Archives: Articles

By Jon Rainwater

As the surreal and high-stakes 2024 Presidential election careens through its surprising twists and turns, one thing is near certain—at the finish line the election will be decided by a relatively small margin. U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, as the likely Democratic nominee, would do well to appeal to the over 650,000 people who voted for “uncommitted” or cast other protest votes in the primary.

Vice President Harris has seen polling revealing that the Democrats suffered from a large enthusiasm gap—trailing Republicans by 11 points in one Gallup poll before President Joe Biden Biden dropped out. Given Democratic-leaning voters’ well-founded existential angst about former President Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses, such a gap in this election is astounding.

At least part of that “enthusiasm gap” was reflected in the “uncommitted” vote over the last few months. In addition to the 650,000 Democrats voted against Biden by choosing options such as “uncommitted,” etc., millions of rank-and-file Democrats are unhappy with the war in Gaza. According to one Reuters poll, 44% of Democratic voters disapprove of the administration’s handling of the Gaza crisis and these voters said they were less likely to vote for Biden come fall. Obviously, Arab American voters are watching Harris’ actions on Gaza closely. But so are other critical constituencies. Younger voters, and particularly younger voters of color, are more likely to support an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and disapprove of Israel’s actions. Seven major labor unions, representing 6 million workers, just wrote to President Biden and called on him to “shut off military aid to Israel.”

Some former Biden administration officials who resigned over Biden’s Gaza policy are “cautiously optimistic” about a fresh approach with Harris. They point to Harris speaking in favor of a cease-fire before Biden did. Former State Department arms control expert Josh Paul described Harris as less “fixed and intransigent” on Gaza and said, “I have cautious and limited optimism—but also a deep sense of relief that the Democratic party will not be nominating for the presidency of the United States a man who has made us all complicit in so much and such unnecessary harm.” At the same time, most observers feel it is unrealistic to expect her positions to be a radical departure from Biden’s based on her history of strong support for Israel.

Clearly Biden-Harris messaging has recently become more focused on seeking peace and a cease-fire. In Biden’s historic address explaining his decision to drop out of the race, the president courted peace voters by bragging that he was “the first president this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world.” That was at best a fib, given that the U.S. had just bombed Yemen hours earlier. But it displayed recognition of the importance of the peace vote. He also promised to work for a cease-fire for Gaza.

VP Harris’ remarks after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflected an even greater emphasis on a cease-fire. She bluntly stated, “It is time for the war to end.” It was refreshing to hear her emphasize the famine in Gaza, a critical issue that the media is underreporting. As Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute put it in a post on X (formerly Twitter): “This is the best speech I heard so far from a senior U.S. official about Israel[’s] war on Gaza. [The] VP mentioned the word Palestinians more times than in all Joe Biden speeches combined. There is hope fellow Arab #Americans!” But simply displaying more empathy toward Palestinians, while shipping arms to Israel that are used in killing those same Palestinians, is not likely to win over recalcitrant uncommitted voters or to truly energize peace voters.

The task in front of Harris is daunting. Ideally she needs to deliver a cease-fire despite the fact that she is not (yet) the president of the U.S., let alone the prime minister of Israel. But the U.S., as Israel’s crucial ally, has immense leverage, and it’s long past time to fully deploy it. Netanyahu has ignored U.S. calls to prevent human rights violations for months. He is resisting a cease-fire. One way to reach a desperately needed lasting cease-fire—including the release of all Israeli and Palestinian captives—is for the U.S. to put real pressure on Netanyahu by ending the flow of weapons to the Israeli government.

If Netanyahu will not agree to a cease-fire, the Biden-Harris administration needs to become more assertive in concrete policy terms. Matt Duss, of the Center for International Policy, laid out some of the policy changes that could be the basis of a real pivot on Gaza that goes beyond a change in tone:

She can announce that as president, she will immediately suspend the U.S.-supplied military aid being used in violation of U.S. law. She can reject the baseless and inflammatory claims that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the largest and most important relief agency in Gaza, is a “Hamas front,” and state that she’ll work to see UNRWA funding resumed as soon as legally possible.

The grassroots has a role to play in all this. Harris is unlikely to truly change course without being pushed to do so by her base. The Uncommitted National Movement, now that their ballot box campaigns are over, is pushing a “Not Another Bomb” campaign to push Harris to take a bolder position on ending the war. Peace groups like Peace Action are calling on Harris to support an arms embargo on Israel and other concrete policies. Everyone who cares about these issues should be contacting the vice president and getting out the message that her empathetic words are refreshing, but it is long past time for bold action to end the killing and famine in Gaza once and for all.

Jon Rainwater is executive director of Peace Action. For over 30 years, he has been active in campaigns on issues of peace, nuclear disarmament, social justice and environmental sustainability.

28 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Nick Turse

At the end of the last century, hoping to drive the United States from Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden sought to draw in the American military. He reportedly wanted to “bring the Americans into a fight on Muslim soil,” provoking savage asymmetric conflicts that would send home a stream of “wooden boxes and coffins” and weaken American resolve. “This is when you will leave,” he predicted.

After the 9/11 attacks, Washington took the bait, launching interventions across the Greater Middle East and Africa. What followed was a slew of sputtering counterterrorism failures and stalemates in places ranging from Niger and Burkina Faso to Somalia and Yemen, a dismal loss, after 20 years, in Afghanistan, and a costly fiasco in Iraq. And just as bin Laden predicted, those conflicts led to discontent in the United States. Americans finally turned against the war in Afghanistan after 10 years of fighting there, while it took only a little more than a year for the public to conclude that the Iraq war wasn’t worth the cost. Still, those conflicts dragged on. To date, more than 7,000 U.S. troops have died fighting the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other militant groups.

As lethal as those Islamist fighters have been, however, another “enemy” has proven far more deadly for American forces: themselves. A recent Pentagon study found suicide to be the leading cause of death among active-duty U.S. Army personnel. Out of 2,530 soldiers who died between 2014 and 2019 from causes ranging from car crashes to drug overdoses to cancer, 35% — 883 troops — took their own lives. Just 96 soldiers died in combat during those same six years.

Those military findings bolster other recent investigations. The journalism nonprofit Voice of San Diego found, for example, that young men in the military are more likely to take their own lives than their civilian peers. The suicide rate for American soldiers has, in fact, risen steadily since the Army began tracking it 20 years ago.

