers was “transfer”, and Herzl’s true plans with regard to Palestine’s non-Jewish population are well-documented in his diary, where as early as 1895 he put forward this idea, writing: “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 own country”.

The same can be said about David Ben-Gurion, the primary national founder of the State of Israel as well as its first prime minister. Indeed, in a letter[14] dated 5 October 1937 he sent to his son Amos – who appeared to be critical of his father’s decision to support a partition plan put forward by the Peel Commission – Ben-Gurion describes how he sees partition of Palestine and expulsion of Palestinians fitting into the Zionist movement’s long term goals:

“My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning (…) The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country (…) We shall organize an advanced defense force – a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best  armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means (…) We must expel Arabs and take their place (…) But if we are compelled to use force (…) in order to guarantee our right to settle there, our force will enable us to do so (…) Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come”.

Maxime Rodinson asserts that the root cause of all of Zionism’s future failings is consubstantial with its very colonial founding vision:

“Once the premises were laid down, the inexorable logic of history determined the consequences. Wanting to create a purely Jewish, or predominantly Jewish, state in an Arab Palestine in the twentieth century could not help but lead to a colonial-type situation and to the development (completely normal, sociologically speaking) of a racist state of mind, and in the final analysis to a military confrontation between the two ethnic groups”. Gabriel Piterberg agrees with Rodinson’s early analysis: “From the moment Zionism’s goal became the resettlement of European Jews in a land controlled by a colonial European power, in order to create a sovereign political entity, it could no longer be understood just as a central or east European nationalism; it was also, inevitably, a white-settler colonialism”[15].

The unavoidable consequence of such a vision is what Ahad Ha’am warned against back in 1891 already:

“if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place”[16]. A decade before Ha’am made his prescient comment, Palestine’s population was some 460,000. Of these, around 400,000 were Muslim Arabs; about 40,000 were Christian, mostly Greek Orthodox; and the remainder, Jews. 

How challenging these figures are to the falsehood of one of Zionism’s most cherished founding myths – that of “a land without people for a people without land”– and how shockingly ill-intentioned was Herzl’s omission of any reference to “Arabs” or “Palestinians” in his 30,000-word pamphlet!

Assuredly, Herzl’s dream of a national home for the Jews that would end both their own age-old insecurity within the diaspora and Gentiles’ anti-Semitism has inexorably transformed into a nightmare both for Jews and Palestinians and for the world which is still held hostage to their struggle, with no apparent solution in a completely transformed and blood-soaked “Holy Land”.

Nightmare is precisely the key word in the title of the brilliant book[17] Peter Rodgers, a former Australian journalist and ambassador to Israel, devoted to the tragic drama caused by the pursuit of Herzl’s dream by his Zionist followers, to the present day.

Whatever their historical or emotional attachment to the land they came to rule, Rodgers asserts, the Jews of Israel had supplanted another people, a people who would not forget. The making of one nationalist dream has indeed involved the unmaking of another. But for how long and for what price? 

The Aussie ambassador’s very well-researched study tells a story of sorrow and anger in a balanced manner – insofar as this is possible – which, obviously entails the risk of drawing fire from both Jews and Palestinians, but this, he says, is sadly part of the twisted logic of the conflict. The story told shows how little the dynamics of the conflict between Jew and Palestinian have changed; how eerily reminiscent today’s antagonisms and falsehoods are of yesteryear’s; how “modern” leadership is anything but; and how much today’s self-righteous intransigence owes to what went before. Furthermore, it poses the vital question: “have the nationalist dreams of both peoples been doomed by the determined refusal of Jew and Palestinian to contemplate what life must be like for the other?”

To epitomize the opposing views of the protagonists, Rodgers, in his concluding remarks, quotes Yasser Arafat as saying that “the womb of the Arab woman” is one of the Palestinians’ most potent weapons, and Shimon Peres, who, writing of a deepening chasm between Israelis and Palestinians, commented typically: “We are sorry but not desperate”. Rodgers reacted to these last words by saying: “He might perhaps have added wisely, not yet”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the books “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014 and “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde” (Islam and the Order of the World),  Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2021. 

Notes

[1] Frantz Fanon,“The Wretched of the Earth” (Original French version:“Les Damnés de la Terre”), François Maspero,1961. To read the book: https://archive.org/details/thewretchedoftheearth/The%20wretched%20of%20the%20earth%20%20%20/

[2] To read the full essay: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/1025alternative.htm

[3] Tony Judt, “Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945”, Penguin Press, London, 2005.

[4] Avraham Burg is a former head of the Jewish Agency and Speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, between 1999 and 2003. His essay first appeared in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot; it has been widely republished, notably in the Forward of 29 August: “A Failed Israeli Society Collapses While Its Leaders Remain Silent” (https://forward.com/news/7994/a-failed-israeli-society-collapses-while-its-leade/), the London Guardian of 15 September 2003: “The end of Zionism” (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/15/comment), and in French newspaper Le Monde of 11 September 2003: “La révolution sioniste est morte” (https://www.mafhoum.com/press5/159C73.htm).

[5] Ahad Ha’am, “Emet M’Eretz Yisrael” (Truth from Eretz Israel), originally published in 1891 in the Hebrew daily newspaper Hamelitz (St. Petersburg), and translated by A. Dowty, Israel Studies, 2000. 

[6] Mark Levine, “Tony Judt: An intellectual hero”, Aljazeera.com, 14 August 2010.

[7] Nora Scholtes, “Bulwark Against Asia: Zionist Exclusivism and Palestinian Responses”, University of Kent School of English, 2015.

[8] Quoted in Nora Scholtes, Op cit.

[9] Desmond Stewart, “Herzl: Artist and Politician”, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1974.

