Archives: Articles

David Swanson is the author of “Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union”

http://davidswanson.org

http://warisacrime.org

http://facebook.com/pages/David-Swanson/297768373319

http://twitter.com/davidcnswanson

http://youtube.com/afterdowningstreet

The following exchange between Michael Carriere and Alex Knight occurred via email, July 2010. Alex Knight was questioned about the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway.

This is the third part of a four-part interview. This part is a continuation of Alex’s response to the second question.

Part 2B. Social Limits and the Crisis

MC: Capitalism has faced many moments of crisis over time. Is there something different about the present crisis? What makes the end of capitalism a possibility now?

AK: As I described in the last section, the current crisis can be understood as resulting from a massive collision between capitalism’s relentless need for growth and the world’s limits in capacity to sustain that growth. These limits to growth are both ecological and social. In this section I’ll discuss the concept of social limits to growth.

The Extraordinary Power of Social Movements

Social limits to growth function alongside the ecological limits but are drawn from a different source. By social limits we mean the inability, or unwillingness, of human communities, and humankind as a whole, to support the expansion of capitalism. This broadly includes all forms of resistance to capitalism, a resistance that has arguably been increasing around the world through innumerable forms of alternative lifestyles, refusal to cooperate, protest, and outright rebellion.

As a disclaimer it’s important to recognize that not all resistance is progressive. There are right-wing, fundamentalist, and undemocratic forces that also resist capitalism, for example the Taliban, or North Korea. These are not our allies. They do not share progressive values, we cannot condone their attacks on women, or on freedom more generally, and I don’t see anything to be gained by working with them. However it is important to recognize how these forces are aligned against capitalism, in addition to being aware of the danger they present to our own hopes and dreams.

Progressive resistance, on the other hand, has always taken its strength from grassroots social movements. Silvia Federici writes about the immense and varied peasant movements in medieval Europe that fought for religious and sexual freedom, challenging both feudal lords and emerging capitalist elites. I like to think of these rebels as my European ancestors – they were just commoners but they rose up to fight for a better world. This is the nature of social movements. Ordinary folks, daring to pursue their deepest aspirations, interests and dreams, join together with others who share those desires, and thereby create something extraordinary. The magic exists in the joining-together. Isolated individuals lack the power to accomplish what a group can achieve.

We can appreciate this extraordinary power if we look at how social movements have transformed our lives. A century ago, millions of American workers joined the labor movement and won the 8-hour day, Social Security, and workplace safety. Regular folks carried forward the Civil Rights Movement and broke Southern segregation. The feminist and LGBT movements have transformed the way gender and sexuality are viewed all over the world. It’s hard to overstate how dramatically these and other social movements have improved society. While capitalism has invented ways to co-opt social movements and redirect them into outlets that do not challenge the system on a deep level (like the “non-profit industrial complex”), movements have remained alive and vibrant by empowering people to reach towards a different world.

Have social movements limited capitalist oppression recently? To answer this we need to learn the story of the Global Justice Movement.

Demonstrators tear down a section of security fence in the Mexican resort city of Cancun to confront the World Trade Organization’s Fifth Ministerial summit on Sept. 10, 2003.

The Global Justice Movement

David Graeber, anarchist anthropologist, wrote a remarkable essay called “The Shock of Victory” in which he looks at this movement that suddenly flared up at the turn of the millennium and seemed to disappear just as quickly. Although most Americans may not remember the Global Justice Movement, and those who participated in it may feel demoralized by the fact that capitalism still exists, Graeber points out that many of the movement’s ambitious goals were accomplished.

A decade ago, capitalism was pursuing a strategy to transform the entire world into a single marketplace. It claimed this “globalization” would benefit everyone because everyone would get to share in the spoils of growth. What it really wanted was to extract maximum profit from the cheap labor of the “Global South,” by moving industry and jobs out of high-wage areas like the US, while imposing privatization and debt on the poor countries of the world. This strategy was called “neoliberalism,” because it aimed to eliminate all barriers to trade, such as worker protections or environmental regulations. Multinational corporations would have a bonanza. Like previous rounds of enclosure, the damage these policies would have on poor communities and on the planet was disregarded.