Last year, the medical journal JAMA Neurology reported that the suicide rate among U.S. veterans was 31.7 per 100,000 — 57% greater than that of non-veterans. And that followed a 2021 study by Brown University’s Costs of War Project which found that, compared to those who died in combat, at least four times as many active-duty military personnel and post-9/11 war veterans — an estimated 30,177 of them — had killed themselves.

“High suicide rates mark the failure of the U.S. government and U.S. society to manage the mental health costs of our current conflicts,” wrote Thomas Howard Suitt, author of the Costs of War report. “The U.S. government’s inability to address the suicide crisis is a significant cost of the U.S. post-9/11 wars, and the result is a mental health crisis among our veterans and service members with significant long-term consequences.”

Military Shocked (Shocked!) by a Rise in Suicides

In June, a New York Times front-page investigation found that at least a dozen Navy SEALs had died by suicide in the last 10 years, either while on active duty or shortly after leaving military service. Thanks to an effort by the families of those deceased special operators, eight of their brains were delivered to a specialized Defense Department brain trauma laboratory in Maryland. Researchers there discovered blast damage in every one of them — a particular pattern only seen in people exposed repeatedly to blast waves like SEALs endure from weapons fired in years of training and war-zone deployments as well as explosions encountered in combat.

The Navy claimed that it hadn’t been informed of the lab’s findings until the Times contacted them. A Navy officer with ties to SEAL leadership expressed shock to reporter Dave Philipps. “That’s the problem,” said that anonymous officer. “We are trying to understand this issue, but so often the information never reaches us.”

None of it should, however, have been surprising.

After all, while writing for the Times in 2020, I revealed the existence of an unpublished internal study, commissioned by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), on the suicides of Special Operations forces (SOF). Conducted by the American Association of Suicidology, one of the nation’s oldest suicide-prevention organizations, and completed sometime after January 2017, the undated 46-page report put together the findings of 29 “psychological autopsies,” including detailed interviews with 81 next-of-kin and close friends of commandos who had killed themselves between 2012 and 2015.

That study told the military to better track and monitor data on the suicides of its elite troops. “Further research and an improved data surveillance system are needed in order to better understand the risk and protective factors for suicide among SOF members. Further research and a comprehensive data system is needed to monitor the demographics and characteristics of SOF members who die by suicide,” the researchers advised. “Additionally, the data emerging from this study has highlighted the need for research to better understand the factors associated with SOF suicides.”

Quite obviously, it never happened.

The brain trauma suffered by SEALs and the suicides that followed should not have been a shock. A 2022 study in Military Medicine found Special Operations forces were at increased risk for traumatic brain injury (TBI), when compared with conventional troops. The 2023 JAMA Neurology study similarly found that veterans with TBI had suicide rates 56% higher than veterans without it and three times higher than the U.S. adult population. And a Harvard study, funded by SOCOM and published in April, discovered an association between blast exposure and compromised brain function in active-duty commandos. The greater the exposure, the researchers found, the more health problems were reported.

Studies on the Shelf

Over the last two decades, the Defense Department has, in fact, spent millions of dollars on suicide prevention research. According to the recent Pentagon study of soldiers’ deaths at their own hands, the “Army implements various initiatives that evaluate, identify, and track high-risk individuals for suicidal behavior and other adverse outcomes.” Unfortunately (though Osama bin Laden would undoubtedly have been pleased), the military has a history of not taking suicide prevention seriously.

While the Navy, for example, officially mandated that a suicide hotline for veterans must be accessible from the homepage of every Navy website, an internal audit found that most of the pages reviewed were not in compliance. In fact, according to a 2022 investigation by The Intercept, the audit showed that 62% of the 58 Navy homepages did not comply with that service’s regulations for how to display the link to the Veterans Crisis Line.

The New York Times recently investigated the death of Army Specialist Austin Valley and discovered gross suicide prevention deficiencies. Having just arrived at an Army base in Poland from Fort Riley, Kansas, Valley texted his parents, “Hey mom and dad I love you it was never your fault,” before taking his own life. The Times found that “mental-health care providers in the Army are beholden to brigade leadership and often fail to act in the best interest of soldiers.” There are, for example, only about 20 mental-health counselors available to care for the more than 12,000 soldiers at Fort Riley, according to the Times. As a result, soldiers like Valley can wait weeks or even months for care.

The Army claims it’s working to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental health support, but the Times found that “unit leadership often undermines some of its most basic safety protocols.” This is a long-running issue in the military. The study of Special Operations suicides that I revealed in the Times found that suicide prevention training was seen as a “check in the box.” Special operators believed their careers would be negatively impacted if they sought treatment.

Last year, a Pentagon suicide-prevention committee called attention to lax rules on firearms, high operational tempos, and the poor quality of life on military bases as potential problems for the mental health of troops. M. David Rudd, a clinical psychologist and the director of the National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Memphis, told to the Times that the Pentagon report echoed many other analyses produced since 2008. “My expectation,” he concluded, “is that this study will sit on a shelf just like all the others, unimplemented.”

Bin Laden’s Triumph

On May 2, 2011, Navy SEALs attacked a residential compound in Pakistan and gunned down Osama bin Laden. “For us to be able to definitively say, ‘We got the man who caused thousands of deaths here in the United States and who had been the rallying point for a violent extremist jihad around the world’ was something that I think all of us were profoundly grateful to be a part of,” President Barack Obama commented afterward. In reality, the deaths “here in the United States” have never ended. And the war that bin Laden kicked off in 2001 — a global conflict that still grinds on today — ushered in an era in which SEALs, soldiers, and other military personnel have continued to die by their own hands at an escalating rate.

The suicides of U.S. military personnel have been blamed on a panoply of reasons, including military culture, ready access to firearms, high exposure to trauma, excessive stress, the rise of improvised explosive devices, repeated head trauma, an increase in traumatic brain injuries, the Global War on Terror’s protracted length, and even the American public’s disinterest in their country’s post-9/11 wars.

During 20-plus years of armed interventions by the country that still prides itself on being the Earth’s sole superpower, U.S. military missions have been repeatedly upended across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa including a sputtering stalemate in Somalia, an intervention-turned-blowback-engine in Libya, and outright implosions in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the peoples of those countries have suffered the most, U.S. troops have also been caught in that maelstrom of America’s making.