[10] Mark Levene, “Herzl, the Scramble, and a Meeting That Never Happened: Revisiting the Notion of an African Zion”, in: Bar-Yosef, E., Valman, N. (eds) “‘The Jew’ in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Culture: Between the East End and East Africa”, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009.

[11] In Der Judenstaat Herzl writes: “The plan, simple in design, but complicated in execution, will be carried out by two agencies: The Society of Jews and the Jewish Company. The Society of Jews will do the preparatory work in the domains of science and politics, which the Jewish Company will afterwards apply practically. The Jewish Company will be the liquidating agent of the business interests of departing Jews, and will organize commerce and trade in the new country”.

[12] Donald Wagner, “Dying in the Land of Promise”, Melisende, London, 2000.

[13] Bernstein, S., “Theodor Herzl im Lichte des Ostjudentums” (Theodor Herzl in the Light of Eastern Jewry), Die Welt, 3 July 1914: https://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/cm/periodical/pageview/3355506, cited by Nora Scholtes, op cit.

[14] This letter was first referred to by Ilan Pappé in his article entitled “The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, Journal of Palestine Studies, issue 141, Fall 2006. It was later translated from Hebrew into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut, Lebanon. To read the full translated letter: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2013/04/06/the-ben-gurion-letter/

[15] Gabriel Piterberg, “Settlers and their States”, New Left Review, No. 62, March-April 2010: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii62/articles/gabriel-piterberg-settlers-and-their-states

[16] Ahad Ha’am, “Truth from Eretz Israel”, op cit.

[17] Peter Rodgers, “Herzl’s Nightmare: One Land, Two Peoples”, Constable, London, 2005.

9 June 2024

Source: globalresearch.ca

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

This map series shows the progressive theft of Palestine by Zionist Israel since 1947, with the complicity of Washington and Europe. Where did all the Palestinians who lived in the green areas of Palestine, almost the entirety of Palestine, in 1947 go? They were herded into refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon.

The UN (second map from the left) planned to give Israel half of Palestine, although no one explained the UN’s ability to give away a people’s country. The UN’s generous redistribution of Palestine to Israel did not satisfy Israel who took the rest.

Zionist Israel’s theft of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own country was covered up each year along the way by the West pretending to be in favor of a “two state solution.” Of course, such a solution never materialized decade after decade as Israel claimed the entire territory.

The “two state solution” let the West pretend it was doing the right thing while Israel stole the country and exiled the people, the remnants of which were confined to the Gaza ghetto, currently under destruction by Israel using American weapons and money.

America has been unable to do anything about this genocide of a country and a people because US presidents and members of the House and Senate are elected with the aid of Israeli campaign contributions.

How Sad It Is to Watch America’s Abandonment of Morality and Degeneration Into Evil

The billions of dollars that US taxpayers are forced to hand over to Israel every year come back to purchase our elections. Consequently, Washington answers to the Israel Lobby, not to the American people. We see this clearly in the invitation of the US Congress to Netanyahu who is under indictments both within Israel and by the International Criminal Court. Washington is determined to show that Netanyahu’s criminal indictments notwithstanding, Netanyahu is under the protection of the United States. In contrast, we are supposed to write Trump off as a gangster based on concocted indictments resting on nothing but opinions of prosecutors determined to keep Trump from the White House.

Israel also uses its American tribute to purchase pastors of evangelical churches who indoctrinate their congregations that it is God’s will for America to support Israel and for Israel to reclaim their home of 2,000 or more years ago, from which God dispelled a sinful Jewish population. Some of the evangelical churches are so captured that they are known as “Christian Zionists.”

What the “great moral West” doesn’t understand is that by supporting and defending Israel’s genocidal policy toward Palestinians, the “great moral West” has given its approval to genocide. So how is the West moral?

Even Putin congratulates Israel for its sins and crimes. Perhaps Putin does this because the Holocaust story is a way for Putin to emphasize that Russia is fighting nazis in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Putin’s support for Israel is extraordinary as it is Israel that is pressuring its American lapdog to attack Iran, which would be a catastrophe for Russia and China. Without Iran the efforts of Russia and China to organize Asia into a coherent trading bloc independent of the dollar is impossible. Instead CIA jihadists would be flowing into the Russian Federation, Central Asia and China.

America’s disgrace from supporting genocide is diminishing the ranks of qualified personnel in the US Department of State. Two more officials have resigned rather than be associated with Washington’s complicity in the mass murder of Palestinians.

Alexander Smith prepared a report for the US Agency for International Development on the extraordinary high rate of maternal and child mortality among Palestinians suffering the Israeli attack. He was quickly fired before he could deliver the report.

He said:

“I cannot do my job in an environment in which specific people cannot be acknowledged as fully human, or where gender and human rights principles apply to some, but not to others, depending on their race.”

Another State Department official, Stacy Gilbert resigned. She said she could no longer accept the State Department lies that Israel was not deliberately obstructing the flow of food or other aid into Gaza.

So far 33 State Department officials have resigned, leaving their comfortable high-paying jobs because they cannot stomach the immorality of being a US State Department employee.

This is hopeful. It indicates that some Americans employed by Washington still have a moral conscience and will not serve Washington at the expense of their conscience.

The total evil that the Biden regime represents has the support of a large minority of American voters. That Americans will vote for evil shows how far down the drain America has gone. The question automatically arises: what is the United States other than a threat to life on earth, a threat to all civilization, to all known morality? How do we know that Satan doesn’t hold Washington in his hand?

We are faced with the possible outbreak of nuclear war, a death sentence for life on earth, and there is not a single Western leader trying to resolve the crisis. Zelensky has passed a law prohibiting negotiations with Russia to end the conflict. Washington’s response to Russia’s direct warnings is to turn the warnings into propaganda against Russia.

As Putin says, we will see what happens.