Starting from directly affected communities in places like Mexico, Brazil, India, South Korea and Africa, an enormous network of farmers, workers and educators connected with progressives and anti-capitalists in North America and Europe. They didn’t have a single leader or organization, but they came together as a Global Justice Movement to coordinate efforts and stop the spread of neoliberalism. The movement became visible to the world when it manifested at the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle, where steelworkers, indigenous people, environmentalists, and students literally shut down the trade negotiations with creative civil disobedience.

Along with the WTO, the other main institutions responsible for pushing global neoliberalism were the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The GJM moved to confront all three. “Free trade” agreements such as the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) were also challenged. Through creative protest and non-violent direct action, the movement called into question the dominant story around “free trade” and pointed towards a new world of global cooperation. And to their own surprise, they were incredibly successful.

According to David Graeber, Global South governments (like India and Brazil) were emboldened by the worldwide protest and refused to compromise on the North’s (European and American) unfair agricultural subsidies. As a result the WTO’s negotiations have totally broken down. The FTAA never came into existence at all. It was stopped in its tracks. The IMF and World Bank saw their reputations tarnished after their policies led to the meltdown of the Argentinean economy in 2002, and they are no longer welcome in some parts of the world. This is especially true in Latin America, where the political landscape has completely turned around in the last 10-15 years.

In the 1990s, most of the continent was still under the heel of military dictatorships and authoritarian states, but since then a wave of leftist governments has been swept into power by unprecedented social movements opposed to neoliberalism and U.S. imperialism. For example, in 2005 Bolivia elected their first-ever indigenous president, Evo Morales, who came directly out of the social movement that successfully stopped water privatization in Bolivia. Morales has become a spokesperson for many:

“If you want to save planet Earth, to save life and humanity, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system. If we do not put an end to the capitalist system, it’s impossible to imagine that there will be equality and justice on this planet Earth. This is why I believe that it is important to put an end to the exploitation of human beings, and to put an end to the pillage of natural resources; to put an end to destructive wars for raw materials and the market; to the plundering of energy, especially fossil fuels; excessive consumption of goods and the accumulation of waste.”

We can’t ignore the many difficulties facing Latin America or the Global South as a whole. The situation is still extremely dire, with over a billion people living on the brink of starvation and without access to clean water, and with the U.S. expanding military bases in places like Colombia. And of course leftist governments have their own problems and need to be held accountable just as rightist ones. Regardless, the Global Justice Movement demonstrated that by joining together across borders, opposing injustice and working towards a new world, victories can be achieved. Even victories as dramatic as discrediting the major institutions promoting neoliberal capitalism and the political transformation of an entire continent.

The GJM vanished almost as quickly as it appeared, but as David Graeber points out, this was partially because it met many of its goals so rapidly. With the widespread repudiation of the neoliberal doctrine, the Global Justice Movement provides an inspiring lesson that social movements can and do place limits on capitalism.

Social Limits and the Crisis

Social movements in many countries have been amplified by the economic crisis. Greece has seen massive rebellions in the past 2 years to stop the government from imposing austerity measures like cutting social services. In Iceland, a country not known for its political radicalism, huge protests in response to the country’s bankruptcy brought the government down and led to the election of the world’s first openly lesbian prime minister. In Nigeria there is an armed rebellion aimed at stopping oil companies from destroying the ecosystem and exporting their profits from the region. Off the coast of Somalia, pirates have plagued international shipping, and grabbed headlines last November when they hijacked an oil tanker headed for the US.

It’s clear that anger is building towards a capitalist system that is failing to meet people’s needs. But let’s dig deeper and ask: What role did social limits play in causing the economic crisis?