Bin Laden’s dream of luring American troops into a meat-grinder war on “Muslim soil” never quite came to pass. Compared to previous conflicts like the Second World War, Korean, and Vietnam wars, U.S. battlefield casualties in the Greater Middle East and Africa have been relatively modest. But bin Laden’s prediction of “wooden boxes and coffins” filled with the “bodies of American troops” nonetheless came true in its own fashion.

“This Department’s most precious resource is our people. Therefore, we must spare no effort in working to eliminate suicide within our ranks,” wrote Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a public memo released last year. “One loss to suicide is too many.” But as with its post-9/11 wars and interventions, the U.S. military’s effort to stem suicides has come up distinctly short. And like the losses, stalemates, and fiascos of that grim war on terror, the fallout has been more suffering and death. Bin Laden is, of course, long dead, but the post-9/11 parade of U.S. corpses continues. The unanticipated toll of suicides by troops and veterans — four times the number of war-on-terror battlefield deaths — has become another Pentagon failure and bin Laden’s enduring triumph.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch and a fellow at the Type Media Center.

26 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vijay Prashad

Caracas.

On July 28, the people of Venezuela will go to the polls to conduct the sixth presidential election since the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. The two previous elections (2013 and 2018) were won by Nicolás Maduro Moros, the incumbent president. Maduro is running for a third term that will begin in 2025 and run for six years. He is leading a vast alliance of left and democratic parties that have united to defend the Bolivarian revolution, which has been ongoing for almost 25 years.

Maduro has had to lead both Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolutionary process since the death of Hugo Chávez, the legendary figure who broke the oligarchy’s stranglehold on Venezuela’s politics. He has done so since the collapse of oil prices in 2015 as well as the increased suffocation by the United States to destroy the Bolivarian agenda. No doubt, Maduro has one of the toughest jobs on the planet, having to succeed the charismatic Chávez and steer the ship in the turbulent waters created by the United States. By all accounts, Maduro will prevail on Sunday, largely because of the abominable character of the opposition.

The Far Right’s Terrible Candidate

Maduro faces Edmundo González Urrutia, the candidate of the far right. González is portrayed as a grandfatherly figure, although he is only 13 older than Maduro (born in 1962, while González was born in 1949). This image of González as an abuelo (grandfather) masks his more ferocious political project and his background. González leads the Unitary Platform, which was created in 2021 by Juan Guaidó. It is worth recalling that Guaidó was the politician plucked from obscurity by the United States to become a pretender president in 2019 (following a blueprint that had succeeded for the United States in Ukraine when the United States government placed Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk into the prime minister’s office in Ukraine).

The Unitary Platform, or PU in its Spanish acronym, brings together the politicians of the far right who have been funded and trained by the United States (such as María Corina Machado and Leopoldo Eduardo López Mendoza). Privately, members of the PU say that they cannot win an election in Venezuela; despite the privations caused by the U.S.-imposed sanctions, the grip of Chavismo on the masses is indelible. That is why people like Corina Machado and López lean on the United States to bring its arsenal to bear against Venezuela, a treasonous position that has them barred from the electoral process.

That is why PU has selected González to be its candidate, but during the campaign, there has been no real alternative project to Chavismo put forward by González or his surrogates. Indeed, their only claim is that they are not Maduro and that they would be able to improve the economy by surrendering to the U.S. demands. González has largely obscured his own past, which has been buried behind claims that he was merely a diplomat. Those who remember his tenure as an embassy official in El Salvador have different things to say about this grandfatherly figure. In July 1981, González was dispatched to the Venezuelan embassy in El Salvador, where he worked directly under Ambassador Leopoldo Castillo. During his time, there—Colombian diplomat María Catalina Restrepo Pinzón de Londoño reports—he worked with the death squads against leftwing guerrillas. One of these guerrilla leaders, Nadia Díaz, recalls in her autobiography (Nunca estuve sola) that when she was in prison there were Venezuelan men among her torturers. Díaz does not say that González directly tortured her, but certainly, he was among those who participated in the campaign. Such is the character of the “grandfatherly” figure who is the candidate of the far right against Maduro.

The Weight of the Sanctions

A study in the Washington Post finds that the United States government is currently enforcing illegal, unilateral sanctions against a third of the countries in the world, with 60 percent of the poorer nations under sanction. These U.S. sanctions, first applied in 2005 to overthrow the government of Hugo Chávez, define the Venezuelan economy. At one time, the Venezuelan state relied upon the oil revenues for 90 percent of its own finances. In mid-2014, the oil boom ended with the collapse of oil prices, which was amplified by the increased U.S. sanctions and threats of armed attack against Venezuela. The impact of secondary sanctions against financial institutions and shipping companies dried up Venezuela’s revenues and pushed the state to emergency measures in order to maintain the basic requirements of the Bolivarian project.

During several visits between 2014 and 2024, I have been struck both by the vicious impact of the sanctions and by the political mobilization of the Maduro government to explain the situation to the people. The privations caused enormous distress, which led to decreased nutritional intake and mass migration. I was in Caracas in February 2021 when UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan gave a press conference on the impact of the sanctions. Her findings in a press conference were plainly stated: “Lack of necessary machinery, spare parts, electricity, water, fuel, gas, food and medicine, growing insufficiency of qualified workers many of whom have left the country for better economic opportunities, in particular medical personnel, engineers, teachers, professors, judges, and policemen, has enormous impact over all categories of human rights, including the rights to life, to food, to health, and to development.” The situation since 2021 has improved, largely due to the October 2023 Barbados Agreement signed between the Venezuelan government and the opposition, and by the entry of other countries (such as China, Iran, Russia, and Turkey) into trade with Venezuela. But the road ahead is difficult and long.

The sanctions define this election. If the elections are seen as fair, then the Barbados Agreement might lead to the loosening of the sanctions by the U.S. The United States would like more Venezuelan oil to get into the market not to help the Venezuelan people, but to provide energy to Europe given the sanctions on Russia. But there are far too many contradictions at play here. The U.S. will certainly deny the legitimacy of the elections if Maduro wins and allow the sanctions to prevent Venezuelan oil from providing relief to the Europeans. During the 2020 presidential elections, sanctions played the leading role. They continue to be the main issue on the ballot.