*

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

10 June 2024

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Manlio Dinucci

***

US President Biden has presented a plan for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.

It provides for the release of all hostages by Hamas and at the same time the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza.

At this point Palestinian civilians would return to their homes and neighbourhoods in all areas of Gaza, receiving increased humanitarian assistance from the international community. The international community’s reconstruction of Gaza would then begin.

Bombs and Humanitarian Aid from the USA in Gaza. U.S is Complicit in Genocide. Manlio Dinucci

In this way – Biden underlines – Israel could integrate more deeply into the region, including a potential historic normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, becoming part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by Iran.

The clear aim of the plan is to strike the BRICS, which Russia and China are part of, and Saudi Arabia has entered together with Iran, which the USA and Israel consider their most dangerous enemy in the region. However, the fact remains – concludes Biden – that Israel will always have the right to defend itself from threats to its security and that the United States will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to protect itself.

Biden’s plan perfectly fits the United States’ war strategy in the Middle East.

It maintains the strategic axis with Israel by continuing to supply it with the most advanced weapons systems and massive quantities of ammunition, including those with which Israel is razing Gaza to the ground. At the same time, he envisages reconstruction of Gaza – entrusted to the international community, i.e. mainly to the United States, Israel, the European Union, and the G7 – which, as the plan presented by Netanyahu specifies, would consist of rebuilding Gaza from scratchtransforming it into a massive free trade zone with luxury skyscrapers, eco-friendly solar power plants and electric car manufacturing plants.

The surviving Palestinians, returning to their homes and neighbourhoods, would find only rubble and would no longer have any real property rights. An inevitable mass exodus would follow, while those remaining would become dependent on the activities set up in Gaza by the international community. The Palestinian Territory of Gaza would thus be erased, together with that of the West Bank, erasing Palestine as a state.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.

9 June 2024

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Bharat Dogra

In a country that has already heard about so many suicides by farmers, perhaps the recent suicide by one more farmer will not attract much attention, but nevertheless the extremely distressing story of the recent death of a young farmer Ramnihor—in Baragaon village (Baberu block) of Banda district, Uttar Pradesh, must be told.

As Sukhdev, the elderly and ailing father of Ram Nihor, says—for a long time my son had been telling me, had been telling his mother and others that I have to die. He had already made two suicide attempts. Once he tried to take poison. Somehow he survived. Then he tried to hang himself and again he could be saved. I was alarmed and tried time and again to speak to him for long hours trying to get the thought of dying out of his head. His mother also spoke to him regarding this, and of course his wife spoke too.

Sukhdev wiped his tears and continued—Then I said to myself—may be the words of family members do not carry so much weight. So I summoned those relatives who are widely respected. They also tried to convince him a lot. He nodded out of respect but it appears the turmoil within him never subsided.

What was it that was troubling Ram Niroh so much, so badly?

His father suffered from a serious stomach ailment and needed surgery. His elder brother Basant too was not keeping well. So Ramniroh considered himself more to be responsible for managing family affairs.

Responsible he was and willing to work hard, but he was saddled with a great burden—a loan which the family just did not have the resources to pay back. Sukhdev asserts that the original loan was just around Rs. 100,000 or so but over the years, adding compound interest, this had escalated to closer to about Rs.500,000. With a land holding of about 3 acres of land, this family just did not have the capacity to pay back such a loan, particularly when they were confronted with frequent medical expenses.

However the path of suicide that Ramnihor chose to get out of his feelings of hopelessness has only added to the woes of his family members and particularly his elderly parents. His mother appeared to be in such extreme distress that it was extremely difficult to ask her anything. Still she told haltingly that Ramnihor has left behind a small daughter. Ramnihor’s elder brother Basant who is not in good health has two children. Hence they are an eight member family now whose subsistence is extremely difficult as the most capable member of this family has committed suicide.

Can some relief be obtained for this family from the government? Such relief has not been difficult to get in recent times but nevertheless an effort should of course be made. An additional complicating factor in this case is that the land was not in the name of Ramnihor , it is in the name of his father Sukhdev.

Ramnihor thought and discussed a lot about how to get the family out of this debt, but he could not find any means of doing so, and he could not find anyone who could give him a sense of hope.

Could things have taken a more hopeful turn if someone had provided timely hope to Ramnihor? What sort of promise or help would have given him relief?

Clearly there should be places—some sort of a farmer distress and relief centre—where those farmers in such distressing conditions can go to discuss the possibilities of debt-relief or benefiting from any of the government’s numerous development schemes. Officials in such a centre can recommend if not decide some sort of special relief in such cases, or else they can make available additional counselling, anything to give hope and confidence to someone in deep despair. If such facilities had existed, perhaps Ramnihor would have been alive today.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Man over Machine and India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food.

9 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Alex Lantier

The day after the official commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the Allies’ D-Day landings in Normandy during World War II, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron for continuing ceremonies in France.

These meetings come at a dangerous point in the two-year-old war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. As the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime faces military collapse, NATO is giving long-range missiles to Ukraine to strike Russia and threatening to send troops directly to Ukraine. Yesterday, aided by Zelensky, Biden and Macron cynically tried to invoke the US-British-Canadian landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944 to legitimize their escalation against Russia that threatens to plunge Europe into a new world war.

The invocations of the Normandy landings to justify the NATO war with Russia are political lies based on historical falsifications. This began yesterday with the speech Zelensky gave in the morning to the French National Assembly. Baldly equating Russian President Vladimir Putin with Hitler, Zelensky claimed his regime was the inheritor of the battles in Normandy.

Zelensky told the Assembly: “It is truly this battle that was won that we are commemorating here, and we are proud to be the inheritors of those who participated in it.”

Asking whether Putin “can win this battle” today, Zelensky replied to his own question: “We do not have the right to lose. This war may spread, just like the war 80 years ago. … In the 1930s, Hitler crossed one line after the other. Putin is doing the same.”