Perhaps the most instructive case is that of China and its rising labor movement. Supposedly a “communist” country, China has become a capitalist haven producing an absurd quantity of goods for the global market due to its very low (sweatshop) wages. The profit extracted from Chinese workers has done wonders to sustain capitalism over the last two decades. For this reason, the organization and rebellion of Chinese workers threatens not just the Chinese government, but the global capitalist system as a whole.

This explanation may require a bit of historical context. During the 1960s-early ‘70s, the capitalist order was challenged by a high tide of protest and rebellion – from Africa shaking off its colonial masters, to the end of Southern segregation in the US, to the struggle against the US genocide in Vietnam, to the new upsurges of the feminist, queer and ecology movements. This movement activity was pronounced a problem of an “excess of democracy” by the Trilateral Commission, a ruling class institution composed of bankers and corporate elites from the US, Europe and Japan. One of the strategies used to escape this crisis (along with increased repression and co-optation of social movements), was to relocate industrial production out of places like the US, where wages were seen as too high, to places like China, where wages were minimal.

Obviously this cheap labor generated more profit in production. But it also created a problem in terms of consumption, because US wages began to decline as all those unionized industrial jobs left the country. As explained by Professor Richard Wolff in his video “Capitalism Hits the Fan,” in order to make up for this income difference and keep consumption growing, starting in the 1970s US workers were given access to an immense pool of credit, in the form of credit cards, home mortgages and financial schemes like 401(k)s. Cheap available credit allowed the US to consume more and more junk, even as wages declined. It kept its position as the world’s strip mall.

Meanwhile, China became the world’s factory, pumping out cheap products for the global market, especially for the United States. As Americans flocked to Wal-Marts for their low prices, the Chinese government was flooded with trillions of US dollars. So far, they have dutifully recycled those dollars back into US Treasury bonds, thus keeping the American economy afloat. If they didn’t invest in the US, their main trading partner would be crippled by its trade debt, which grows daily.

The US-China relationship became core to the global economy. Each behemoth kept the other afloat – one producing like crazy by exploiting its workers near exhaustion, the other consuming like crazy by sailing on a sea of cheap credit. The damage to the planet’s ecosystem was atrocious, but immense profits were made and by the 1990s the market was soaring and “the end of history” was proclaimed. It seemed all opposition to capitalism had been vanquished.

There are numerous weak points in this international division of labor. One that has not been fully appreciated is the severe turmoil in China due to the growing strength of a new militant labor movement. This movement aims to put an end to sweatshop conditions where many toil for 12+ hours a day in dangerous, polluted factories. Organizing outside the Communist Party’s official unions, Chinese workers have initiated a series of crippling strikes that repeatedly shut down factories, among other forms of rebellion. The government has been forced to accept workers’ demands for wage increases, so the Chinese average real wage has risen by 300% between 1990 and 2005 [PDF], with half of that increase between 2000 and 2005.

Workers in green uniforms stage a sit-in protest at the main entrance of the Mitsumi Electric Co factory in Tianjin on Thursday, July 1, 2010. China Daily

Although the Chinese economy continues to grow, increased wages mean a falling rate of profit for companies operating in China, whether American, Japanese, European or otherwise. Wage increases also mean increased consumption within China, and therefore less cheap exports. When Chinese workers can afford the cars and electronics they’re producing, Americans can’t demand the same low prices.

Can we draw a direct connection between Chinese wage gains and the drying up of cheap credit in the US market of 2007-8? I humbly submit this question to the reader, as I haven’t done enough research on the relationship between the two trends. But I’ll say this about the big picture: If Chinese workers continue to break free from totalitarian control and win dignity in their jobs, the loss of China as the sweatshop of the world imperils trade arrangements that have carried global capitalist growth for decades.

If we study any country in the world, we’ll find people resisting capitalism any way they can. In the fields & factories, slums & schools, homes and prisons, the desire to be free cannot be extinguished, only held back and diverted. As humanity gains awareness of its own power and begins to act for its own interest rather than the interest of profit, the system’s tenuous grip on the world can easily falter, and a new world appears just over the horizon.