Maduro’s campaign rallies have been effusive. The Chavistas cheer him, their red shirts sparkling with sweat under the warm Venezuelan skies. “We will prevail,” says the former bus driver, whose humorous speeches are defiant. There is no evasion here. Maduro is clear: Venezuela is being put to the test. Will the Venezuelan people continue the Bolivarian process or will they U-turn to the terrible past of the oligarchy?

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

26 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: An earlier version of thiss Open Letter to Kamala Harris was published by CounterPunch on July 23, 2024;  so many developments have occurred in recent days as to make this longer version seem justifiable.]

An Open Letter to Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, July 2024

These is every reason to be glad that Joe Biden finally acted responsibly by withdrawing his candidacy for a second term. It should have happened weeks earlier. To consider this overdue act ‘brave’ and ‘courageous’ is to rob those precious words of their proper meaning. Withdrawal was a pragmatic move forced upon Biden by mounting pressures from the leadership of the Democratic Party and the insistence of a large majority of potential voters.

It is certainly true that Trump and his Republican base repeatedly lie about their achievements and the failings of their opponents, yet it is time to admit that the exaggerations and selective self-congratulations of the Democratic Party are only a degree less deceptive from the perspective of meaningful political communication in self-respecting democracies. Exaggerations are best understood as ‘soft lies’ and are integral to the style of post-truth political discourse.  They should not be excused by such phrases as ‘that’s the way of politics.’

Biden, and so far, Kamala Harris, neither defend nor apologize for a foreign policy that has repudiated diplomacy in the Ukraine context and made no secret of its complicity in supporting Israel’s violent assault on the entire civilian population of Gaza that much of the rest of the world views as a transparent and severe instance of the crime of crimes, genocide. And this seems also reflects the implicit views of the International Court of Justice, including the American judge, in its preliminary and interim responses to the well-presented legal arguments of the South African team in The Hague on why Israel is violating the Genocide Convention and needs to be stopped.

Against this background, should not Democrats, and Americans generally reasonably expect more forthrightness from Harris before heeding unity pleas tied tightly to urgent pleas for yet more campaign donations? What Biden and Harris said in their comments on Biden’s decision to withdraw and call for support of the current VP is worth reflecting upon. This is especially so in view of the foregrounding of controversy during Netanyahu’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress, which were highlighted by bipartisan standing ovations with the hallowed halls, while on the streets near the Capital large hostile demonstrations led by Jewish Voices for Peace were seeking Netanyahu’s arrest for crimes rather than for applause for the world to witness.

At least, Harris absented herself from the Congressional appearance of Netanyahu, and limited herself to a private courtesy meeting in the White House entire separated from Biden’s welcoming of Netanyahu.

################

Biden’s words in his official letter announcing his withdrawal are best reflected upon in this wider political framing:

“My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats—it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

This statement is pretty much boiler plate for such occasions, although it would have been better appreciated if it had included some affirmation of Kamala Harris as having a bold independent, intelligent, compassionate voice that made her counsel so valuable during these past four years. Instead, Biden leaves a dominant impression that Harris performed so admirably because she did such a good job in implementing his policy agenda. Now all Americans will have an opportunity to listen to what Kamala Harris has to say on her own behalf. She is unquestionably an outstanding experienced public servant but to earn broad support beyond her appeal as not being ‘not Trump’ (or Vance) depends on expressing her vison of what presidential leadership should aspire to be at this critical stage in the country’s evolution. The Harris/Trump epic contest this November is shaping up to be one of the most vitally important presidential elections in the country’s 248 years of existence.

In accepting Biden’s endorsement and committing herself to seeking the presidency Kamala Harris’s words are for my taste too much in the spirit of presenting herself to the voting public as Biden 2.0: Of course, this is what a vice president is supposed to do while in service, but at this stage, Harris is uniquely challenged to be simultaneously Biden Vice President until his term ends in January 2025 and to make a distinct case for herself as the next leader of the country. In effect, this amounts to asking Harris to give strong hints as to her views on foreign policy, especially if they significantly different from those of Biden is to be in an impossible position. It is not to be expected that Harris makes explicit note of such differences as that would be divisive given

the circumstances associated with having been Biden’s loyal junior partner during these four years of his presidency.

Her words on accepting Biden’s endorsement of her candidacy are probably neither better nor worse than could be expected given such he sensitive situation.

“I am running to be President of the United States.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside our Commander-in-Chief, my friend, President Joe Biden – one of the finest public servants we will ever know. And I am honored to have his support and endorsement. [emphasis in original]

“And I am eager to run on the record of what Joe and I have accomplished together. We built our country back after our predecessor left it in shambles – making historic progress in upgrading our nation’s infrastructure, fighting climate change, and more. We are stronger today because we took action – together – to invest in America’s future.”

The language is a gracious expression of her experience while serving as VP, but also again it manages nothing revealing about Harris’ worldview beyond her embedded commitment to carry on the work as VP during the remainder of the Biden presidency, which is to be judged as compiling a record to be assessed by its positive impacts on the lives of Americans, conveying an image of US foreign policy being so bipartisan that is not worth talking about, or more truthfully because both its defense and critique would be divisive. The Democratic Party is badly split with regard to its attitude toward complicity with the Israeli perpetrators of criminal policies and practices in Gaza, including those that are parallel yet apart from the genocide issue, On July 19 the ICJ pronounced by a near unanimous majority of the 15 judges who issued a decision on Israel’s multiply wrongful occupation of Gaza and drew the legal conclusion that Israel should be required to depart from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as quickly as possible. Although the decision is within the ICJ category of ‘Advisory Opinions’ it sets forth an authoritative determination of the international law issues and their consequences, including the ICJ insistence that Israel, all States, and the UN itself implements its extremely far reaching rulings. [“Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Isael in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Including East Jerusalem,” 19 July 2024].

It is possible that Kamala Harris, who admirably acknowledged in declaring her candidacy that she must earn the nomination not merely inherit it as a Biden final bequest, will give a forthright speech to the American people that exhibits some measure of independence, and abandons the incredible stance of Democratic Party nominees to be silent this year about the world out there beyond American borders at a time when the US role has never been more controversially intrusive. Surely, Biden’s frequent claims that America is in the best position of any country to provide global leadership, a view widely contested outside the West, deserve either a reasoned reaffirmation or, more appropriately, a prudent modification that is sensitive to criticisms and failures as it is boastful about achievements.