Zelensky denounced Putin who, he said, “has already destroyed Syria, is disrupting the Sahel.” He concluded by praising French arms deliveries to Ukraine, including Macron’s pledge to send French soldiers and nuclear-capable Mirage 2000 fighter jets. “Thank you to France for having chosen without hesitation the side of humanity in this war, that of culture and international law.”

This is far-right war propaganda. The parallels Zelensky drew of Putin with Hitler, and of NATO’s war against Russia with the Allies’ war against Nazi Germany, falsify the entire course of European history. In the current war, it is not Russia, but the NATO imperialist powers that play the most aggressive, reactionary role.

Russia, unlike Nazi Germany, is not an imperialist power that has conquered all of Europe in a series of acts of military aggression costing the lives of tens of millions. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the NATO alliance aggressively expanded up to Russia’s borders, violating pledges made to Russian officials not to do so. Now, NATO is set to launch its missiles from Ukraine for strikes on Russian soil and is threatening to deploy its armies to Ukraine to fight Russia.

Zelensky’s references to Putin’s role in Syria and the Sahel point to some of the reasons why French imperialism embarked on this monumentally reckless policy. After the wars NATO and France launched in Syria in 2011 and Mali in 2013 failed to achieve their objectives of regime change, these countries’ governments have invited Russian troops to assist them. This outrages French imperialism, which believes itself entitled to control these countries in its former colonial empire.

Zelensky’s claim that France supports “culture and international law” is a transparent lie. Macron’s government has relentlessly backed the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Moreover, however bankrupt and reactionary Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was, it does not change the fact that Zelensky’s regime is based on neo-fascist descendants of Nazi-collaborationist forces led by Stepan Bandera in Ukraine. Not only are many top officials in Zelensky’s government followers of Bandera, but many of the Ukrainian militias fighting the Russian army in Ukraine are neo-Nazi units.

The neo-Nazi loyalties of Ukrainian shock troops, routinely denied in French media propaganda, surfaced last month when reports emerged that the French army base in the Creuse region is training neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s Azov Battalion who sport large “SS” tattoos.

The sympathies of the Azov Battalion, were they transported back to 1944, would not be with, but against the troops landing in Normandy. The Azov Battalion has as its symbol the Wolfsangel, the symbol of the Nazi SS Das Reich division. This division carried out the June 10, 1944 massacre of the French village of Ouradour-sur-Glane, modeled on SS massacres in the Soviet Union, as it passed north through the Limousin region, near the Creuse, on its way to fight the Allied troops who had just landed in Normandy.

Nevertheless, over the course of yesterday, Biden and Macron announced vast new grants of weapons to the Ukrainian army to escalate the war with Russia. Washington will send a raft of anti-aircraft missiles, artillery and shells, as well as anti-tank missiles and small arms. Paris pledged to send an air defense system and also to set up production facilities of the Franco-German arms manufacturer KNDS inside Ukraine.

Russian officials responded by again warning that NATO is on the verge of provoking a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Macron’s remarks showed, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said, that France “is ready to participate directly in the conflict. Let us say that Mr. Macron is showing absolute support to the Ukrainian regime and is declaring that the French Republic is ready to participate directly in the military conflict.”

The conclusion of the day’s events were Biden’s remarks at the Pointe du Hoc, in Normandy, which was scaled by US Army Rangers during the landings. Biden claimed that soldiers who fought at the Pointe du Hoc were “summoning us” to support the policies of his administration.

Biden said, “They’re not asking us to scale these cliffs. But they’re asking us to stay true to what America stands for. They’re not asking us to give or risk our lives. But they are asking us to care for others in our country more than ourselves. They’re asking us to do our job, to protect freedom in our time, to defend democracy, to stand up to aggression abroad and at home to be part of something bigger than ourselves.”

This empty invocation of democratic traditions and of opposition to Nazism is directly contradicted by the actual content of the policies the imperialist powers are carrying out. In reality, Washington and its NATO allies are backing far-right forces in Ukraine and the far-right regime in Israel to wage imperialist war and support genocide.

9 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

Israel killed 210 Palestinians and injured 400 to secure the release of four Israeli hostages deep in the Nuseirat Camp in central Gaza.

What happened in Nuseirat is being described as the largest single massacre carried out by the Israeli army, using a special unit of the Shabak and Israeli police that went into the central market of the west of the camp early Saturday, backed by heavy bombardment from the air, sea and tanks.

Bollywood-style rescue

An eyewitness in the camp described what happened as “unbelievable”, something from an Indian Bollywood movie with camfloudged men that came out of a lorry thought to carry displaced people and their furniture and started firing at everyone within distance.

The Israelis are seeing the bloody operation as a “great national success. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are patting themselves on the back for the release of the four hostages. They say now the release of the hostages – at around 120 – is only a matter of time with Netanyahu hinting at repeat operations of the same kind.

Hamas on the other hand, has been quick to respond, saying the release of four of its hostages after 245 days of an-eight-month bloody and destructive war was nothing to brag about. The Islamist organization now battling the Israeli army in all parts of Gaza says, the operation in broad daylight and carried out when the street markets are busy and full of people,  only shows the failure of the Israeli army and its strategy.

It added all that the Israeli did was carry out another massive killing spree on the civilians of Nuseirat.

The high death numbers are being confirmed by the Gaza government media office stating the number of the people killed and injured in this part of the enclave is unprecedented, adding the number of deaths is likely to climb because of the Israeli missiles that struck and buried people under the tons of wreckage and debris and as the number of those killed are dug up from under the rubble but this would take days. At least 80 homes were struck.

Worry is that extremist Israelis might now consider this scorched-earth policy which the army carried out since 7 October is finally bearing fruit and would continue. This is what Netanyahu believed all along, saying the only way to secure the release of the hostages is by more bombardment of Gaza.