With the ecological limits encroaching on one side, and the social limits looming on the other, economic growth is under increasing strain in between. It’s as if the system cannot breathe. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, it’s too busy putting out the fires of multiplying crises, which continue to spawn and grow. The policy makers, market gurus and technocratic apologists scramble to regain control, but they are disoriented in a new arena. Circumstances have changed. They cannot come to agreement on what to do, and instead quarrel amongst themselves over diverging interests. As social and ecological forces combine and put new stresses on the system, capitalism is smothered and chokes.

Considering the ecological limits and social limits to growth side-by-side, the only conclusion I can make is that the end of capitalism is not only a possibility, but an inevitability. Neither the planet nor the world’s population appear able to support this system much longer, and something’s got to give. It may be years or even a couple decades before we can look back and say for sure that a paradigm shift has occurred and that we are living in a different, non-capitalist era. But the End of Capitalism Theory dares us to question how long a system that lives on economic growth can continue to function in a world of such profound and permanent limits.

Alex Knight is a proponent of the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway. He is working on a book titled “The End of Capitalism” and seeks a publisher. Since 2007 he has edited the website endofcapitalism.com. He has a degree in electrical engineering and a Master’s in political science, both from Lehigh University. He lives in Philadelphia, where he is a teacher and organizer. He can be reached at alex@endofcapitalism.com

Michael Carriere is an assistant professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, and urban design. He is currently working on a book, with David Schalliol, titled “The Death and (After) Life of Great American Cities: Twenty-First Century Urbanism and the Culture of Crisis.” He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Chicago.

The following exchange between Michael Carriere and Alex Knight occurred via email, July 2010. Alex Knight was questioned about the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway.

This is the second part of a four-part interview.

Part 2A. Capitalism and Ecological Limits

MC: Capitalism has faced many moments of crisis over time. Is there something different about the present crisis? What makes the end of capitalism a possibility now?

AK: This is such an important question, and it’s vital to think and talk about the crisis in this way, with a view toward history. It’s not immediately obvious why this crisis began and why, two years later, it’s not getting better. Making sense of this is challenging. Especially since knowledge of economics has become so enclosed within academic and professional channels where it’s off-limits to the majority of the population. Even progressive intellectuals, who aim to translate and explain the crisis to regular folks, too often fall into the trap of accepting elite explanations as the starting point and then injecting their politics around the edges. This is why there is such an abundance of essays and videos analyzing “credit default swaps”, “collateralized debt obligations,” etc., as if this crisis is about nothing more than greedy speculators overstepping their bounds.

On the contrary, the End of Capitalism Theory insists there are deeper explanations for why this crisis is so severe, widespread, and long-lasting. Here’s one explanation: The devastating quaking of the financial markets, and the lingering aftershocks we’re experiencing in layoffs and cut-backs, are manifestations of much larger tectonic shifts under the surface of the economy. This turmoil originates from deep instabilities within capitalism, the global economic system that dominates our planet. The dramatic crisis we are experiencing now is resulting from a massive underground collision between capitalism’s relentless need for growth on one side, and the world’s limited capacity to sustain that growth on the other.

These limits to growth, like the continental plates, are enormous, permanent qualities of the Earth – they cannot be ignored or simply moved out of the way. The limits to growth are both ecological, such as shortages of resources, and social, such as growing movements for change around the globe. As capitalism rams into these limiting forces, numerous crises (economic, energy, climate, food, water, political, etc.) erupt, and destruction sweeps through society. This collision between capitalism and its limits will continue until capitalism itself collapses and is replaced by other ways of living.

Tectonic Plates Colliding – Capitalism is Ramming into the Limits to Growth, Causing Massive Shocks on the Surface of the Economy

The End of Capitalism Theory argues that capitalism will not be able to overcome these limits to growth, and therefore it is only a matter of time before we are living in a non-capitalist world. A paradigm shift towards a new society is underway. There’s a chance this new future could be even worse, but I hold tremendous hope in the capacity of human beings to invent a better life for themselves when given the chance. Part of my hope springs from the understanding that capitalism has caused terrible havoc all over the world through the violence it perpetrates against humanity and Mother Earth. The end of capitalism need not be a disaster. It can be a triumph. Or, perhaps, a sigh of relief.