Aside from her double identity as VP and presidential candidate, Harris has a great opportunity to speak in her own voice, and not just channel the Biden record, but will she seize it? Looking back at her autobiography, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, I was encouraged by the pride she took in being part of an activist family of color dedicated to progressive causes while growing into adulthood, including activist opposition to the Vietnam War and almost daily engagement in the civil rights movement. And even during her semi-obligatory downplayed meeting in the White House with Netanyahu, she seemed to distance herself from the mindless immorality of Israel’s behavior in Gaza since October 7. Since March she has been more forthright that Biden in supporting a war-ending ceasefire.

Also, encouraging are her rumored intention to replace the foreign policy team of Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan that have served as such mediocre Biden international ideologues, especially Blinken whose startling ignorance of international affairs and excessive embrace of Israel have not served well the country or the Democratic Party. Perhaps, Democratic Party incredible silence amid engagement in two controversial and dangerous wars was after all a clever tactical diversion of attention from the world scene to domestic realities.

Harris can bring enthusiasm to her candidacy by talking about reinvigorating US commitments peace and justice in the world. Her choice of a running mate, promised by August 7 will be one opportunity for a fresh start, particularly is she has the political and moral wisdom to pass over Josh Shapiro who has been in the Biden camp on Israel, and hostile to pro-Palestinian campus activism.

In closing, I should acknowledge that despite the deplorable prospect of a second Trump term made worse by an awareness that JD Vance would then be a heartbeat away from presidential leadership, I had substantive reservations about supporting Biden/Harris, despite appreciating much of their domestic record, because of their foreign policy. It posed for me, to put it bluntly, an unwelcome choice between a warmonger and a mentally unstable incipient fascist. I confess to nightmares that this is still my choice, or and not yet sure whether Harris will make the fundamental adjustments in governance that might at least restore US credentials as first among the world’s ‘liberal democracies.’

I should also add that I was disappointed by the domestic failure of the Biden/Harrris presidency to do more to protect the academic freedom of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses and elsewhere. and by the related refusal to take responsibility for protecting all its students, and not just Jewish students as beneficiaries of donor interferences with the integrity of America’s once proud centers of higher education. One result has been to lead such institutions to take punitive action against foreign, especially Muslim, students who dare express their pro-Palestinian sentiments by way of civic activism.

As many Americans are assessing the highly objectionable Netanyahu visit to Washington during this past week, it is a time to elevate the electoral dialogue not only at the presidential level but also in relation to the many important Congressional contests. This unfortunate display of perverse diplomacy will also test Harris’ composure in her role as Vice President, whether to exhibit politeness but refrain from an ideological embrace of a foreign leader with a scandalous record, and from early accounts she seems to have handled the political delicacies of the situation in an encouragingly skillful manner.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years.

26 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Press Release

Mr Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal
President
Institute of Chartered Accounts of India
ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi 700 002

Subject: Feminists in Resistance (FIR) condemns the shamefully misogynistic, terrifying, discriminatory, regressive attitude of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to its fellow female students, members, fellows, colleagues and staff

Sir,

Feminists in Resistance (FIR), a feminist group based in Kolkata, in unequivocal terms strongly condemns the extremely painful, shamefully misogynistic, terrifying, discriminatory and regressive attitude towards its female students, members, fellows, colleagues and staff.

FIR draws your attention towards the shameful incident that happened in your presence, on the first day of International Conference for CA Students held during 22^nd and 23^rd June of this year in Kolkata with over 3,600 participants. At the inaugural event, all women present in the hall, were asked to vacate the first five rows of the hall at the demand of the Chief Guest Swami Gyanvatsalya from BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir. As is reported, the Swami threatened to leave if his demand is not met.

By denying the presence and visibility of women in the hall in the presence of the Swami, the ICAI has violated their Right to Equality, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. Provisions related to this right contained in Articles 14 to 18 form the basis ofjustice and equality in society. These provisions give them the right of equal treatment, and of not being discriminated on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Meeting such a highly discriminatory, regressive, and  misogynistic, demand by a 75-year-old statutory body like ICAI, that boasts of having 43% female CA members amongst a total of nearly 4,00,000 CA members is, if not an insult to all, definitely an insult to its 43% female community. The frantic announcement on the mike for all the female event organizers, volunteers, and attendees, to disappear from the sight of Swami by vacating the prominent front rows shows the real face of ICAI that claims to work for equality and respect.

It is not the first time the Swami has made such  demands. In 2020, he left an event without delivering his speech after seeing women in the front row. The incident was handled with greater dignity, and the pride of women was not compromised. In contrast, the acquiescence to his unreasonable demand by ICAI is highly condemnable.

Known in the public domain as a life coach and eminent motivational speaker, Swami  Gyanvatsalya apparently gives inspiring talks on personal development, spirituality, and social issues. His views and aspirations for social reform seem to rest on making women invisible, and an outright denial of women’s contribution to the social and economic life and activity of the society we live in. It is, therefore, alarming that the ICAI made such a man the Chief Guest of the ceremony without any background check or for that matter, that the ICAI has no views of its own.

At the ceremony the Swami spoke about making India ‘Viksit’ and ‘Viswaguru’ by 2024. And you, Mr President, yourself highlighted the increasing number of Women Chartered Accountants in India, despite proudly claiming that one in every three members of ICAI is female; ironically it was the same women that you removed from the front rows of the session from the big all-male stage.

In abiding by the Swami’s demand, the ICAI too is complicit in encouraging discriminatory practices and pushing back women whose entry into the public domain, and especially in male-dominated professions, is beginning to scale new heights in recent years, be it engineering, chartered accountancy, civil services or the navy or air force. It is also to be noted that such an event is happening in a professional arena that is seeing, and takes pride in, the steady increase in women’s participation. A 2024 Economic Times report states that from an 8% increase in women membership in ICAI in 2000, the increase today is nearly 30%.

Institutions like the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), an educated and informed professional body, are seen bending down to the diktats of Hindu spiritual leaders. This deference to the Chief Guest demonstrates the valorisation of misogyny that comes from the Manusmriti, which is also becoming apparent in other educational and professional institutions.

As a group of feminist workers, students, homemakers, and professionals,  Feminists in Resistance (FIR) is deeply concerned by the ongoing entrenchment of patriarchal practices in the backdrop of the rising Hindu majoritarian politics, whose goal of a Hindu Rashtra rests on the exclusion of women, Dalits, Adivasis, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and people from all marginalised communities.