Two points need to be considered here, however. Spokesman of the Hamas Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigade Obu Obeida said the military operation has come at a high cost for the Israelis. He added Netanyahu would realize that more hostages died in the operation as the following days will show.

One of the female hostages released among the other three male captives, Noa Argamani, said she nearly died four times as a result of Israeli bombing of the camp. She said the other two she was with didn’t make it and were killed thanks to the Israeli bombs.

It is clear however, the operation was carefully constructed and took weeks to plan with the help  of American intelligence and US officers previously working in Iraq with possible reconnaissance by the British.

Worried White House

Nevertheless, the White House may just be a little bit worried about what had just happened despite serving as the main supplier of weapons in this slaughter that saw the killing of over 36,000 people and the injury of over 82,000. Washington has sought to project a dual image since the beginning of this bloody conflict  despite remaining a loyal Israeli supporter.

On the face of it, US president Joe Biden wants a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with an end to the Gaza crisis that is complicated by the existence of Hamas. However, the White House is still banking on the release of the remaining hostages, some of whom are American citizens, and he would like to see more aid into the enclave to lighten the burden of starvation being openly implemented by the Israelis.

For Biden it’s a multi-layer role. While he keeps saying he is a “Zionist”, he is facing elections in November and wants to secure a return to the White House through Arab-American and Muslim voters but he can’t do that if he alienates them. There are many voters who say they will not vote for him because of his pro-Israeli policies in the war on Gaza already. But he is willing to see whether he can still turn the tables around.

The snagging problem now is that with the release of the four hostages Netanyahu is likely to become even more intransigent on continuing the war on Gaza, believing his scorched-earth policy and the killing of more civilians will be the only way to get the rest of the hostages back, keeping alive his pipe-dream of ending Hamas and the Palestinian resistance. And with Biden not wanting to stop the arm-supplies to Israel, he will continue to support Netanyahu whatever he does.

What this means is that the war on civilians in Gaza will continue under the name of fighting the Palestinian resistance with Netanyahu in no mood for stopping despite the fact that the relatives of the hostages are still protesting and believe the only way to get their sons and daughters back is through negotiations and a ceasefire.

Netanyahu needs to understand as well Hamas is here to stay. Its not going anywhere as shown everyday by its strength on the Gaza battlefields. Unless he comes to this realization the war will continue and the chances of getting the hostages will be slim.

Commentators have been making a mockery of the latest release of the hostages. They say at a rate of four every eight months, it would take Israelis till at least 2030 to get its hostages back. So why keep waiting till then?

Dr Marwan Asmar is an Amman-based writer covering Middle East affairs

9 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The results of the General Elections 2024 have thoroughly exposed the Bania media and its Brahmanical proponents. I have never trusted it but it took 10 years of Modi rule to expose them completely. V T Rajshekar, the indomitable Editor of Dalit Voice which flourished in the 1990s always mocked at their ”merit’ and wrote ‘Merit : My Foot’. Many people would question him and blame him for criticising ”liberals” but he remain categorical that the Brahmanical liberals are more dangerous. Time has proved it that these liberals by picking up one or two issues become brand of the ‘secularism’ and ‘liberalism’ among the Brahmin Bania media and then suddenly get exposed whenever there is a threat to their duopoly.

The bloodbath at the stock market where Banias hold solid monopoly cant be without the involvement and knowledge of those who owns these channels and have converted them to disinformation centre for their own profit. The darbari media or manustream media has lost all its credibility.

We all know that this has been a tough election where BJP wanted to finish everything that we had in the name of opposition. It played different games, distorting facts and hiding information from people. The so-called ‘national  media therefore is a partner in crime against constitution.

Look the way Rajat Sharma shamelessly spoke about Rahul Gandhi, will leave for Italy after June 4th, a despicable statement made by BJP spokespersons everywhere. The ‘bombardment’ of so called interviews of Narendra Modi during election campaign were nothing but purely advertised campaign for the ruling party. Unfortunately, neither the Election Commission nor the Supreme Court bothered about it. The media had no time to question the government but in the name of news they were just providing platform to those who can demonise the opposition and lampoon Rahul Gandhi.

Rajdeep Sardesai had long started batting for Narendra Modi. He spoke in many interviews that BJP was crossing 300. Shekhar Gupta who virtually mocked at Congress and felt it would not cross 60 and crossing 90 would mean a big thing. Another ‘liberal’ Vir Sanghavi was also upset with congress and Rahul Gandhi, just because he spoke about caste census and reservation.

Indian media has proved that it will go to any extent to protect the caste interest of its owners and reporters. They are upset with the caste questions. In the 1990s, I studied the Hindi media when BJP launched the Ayodhya campaign. The middle class liberals were exposed that time as they hated Mandal. Media had no shame in supporting the Hindutva campaign just because they dont want to upset their caste hegemony.

Now, 35 years later, we now see, a must worst media, more nasty, casteist and thuggish promoting animosity among communities and had no shame in broadcasting, publishing stories that vilified Muslims of India. Isnt it a shame that nearly 15 crore population of India, its second majority, is termed as main villain and all efforts were made to deny them representation.

Media is a business. They are loyal to their jaatis and owners. After 1990s, many of our friends felt that India need to ‘liberalise’ but they only meant privatise the nattional resources to a few cronies and jaatis. They could not develop liberal thinking and ideas. Capitalism in India is nothing but Baniaism and media owned by the Banias have done everything to protect their business and market monopoly. Brahmins were just satisfied with their social-cultural privileges. The duopoly of these two communities are well established. Capitalism in India need religion to thrive and vice versa. Jyotiba Phule said it is Sethji -Bhatji combine that want to rule over us, control our minds and resources. Any one who try to challenge this hegemony is unwanted and named and shamed as jaatiwadis.