Defining the Crisis

Rather than spend our time learning the language of Wall St. and trying to understand the economic crisis from the perspective of the bankers and capitalists, I think we can get much further if we take our own point of reference and then investigate below the surface to try to find the true origins of the crisis. This is what I call a common sense radical approach. Start from where we are, who we are, and what we know, because you don’t need to be an academic to understand the economy – you just need common sense. Then try to get to the root of the issue (radical coming from the Latin word for “root”). What is really going on under the surface? What is the core of the problem? If we can’t come up with a common sense radical explanation of the crisis, we’ll always be stuck within someone else’s dogma. This could be Wall St. dogma, Marxist dogma, Christian dogma, etc. So what is this crisis really about?

I assert that the current crisis is dramatically and profoundly different from any crisis previously faced by the global capitalist system. I see one basic reason for this: the system can no longer grow. Without growth, capitalism cannot function. Like a shark that must keep moving in order to breathe, a capitalist economy must keep growing in order to survive. Without the possibility, or probability, that investors will make a profit on their investments, they will not invest. No one invests if they expect to lose money or keep the same amount. If investors cease to invest, businesses cannot expand, jobs are lost, consumer spending declines, and loans stop coming, creating a cycle of bust. Crashing markets will continue to freefall until the government steps in with bailouts to artificially boost investment. But bailouts are only a temporary solution. If the markets cannot be “corrected” and get back on a growth trajectory, game over.

Financial analyst Nomi Prins has tallied the various loans, guarantees and giveaways that make up the Wall St. bailout to a total of $17 Trillion [PDF], a sum larger than the annual GDP of the United States. This is a staggeringly expensive life support system for the “too big to fail” banks. How much longer can the federal government essentially print dollars to keep the stock market afloat? The End of Capitalism Theory says, “not long.” In the long arch of history, we are at the tail end of the capitalist period. Whatever follows it, for better or worse, will need to be adapted to a smaller economy.

Capitalism and Enclosure

To understand the end of capitalism, we need to know where the system started. For 500 years, capitalism has spread like a cancer across the planet. It first spawned in Western Europe on the backs of the peasants and small farmers who were displaced by the “enclosures.” The enclosures were the forced privatization of land, literally the enclosing or fencing off of land that was previously shared or held in common. The state acted as enforcer of this process, violently expelling poor communities from their homes and the “commons,” or traditionally public land. The land was taken away from the small farmers so it could be exploited for large-scale agriculture and animal herding.

These enclosures had the effect (intended or not) of creating two new classes of people: 1. a small opportunist class of private landowners and businessmen who evolved into today’s capitalists, and 2. a large landless class of workers who were forced to toil for a wage in the new urban factories, because they had nowhere else to go.

At the very same moment, the European states carried out the enslavement of millions of Africans and the genocide of the indigenous nations of North and South America. Suddenly two “new” continents could be exploited, with slave labor, bringing tremendous wealth to the rising capitalist elites in Europe. This brutal violence against people of color was instrumental in the spread of capitalism across the planet. It was accompanied by a terrifying assault on women in the form of the witch hunts, which saw hundreds of thousands of women tortured and burned alive, according to Silvia Federici’s provocative and necessary book Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation.

The book documents how the Church and state used the witch hunts to persecute sexually rebellious women, such as those having sex out of wedlock, committing adultery, abortion or infanticide. They also targeted women who held respected professions in peasant communities, such as that of midwife, healer, or fortune teller. Federici sees this as a broad attack on women that created a new kind of patriarchal order. She explains that by the time the witch hunts came to an end in the 17th century, women in capitalist society had largely become enclosed within the prescribed roles of mother pumping out new workers, or unpaid houseworker. These are exactly the female roles that the new system of capitalism required of women, argues Federici, because women’s unpaid reproductive labor boosted capitalist profits just like the unpaid labor of the African slaves. Keeping women confined as housewives and mothers meant their labor was never valued, although this labor is necessary for the entire society to exist.