The assault on marginalized communities does not stop at religious minorities.  The politics of exclusion are permeating across large sections of society, and women are also getting affected as their entry and participation in public life is antithetical to the ethos of Hindu Rashtra. The BJP and its allies, which form  the current ruling party in the Centre, are guided by the same  valorisation of misogyny, resulting in the reversal of the hard-won rights of women over the years.

Mr President, your silence is a new low for women’s empowerment in India. Society demands much more from people like you, the torchbearers of progress, than stoic silence.  Feminists  in Resistance demands a public apology, and an assurance that such an incident will not occur in future, under any circumstance whatsoever.

Dr Nisha Biswas

(Feminists in Resistance)

24 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ralph Nader

Unless the GOP in Congress has a last-minute rethinking, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will enjoy his record-setting fourth address to a Joint Session of Congress on July 24, 2024. Scores of Democrats are boycotting the event. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Netanyahu is committing mass murders and war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, most of them children and women, blowing up their crucial life-saving facilities, and wounding the survivors rendered homeless and defenseless against Biden-provided deadly weapons.

Netanyahu’s first address to Congress was on July 10, 1996, when a younger Netanyahu promised to end U.S. aid to a prosperous Israel and received a standing ovation. He obviously has broken this promise, as his U.S. lobbies have demanded tens of billions of more U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Netanyahu’s third address to Congress on March 3, 2015 bypassed then-President Barack Obama in an arrogant breach of protocol. The supine Congress gave him many standing ovations.

The push for Netanyahu’s forthcoming address was spearheaded by the fanatic GOP House Speaker Michael Johnson (R-La.) who easily politically intimidated House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) into going along.

Johnson’s invitation has outraged many Israelis—majorities of whom despise Netanyahu, who is under indictment by Israeli prosecutors for corruption and because of his attacks on the judiciary and destruction of their protest rights.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNN regarding the invitation to Netanyahu, “I think this is wrong.” Hundreds of House and Senate staffers are signing petitions urging Democratic lawmakers to protest or boycott it. The staffers pointed to “bombings of schools, hospitals, and mosques” and a “campaign of mass starvation against Palestinian children” in addition to censoring media coverage of the devastation.

Noting that world opinion is overwhelmingly against Netanyahu’s genocidal war on Gaza, the staffers’ letter emphasized that “Israelis have been protesting in the streets for months, decrying his failure to negotiate a cease-fire and release of hostages.”

An outstanding affirmation of these sentiments by congressional staff came on June 26, 2024 in an op-ed in The New York Times by six very prominent Israelis, including a former prime minister, titled “We Are Israelis Calling on Congress to Disinvite Netanyahu.” It is pertinent to present an excerpt from this urgent dispatch, as follows:

WE ARE ISRAELIS CALLING ON CONGRESS TO DISINVITE NETANYAHU

By David Harel, Tamir Pardo, Talia Sasson, Ehud Barak, Aaron Ciechanover, and David Grossman

The leaders of the U.S. Congress have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives on July 24. Normally, we Israelis would consider the invitation recognition of our two nations’ shared values and a welcome gesture from our closest friend and ally, to whom we are deeply and morally indebted.

But Congress has made a terrible mistake. Mr. Netanyahu’s appearance in Washington will not represent the State of Israel and its citizens, and it will reward his scandalous and destructive conduct toward our country.

We come from a variety of areas of Israeli society: science, technology, politics, defense, law, and culture. We are thus in a good position to assess the overall effect of Mr. Netanyahu’s government, and like many, we believe that he is driving Israel downhill at an alarming speed, to the extent that we may eventually lose the country we love.

To date, Mr. Netanyahu has failed to come up with a plan to end the war in Gaza and has been unable to gain the freedom of scores of hostages. At the very least, an invitation to address Congress should have been contingent upon resolving these two issues and, in addition, calling for new elections in Israel.

Inviting Mr. Netanyahu will reward his contempt for U.S. efforts to establish a peace plan, allow more aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza, and do a better job of sparing civilians. Time and again, he has rejected President Joe Biden’s plan to remove Hamas from power in Gaza through the establishment of a peacekeeping force. Such a move would very likely bring in its wake a far broader regional alliance, including a vision to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is not only in Israel’s interest but also in the interest of both political parties in the United States. Mr. Netanyahu constitutes the main obstacle to these outcomes.

The man who will address Congress next month has failed to assume responsibility for the blunders that allowed the Hamas assault, initially blaming security chiefs (then quickly backtracking), and has yet to announce the establishment of a direly needed state commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge to look into the fiasco.
…..
Above all, many Israelis are convincedthat Mr. Netanyahu has obstructed proposed deals with Hamas that would have led to the release of the hostages in order to keep the war going and thus avoid the inevitable political reckoning he will face when it ends.
…..
For months now, many of us have participated in nationwide demonstrations demanding an immediate release of the hostages, an end to the war, and immediate elections. Polls of Israelis show that a majority want immediate elections, or elections right at the end of the war.

A large portion of Israelis have lost faith in Mr. Netanyahu’s government.
…..
That’s where Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress fits in with his political needs. No doubt it will be carefully stage-managed to prop up his shaky hold on power and allow him to boast to his constituents about America’s so-called support for his failed policies.

His supporters in Israel will be emboldened by his appearance in Congress to insist that the war continue, which will further distance any deal to secure the release of the hostages, including several U.S. citizens.

Giving Mr. Netanyahu the stage in Washington will all but dismiss the rage and pain of his people, as expressed in the demonstrations throughout the country. American lawmakers should not let that happen. They should ask Mr. Netanyahu to stay home.

This full communication to the American people can be seen either inThe New York Times or the Congressional Record of July 11, 2024.

There will be mass protests outside Congress on July 24 by Jewish Voice for Peace, CodePink, Veterans for Peace, and other civic groups. But there would be a great benefit for boycotters like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Progressive House Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) to secure a House Committee Room and invite, via Zoom, these six leading Israelis to testify before the media on the same day. These messages could reach the grisly, complicit architects of this disgraceful defamation of the Peoples’ Legislature more than the bullhorns of the upstanding peaceful protesters kept far away by the security police.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of “The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future” (2012).