It is good diverse new youngs are speaking. Let the different voices emerge. There are good people everywhere and I dont say every one from these communities are bad. Exceptions are always there but we must not forget that jaatis created and protected their hegemonies. Perhaps, that is the reason why we all are upset with caste question and representation of diverse groups in our power structure. India’s unity and strength is its diversity and it is time it should reflect everywhere right from media, to judiciary, to industry to academia and cultural spaces and only then we will be called as truly liberal democratic society.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat is a social activist

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Samina Salim

Today was a typical morning of a hot summer in Houston. I woke up looking at the rays of the sun peeking through the window shades of my bedroom. As I usually do, I grabbed my phone to glance over the family WhatsApp group chat, which are usually a combination of family travel photos, invites, illnesses, a recipe or something of that nature, today the first message which caught my attention was a meme which said, “BJP losing Ayodhya is funny as hell and iconic, one for the history books”.  I knew exactly what this meant and immediately ran for my computer to log in to see the Indian election results.

I was blown away, the sophistication of the Indian electorate is remarkable, the voters may be poor and illiterate or semi-literate, but they cannot be fooled by hypothetical claims, dubious algorithms or coaxing of self-proclaimed messiahs. This is evident from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s loss in Faizabad which includes the temple town of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh (UP). UP is India’s most populous state, which holds a significant position in the Indian elections with 80 parliamentary seats. In 2014 and 2019, the BJP won 71 and 62 seats respectively but in the recent election, the BJP secured only 33 seats, with the most notable being its loss in the Faizabad constituency, where BJP had spent millions of dollars on construction of an opulent Ram temple on a site where 16^th century Babri Mosque once stood. This result is particularly telling. It gives a simple message; hate is a burden that weighs people down. Sooner or later, this burden ought to drop, and it did. Ayodhya voted against Modi’s hate, and brought to the forefront real issues locals faced- poverty, housing, clean water, unemployment, illiteracy etc. What use is a grand temple when there is no food on the table? How can one pray on an empty stomach? How can hating Muslims solve any of the day-to-day problems of a common man? Modi’s hateful campaign targeting India’s 200 million Muslims by criminalizing, demonizing, and marginalizing them by openly professing anti-Muslim rhetoric has been thwarted.

Additionally and most significantly, the election results have busted the “Modi myth” which was a carefully crafted story romanticized to an extreme stretch; a long-bearded man of humble beginnings, dressed in a crisp attire sitting with a peacock in a pensive mood in almost an academic solitude, a chaiwala (a tea seller), a monk, incorruptible, an environmentalist, a visionary, a super diplomat- everything that he is not. In fact, he was barred from entry into the US for his role in Gujarat pogrom against Muslims, but the BJP fought every election in his name using the personality cult they had crafted for him. Modi himself seemed almost consumed in this delusional narrative to the extent that he had started professing himself as a messiah, a divine reincarnation who was sent to serve as the savior of India. If anything, Mr. Modi should be humbled by the election results. As an Indian Muslim American I feel cautiously excited about the future of India, finally an end to the authoritarianism, and vigilantism seems near. India is too incredible to be consumed by the parochial designs of self-consumed fanatics.

Samina Salim, Associate Professor Department of Pharmacological & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Houston

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Lock them up.  The whole bally lot.  The pollsters, the pundits, the parasitic hacks clinging to the life raft of politics in the hope of earning their crust.  Yet again, the election results from a country have confounded the chatterers and psephologists.  India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was meant to romp home and steal the show in the latest elections.  The Bharatiya Janata Party was meant to cut through the Lok Sabha for a third time, comprehensively, conclusively.  Of 543 parliamentary seats, 400 were to be scooped up effortlessly.

From a superficial perspective, it was easy to see why this view was reached.  Modi the moderniser is a selling point, a sales pitch for progress.  The builder and architect as leader.  The man of temples and faith to keep company with the sweet counting of Mammon’s pennies.  Despite cherishing an almost medieval mindset, one that rejects Darwinian theories of evolution and promotes the belief that Indians discovered DNA before Watson and Crick, not to mention flying and virtually everything else worth mentioning, Modi insists on the sparkle of development.  Propaganda concepts abound such as Viksit Bharat (Developed India).  The country, he dreams, will slough off the skin of its “developing” status by 2047, becoming a US$30 trillion economy.

The BJP manifesto had pledges aplenty: the improvement of the country’s infrastructure, the creation of courts programmed to be expeditious in their functions, the creation of “high-value” jobs, the realisation of India as a global hub for manufacturing.

The electors had something else in mind.  At the halfway point of counting 640 million votes, it became clear that the BJP and its allies had won 290 seats.  The BJP electoral larder had been raided.  The Modi sales pitch had not bent as many Indian ears as hoped.  The opposition parties, including the long-weakened Congress Party, once the lion of Indian politics, and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, had found their bite.  States such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra, had put the Hindutva devotees off their stroke.

Despite Modi’s inauguration of a garish temple to Ram at Ayodhya, occupying the site of a mosque destroyed by mob violence (the cliché goes that criminals return to the scene of their crime), the Socialist party and Congress alliance gained 42 of the 80 seats on offer in Uttar Pradesh.  A rather leaden analysis offered in that dullest of publications, The Conversation, suggested that Hindu nationalist policies, while being “a powerful tool in mobilising the BJP’s first two terms” would have to be recalibrated.  The theme of religious nationalism and its inevitable offspring, temple politics, had not been as weighty in the elections as initially thought.

For such politics watchers as Ashwini Kumar, the election yielded one fundamental message: “the era of coalition politics is back”.  The BJP would have to “put the contentious ideological issues in cold storage, like the uniform civil code or simultaneous elections for state assembly and the Parliament.”