24 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

About 400 Jewish-American activists are currently, Tuesday, inside one of the buildings of the US Congress in Capitol Hill protesting the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington.

Netanyahu is said to address both houses of Congress in a joint session on Wednesday. Already some Congressmen like Bernie Sanders said they would be boycotting the affair.

[https://twitter.com/MotazSaleh2001/status/1815833344875323883]

The activists want the US to stop arming Israel to carry on with its genocidal war in Gaza that is now in its 10^th month.

[https://twitter.com/xrayastroh/status/1815832149830033467]

With banners like “Let Gaza Live”  and “Jews Say Stop Arming Israel”, the activists are making their voices heard by chanting “free Palestine”, “not in our name” and “stop the genocide.”

They are being surrounded by a Capitol police force contingent.

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1815839162207199669]

Meanwhile Palestinian-American lawmaker Rashida Tlaib slammed Netanyahu’s visit as “utterly disgraceful”.

[https://twitter.com/MiddleEastMnt/status/1815838834338275401]

“Netanyahu is a war criminal committing genocide against the Palestinian people. It is utterly disgraceful that leaders from both parties have invited him to address Congress.

“He should be arrested and sent to the International Criminal Court,” she said, according to Andolu.

Tlaib said the US has provided more than $141 billion in weapons to Israel to “fund the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” since 1948, including $17.9 billion since October according to the Turkish news agency.

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

24 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jake Johnson

Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested inside a U.S. House building on Tuesday while protesting the American government’s continued support for Israel’s assault on Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s forthcoming speech to Congress.

The protest was led by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and joined by members of several other organizations, including IfNotNow, Democratic Socialists of America, and Shoresh, a group of anti-Zionist Israelis based in the U.S.

JVP said 400 protesters—including more than a dozen rabbis—were arrested at the peaceful sit-in at the Cannon House Office Building rotunda. Protesters wore shirts that read “Not in Our Name” and “Jews Say Stop Arming Israel.”

“For nine months, we’ve watched in horror as the Israeli government has carried out a genocide, armed and funded by the U.S.,” said Stefanie Fox, JVP’s executive director. “Congress and the Biden administration have the power to end this horror today. Instead, our president is preparing to meet with Netanyahu and congressional leadership has honored him with an invitation to address Congress. Enough is enough.”

President Joe Biden and Congress “must listen to the people,” Fox added. “We need an arms embargo now to save lives.”

Jane Hirschmann, a daughter of Holocaust survivors and member of JVP, said that “the Israeli government is using U.S. funding and weapons to slaughter and starve Palestinians in Gaza.”

“Americans—including Jewish Americans—are disgusted by our own government’s complicity in this genocide,” said Hirschmann. “The only way to reach a cease-fire and build a just future is for the U.S. to stop sending weapons to Israel now.”

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, D.C. comes as the death toll from Israel’s large-scale assault on Gaza nears 40,000 after almost 10 months of relentless bombing that has decimated much of the enclave’s infrastructure and displaced 90% of its population. Earlier this week, Israel’s military ordered the evacuation of another area previously designated as a safe zone and killed dozens of Palestinians in a fresh round of attacks.

Netanyahu has addressed Congress more than any other world leader. As The Washington Post‘s Ishaan Tharoor noted Wednesday, “The first time Netanyahu addressed Congress was nearly three decades ago in 1996, when he and his right-wing allies had just come to power in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, whose efforts toward forging peace with the Palestinians that Netanyahu had opposed.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) formally invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint meeting of Congress in late May, just days after it became clear that Israeli forces used U.S.-made bombs in a devastating attack on a camp of displaced Palestinians.

“It is utterly shameful that U.S. lawmakers would invite war criminal Netanyahu to address Congress,” JVP communications director Sonya Meyerson-Knox said in a statement after Tuesday’s protest. “We are hundreds of American Jews calling on our elected leaders to stop funding and fueling this genocide.”

In addition to grassroots protests against Netanyahu’s visit—which are set to continue ahead of and during his speech—dozens of Democratic lawmakers are planning to boycott the prime minister’s address, which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Following his speech to Congress, Netanyahu is planning to meet with President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday before traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to become the Democratic presidential nominee following Biden’s exit from the 2024 race, has opted to attend a previously scheduled event in Indianapolis instead of presiding over Netanyahu’s remarks.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), one of the progressive lawmakers boycotting Netanyahu’s speech, said in a statement Tuesday that “by bestowing Prime Minister Netanyahu with a joint address, Congress is not only continuing to green-light genocide; it is actively celebrating the man at the forefront of that genocide.”

“Instead of platforming a war criminal, Congress should be imposing an arms embargo and using its leverage to force Netanyahu to end the bombing and bloodshed that has already killed over 39,000 Palestinians and failed to ensure the safe release of the vast majority of hostages, all while decimating schools, hospitals, homes, and humanitarian convoys,” Bush added.

In remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also called Netanyahu a war criminal and said it is a “disgrace” that he was invited to speak to Congress.

“Netanyahu is a right-wing extremist and a war criminal who has devoted his career to killing the prospects of a two-state solution and lasting peace in the region,” said Sanders. “He should not be welcomed to the United States Congress. On the contrary, his policies in Gaza and the West Bank should be roundly condemned and his right-wing extremist government should not receive another nickel from U.S. taxpayers.”

Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

24 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jonathan Kuttab

It was an amazing sight, in these difficult times, to witness tens of thousands of protesters from all religions and no religion flooding the streets of Washington D.C. to declare their opposition to Netanyahu’s visit. However, one of the greatest signs of hope was seeing hundreds of Jewish protesters in the congressional rotunda standing against the visit and their willingness to be arrested in response. These protesters boldly called for an end to the fighting in Gaza, for an end to all military aid to Israel, and for the arrest of Netanyahu as a war criminal, risking much to send their message to the country. This is not just a powerful political statement nor a risky act of civil disobedience, but it displays a brave willingness to risk angering, alienating, or even severing relationships with family, friends and others in their community who support the immoral policies of Israel. They were also protesting, as Jews, out of the ethical and moral convictions of their faith. They were showing, by word and deed, that indeed Judaism and Zionism are not the same. They showed that they reject the claims of Netanyahu and the assertion that Zionim speaks on behalf of all Jews, that the oppression of Palestinians is a Jewish imperative.