While still being the largest party in the Lok Sabha, the BJP put stock in its alliance with the National Democratic Alliance.  The NDA, said Modi, “is going to form the government for the third time, we are grateful to the people”.  The outcome was “a victory for the world’s largest democracy.”

Modi, sounding every bit a US president dewy about the marble virtues of the republic, romanced the election process of his country.  “Every Indian is proud of the election system and its credibility.  Its efficiency has not [sic] match anywhere else in the world. I want to tell the influencers that this is a matter of pride.  It enhances India’s reputation, and people who have a reach, they should present it before the world with pride.”

For a man inclined to dilute and strain laws in a breezy, thuggish way, this was quite something.  Modi spoke of the Indian constitution as being “our guiding light”, despite showing a less than enlightened attitude to non-Hindus in the Indian state.  He venerated the task of battling corruption, omitting the fact that the vast majority of targets have tended to be from the opposition.  The “defence sector”, he vowed, would become “self-reliant”.

In an interview with the PTI news agency, the relentlessly eloquent Congress Party grandee Shashi Tharoor had this assessment.  The electorate had given a “comeuppance” to the BJP’s “overweening arrogance” and its “my way or the highway attitude”.  It would “be a challenge for Mr Modi and Amit Shah who have not been used to consulting very much in running their government and I think this is going to test their ability to change their way of functioning and be more accommodative and more conciliatory within the government and also I hope with the Opposition.”

Whatever Modi’s sweet words for the Indian republic, there was no getting away from the fact Hindutva’s juggernaut has lost its shine. We anticipate, to that end, something amounting to what Tharoor predicts to be a “majboor sarkaar (helpless government)” on fundamental matters.  Far better helpless in government than ably vicious in bigotry.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Prakash Louis

With arrogance Mr. Modi had declared that his party would cross 400 out of 543 seats in the election to the Lok Sabha or the Lower House of India. In the election that concluded on 1^st June, 2024, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), the party that he led was reduced to 240. Modi is struggling to form the government on its own and has to seek the support of NDA partners. Earlier, it had boasted that it would form the government on its own but the Indian voters have shown that he and his policies and programs do not find favour among them. From being a Vishwa guru, he has been reduced to an ordinary citizen of the country. There are also reports that there are rumblings within the BJP. That is, a section of the elected members not wanting Modi to become the Prime Minister of India. Next few weeks and months are crucial for India, because if Modi becomes the PM, he would destroy the country.

It is pertinent to raise the question, why the people of India rejected Modi, his policies and programs. Let us remember these facts that in 2014, in the 16^th Lok Sabha elections, the BJP won 282 seats with 31% of votes at the national level. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) secured 336 seats. The Indian National Congress was defeated in a landslide. In the 2019 elections, the BJP won 303 seats, thus increasing 21 seats to its count. It received 37.6% of the vote share and formed the government. The Congress party won only 52 seats and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) won only 91 seats. For Modi from a secure state of being able to form the government independently to seeking alliance, is unthinkable and unexplainable. The Indian voters undeniably have given a hard blow to Modi from which he would not be able to spring back to his arrogant self.

Modi and the party he is leading promised a vibrant and participatory democracy, inclusive and sustainable development, quality of life, productive youth, a globally competitive economy, open and transparent government, and pro-active and pro-people governance in its manifesto. He announced from roof top, “Achhe din aane waale hain”, that is, “Time for Change, Time for Modi.”

Based on the above, the following were the promises made by Modi based on which he came to power in 2014: two crore [20 million] jobs per year; 15 lac [1.5] million in the accounts of the poor; will bring back black money from abroad; will control price rise by establishing special courts to stop hoarding and black marketing; promised price stabilisation fund; unbundling FCI operations into procurement, storage and distribution for greater efficiency; encouraging and empowering youth via self-employment; focus on agriculture, allied industries and retail through modernisation as well as stronger credit and market linkages; initiating a multi-skill development programme, with focus on job creation and entrepreneurship; national healthcare programmes, medical education and financing for health care services; setting up an AIIMS-like institute in states; digitisation of government records;  focus on increasing the penetration and usage of broadband; leveraging technology for e-governance; generating ITbased jobs in rural and semi-urban areas, using mobile and e-banking to ensure financial inclusion; modernization of Madarasas; improving traditional artisanship and entrepreneurial skills; 33% reservation for women through constitutional amendment; launch of ‘beti bachao beti padhao’ campaign; improving village level infrastructure like roads, potable water, education, health, supply chain, electricity, etc.;  building 100 new smart cities and lastly, exploring all possibilities within the framework of the Constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram temple at Ayodhya.

But a careful reading of the last 10 years of rule or misrule of Modi clearly and categorically states the utter failure of his government leave alone governance. None of the above election promises are fulfilled. There was no focused and directed work done by him, his cabinet colleagues or the government. All these promises only became a laughing stock and Modi himself was ridiculed at every step. This was all the more in the run to the 2024 election. There was not a single issue on which Modi can boast of having made a mark in 10 years of his rule. Only getting the Ayodhaya temple constructed by breaking rules and by posing himself as the priest, temple, Hindus, nation, etc. Even the hard core Hindus understood that the opening of this temple was only an election gimmick and not real love for Hindu belief.

There are some devastating steps that Modi took during his regime. They are: demonetization which instead of resulting in its stated objectives combating terror funding, fake notes and black money resulted in wide spread suffering to over 75% of the citizens; the imposition of three Farm Ordinances in the name of regularizing the market in favour of the farmers. But the farmers realizing the sinister game that Modi and his coterie were playing opposed it tooth and nail even at the expense of 700 farmers dying martyrs’ death forced Modi to withdraw these ordinances; the ordinary demand of the farmers for minimum support price has not been heeded to by Modi.