To take such a position on moral grounds and the willingness to break with one’s community is the height of morality, a true prophetic stance. I salute those in Jewish Voice for Peace, Not in Our Name, If Not Now, Rabbis for Ceasefire, and other Jewish groups as a true beacon of light, genuine allies, and a true sign of hope for a future of coexistence and camaraderie between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Israelis (and their friends) in the Holy Land and abroad. Together we can boldly stand against anti-Jewish bigotry, against Islamophobia, against anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bigotry, and proclaim the possibility of a better future for all based on justice and equality.

This distinction between Jewishness and Zionism can sometimes be hard to make, even for Palestinians, when Israel proclaims by word and deed that it favors Jews, Jewish rights and Jewish lives over the rights and lives of non-Jews. When racist laws are passed that clearly favor Jews in Palestine/Israel over non-Jewish Palestinians—when even an Israeli Minister of Culture says, “I am proud of what we are doing in Gaza. I want a Palestinian child 80 years from now to remember what Jews did here in Gaza.” To keep in mind that she and Netanyahu and the state of Israel, in their Jewish supremacy, do not speak for Jews or for Judaism is a difficult but absolutely necessary step. The Jewish protesters help us and the rest of the world keep that distinction in mind, countering the noxious fires of anti-Jewish bigotry and antisemitism.

By contrast, we witnessed this week the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of members of Congress, who showed sickening servility by loudly applauding and giving 52 standing ovations to a war criminal who is actively carrying out genocide, whose policies are wreaking havoc not only on the lives of Palestinians in Gaza but also on Israelis and the prospects of peace. The applause and standing ovations in response to tepid, patently false, and morally reprehensible statements can only be justified by the fact that they are selling their souls for the money and influence of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), CUFI (Christians United for Israel), and the ghoulish opportunism of the military-industrial machine. This is true, particularly since many of them privately detest Netanyahu and oppose his reckless policies. In the past, some have even publicly opposed him and expressed the desire that he be replaced. Yet, they spring up and down like yoyos in the hands of a puppeteer. This was particularly noticeable when Netanyahu chided them, ordering them not to applaud at one of his sentences when applause was clearly inappropriate, as if to tell them, “I am your master, and you will applaud when I tell you to do so.”

As I listened to the speech and observed the nauseating standing ovations, I could not recall such a display of servility even in authoritarian regimes. One tweet mentioned that even Kim Jong Un of Northern Korea, whose brutal regime actively promotes a personality cult around the leader, only receives one standing ovation every four minutes in his speeches before North Korean audiences. Perhaps hypocrisy, double standards, and a lack of moral integrity is part and parcel of the job of politicians, and I should not be surprised. But the level to which many of these politicians have descended is truly appalling. I need to constantly remind myself of those in public life who still maintain some semblance of integrity, like the many Democratic congresspersons who boycotted the speech, and the solitary and truly brave Republican, Thomas Massie (R-KY) who did so. I am amazed by the tens of thousands of protesters who shut down Washington D.C., but I am especially thankful for my Jewish siblings who restore my faith in humanity and keep my hope alive.

26 July 2024

Source: fosna.org

By Ibrahim Hoope

Muslim civil rights group also demands that Biden administration address Israel’s ‘racist’ policy of excluding U.S. doctors of Palestinian heritage

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed a letter to President Biden by U.S. medical personnel who volunteered to treat victims of the Israeli genocide in Gaza demanding an arms embargo over “unbearable cruelty” inflicted by Israel.

That letter to Biden, first lady Jill Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris from 45 doctors and nurses said they saw evidence of widespread war crimes using US-supplied weapons and described the “massive human toll from Israel’s attack on Gaza, especially the toll it has taken on women and children.” It asked the Biden administration to “withhold military, economic, and diplomatic support from the State of Israel.”

“Every single signatory to this letter treated children in Gaza who suffered violence that must have been deliberately directed at them. Specifically, every one of us on a daily basis treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head,” it stated.

It concluded: “Every day that we continue supplying weapons and munitions to Israel is another day that women are shredded by our bombs and children are murdered with our bullets.”

SEE: US medics who volunteered in Gaza demand arms embargo over ‘unbearable cruelty’ inflicted by Israel – The Guardian

[NOTE: Earlier this week, CAIR demanded that the Biden administration address reports that American doctors who volunteered in Gaza experienced treating “incinerated” and “shredded” children, including children deliberately shot in the chest and head by Israeli snipers.]

CAIR also called on the Biden administration to address reports that Israel is applying a racist policy to block American physicians with Palestinian heritage from entering Gaza. According to CNN, “The restrictions block the entry of US healthcare workers, and those of other nationalities, if they are of Palestinian origin or have Palestinian heritage, according to internal memos from the World Health Organization (WHO) obtained by CNN.”

“We welcome this appeal by American medical personnel who have actually treated the victims of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to end the delivery of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons being used to kill and maim so many thousands of civilians, mostly women and children,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “We urge the Biden administration to listen to this principled appeal and to also address the far-right Israel government’s racist policy of denying entry of American medical personnel to Gaza based on their ethnicity.”

He noted that yesterday, CAIR welcomed reports that Britain’s new government will withdraw objections to a possible International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and urged the Biden administration to follow suit. Washington, D.C., based CAIR also condemned lawmakers who applauded Netanyahu’s “racist, delusional, genocidal” address to Congress.

CAIR recently welcomed a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or World Court, that Israel’s settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end.

CAIR’s mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.

La misión de CAIR es proteger las libertades civiles, mejorar la comprensión del Islam, promover la justicia, y empoderar a los musulmanes en los Estados Unidos.

Do you like reading CAIR press releases and taking part in our action alerts? You can help contribute to CAIR’s work of defending civil rights and empowering American Muslims across the country by making a one-time contribution or becoming a monthly donor. Supporters like you make CAIR’s advocacy work possible and defeating Islamophobia an achievable goal. Click here to donate to CAIR.

You are receiving this email due to your interest selection from commercial media databases. If you would like to join CAIR’s media list, please sign up here: https://action.cair.com/a/newsletters — For more information, email: info@cair.com, CC ihooper@cair.com

END

CONTACT: CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, 404-285-9530, e-Mitchell@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Manager Ismail Allison, 202-770-6280, iallison@cair.com

26 July 2024

Source: cair.com