Under the New Labour Code, Modi tried to curtail the freedom of the labourers and give free hand to the companies and industries to hire and fire. Denying the existence of over 40 labour laws, attempted to regulate labour movements and labour rights. Weakening and destroying all the national institutions like the Planning Commission, Minority Commission, Women’s Commission, Scheduled Caste Commission, Scheduled Tribe Commission, to name a few. Did not create one commission but destroyed what was already there. Misuse of institutions like CBI, ED, NIA, RBI, etc. Captured the media through his friends in the loot and made them godi media, that is, parroting what Modi said and did not say.

Mishandling of Kashmir and Ladak issues and alienated the people there. Eight month long curfews destroyed the local economy. Worse still, there was a marked increase (72%) in the number of our soldiers martyred in just the first three years of the BJP’s term. Even going to the inhuman level of using the death of army jawans for electoral purposes. It is reported that over 1 lac jobs are vacant in the railways. Instead of attending to that and also responding to the demands of the ordinary passengers, kept on promoting Vande Bharat which appeases the middle and upper class, who alone can travel in these. Making Aadhaar number essential for any public and financial transaction and thus gathering information about the citizens.

Anti-Dalit and anti-Tribal policies and programs. Modi as PM announced that he is in favour of abolishing reservation. His argument was that reservation brings down the merit and service to the nation declines. Echoing his view BJP goons shouted that reservation be withdrawn. By undertaking this heinous crime, he wanted to undo Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar and the principles that he stood for – fraternity, liberty and equality.

The country will not forget the hardships suffered all the citizens, especially over 75% of the population by the totally unplanned and unprepared series of lockdowns. Instead of getting counsel from medical experts and taking to a scientific approach, he went to the ridiculous level of clapping hands and vessels. The middle class and upper class were part of his obnoxious thought and behaviour. The migrant labourers from north India will not forgive him for pushing them to walk thousands of miles while he could have made arrangements for their travel back home. Over, 40 lac Indians succumbed to COVID-19, less by the virus but more by his inability to handle the situation.

Perhaps one of the unforgivable crime of Modi was to spread hate, division and violence. Instead of arresting Muslim hate, mob lynching and running bulldozer, he vomited venom against the Muslim minority community. Using his position of being the PM of this country, he went around spreading all kinds of rumours against them and called for violence against them. This was fully and totally under the vote bank politics of majoritarianism. Created enmity with the neighbouring countries.

It suffices to state that the above presented facts and figures are a dismal report card by any measure, but it is far from exhaustive. To be precise, Modi’s views, perceptions, thoughts and behaviour are rooted and grounded in an anti-poor, anti-Dalit, anti-Tribal, anti-minority, anti-OBCs, anti-citizen principles and programs. In his first term as the PM of India Modi’s image of being a techno-savvy, angry Hindu appealed to many rural youth. These were the ones who were getting into mobile culture. But they realized that except rhetoric, no substantial changes were intended by Modi. Youth accounted for about 83% of the jobless citizens, according to a report by the International Labour Organization and the Institute for Human Development.

Manipur was a blot on the face of Modi and the BJP. The crisis and violence that has been going on in Manipur for the last one year has been repeatedly identified as government – state and centre- orchestrated one. That is, planed, programed, financed and executed violence with the short term and long term objectives to deprive the Kuki Tribal communities of land, forest and other resources. It is the governments who pitted the Meiteis against the Kukis. The fact is that Modi underestimated the power of the backlash from women and youth in Manipur. Hence, both Meiteis and Kukis defeated BJP thoroughly. Both the parliamentary seats are won by the Congress.

One crisis that India witnessed in Modi’ first term itself was price rise and growing inequality. Several reports both internal and global pointed out to the stark reality that that inequality and poverty have risen during the Modi years. Reports also indicated that the persistent high inflation pushed the household financial savings to a 30-year-low in the first half of financial year 2023. A report by Motilal Oswal Securities indicated that these depleted savings were being used for consumption.

This was clearly pronounced in the rumblings before the election in the most electorally secure state, that is, Uttar Pradesh. It was reported that the Samajwadi Party leader said voters in the state were turning against Modi because of a lack of jobs, the high cost of living, and concerns that he would dilute affirmative action policies for lower-caste individuals. In addition to doing away with the reservation policy, Modi would also replace Dr.B.R. Ambedkar with Savarkar. Interestingly, in the 2019 election, the BJP won 63 seats in UP on its own. But in the 2024 election, it could scrap to 33 seats only.

In the run up to the election, Modi was becoming aggressive, autocratic, abusive, impulsive, etc. “India was trending towards a more autocratic country, a country with one leader who had a larger-than-life image,” said Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of India’s central bank and ex-chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. “And that unfortunately meant the BJP leadership wasn’t listening, wasn’t listening to the economic news on the ground. That people were actually suffering hardships.” It is this disconnect which reduced Modi and BJP to low margin.

Modi had claimed that he is fighting all the 400 seats for BJP. But this arrogance was destroyed by the mature electorate of India. The BJP’s inability to secure an outright majority “pricks the bubble of Modi’s authority,” commented political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Mehta goes on to state Modi is “not the indomitable vehicle for History … Today, he is just another politician, cut to size by the people.” A totally self-centered person, with me, my, mine brought destruction on himself. He had destroyed the country already.

What is an undeniable fact is that the Indian democracy has reaffirmed its vibrance and the people’s ability to course-correct when necessary. No force, not even Modi’s vaunted election juggernaut, could withstand the tsunami of people’s electoral power. It is not this or that caste, class, religious group who defeated Modi and his divisive forces. The Lok Sabha election 2024 has reiterated this powerful fact that ‘We the people of India’ are the real swaraj (independence), shakti (power), shaasan (governance).

Dr Prakash Louis is a political commentator

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org