Women have pushed back against this paradigm and made dramatic gains in the past 50 years, especially in the Global North. But in the Global South the position of women has largely deteriorated as capitalism has penetrated.

A disturbing but necessary example is the Congo, where hundreds of thousands of women have been raped and mutilated in the past decade. This mass rape is a weapon in the ongoing war between various guerrilla and state factions over minerals like coltan. Coltan is used in many of our electronic devices such as laptops and cell phones, making it highly valuable. The factions that export these minerals to the global market make a lot of money, which they can use to purchase weapons. Attacking women’s bodies has been one way to assert control over territory, as the shame of rape too often leads to the ostracizing of the women, thus breaking apart peasant communities. Once the village is displaced, their land becomes available for mining.

Mujawimana was raped when she returned to her village to find her children after being forced to flee from fighting there. Photo ©2008 Stephen Matthews/World Vision

This appalling violence in the Congo is more than a throwback to the enclosures which first launched capitalism, for as Silvia Federici says, systemic violence “has accompanied every phase of capitalist globalization, including the present one, demonstrating that the continuous expulsion of farmers from the land, war and plunder on a world scale, and the degradation of women are necessary conditions for the existence of capitalism in all times” (pg. 13).

In other words, enclosure has been an ever-present feature of capitalism because the system cannot reproduce itself without constantly putting up walls to control and limit human possibility, as well as controlling the planet itself. To be blunt, people usually only submit to capitalism when they no longer have any option.

Federici’s work challenges many myths about capitalism, such as the conservative assertion that capitalism works best without state interference, as well as the vulgar Marxist assumption that capitalism was a progressive advance over pre-capitalist forms of life, on some linear march of history. On the contrary, Federici uses the example of the witch hunts to demonstrate that capitalism has always relied on state violence in order to attack not only women’s position in society, but all communal or non-capitalist forms of life. Although she makes it clear that not all pre-capitalist forms of life were idyllic or free of oppression, the ultimate lesson she draws is that capitalism is an enemy of life itself, and that its spread has been a dramatic setback for all of us, including the planet.

Limits to Growth

2010 is a very different moment than 1492, or 1929 for that matter. In earlier times, there remained entire continents, entire populations of people, and vast reserves of natural resources remaining to be exploited for the capitalist regime of profit. Now that globalization has worked its wonders and you can order the same McDonald’s hamburger virtually anywhere in the world, what growth markets remain untapped? The answer is, in my view, remarkably few. The limits to growth are being reached. The system needs growth now. It can’t find it. And the machine is straining to keep running on the promise that profit will come tomorrow. So it turns to speculative bubbles like the dot-coms and the housing market to create artificial growth and keep the party going, even for a little while. But it’s only a temporary strategy. Each time the bubble bursts, the hangover is worse. Reality is beginning to set in. Steady, long-term growth is elusive because capitalism is overstepping its limits. If you want a simple explanation for the collapse of the financial markets, it’s that.

Let’s explore this concept of the limits to growth. It can be divided into two categories: ecological limits and social limits.

Ecological limits are the restrictions placed on economic growth by the planet’s inability to sustain that growth indefinitely, either because of lack of resources or lack of capacity to withstand ecological damage. The list of ecological limits is long and awareness of them has been growing rapidly. Some big ones include the limits of oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, phosphorus, copper, fresh water, arable soil, fish, and more broadly, climate. Perhaps the most decisive limiting factor is oil, which I’ve called the “lifeblood of industrial capitalism” because it supplies 40% of the energy for the total economy, making it the system’s primary energy source. Oil’s critical contribution includes powering 95% of transportation. Oil is the fuel that moves the people and equipment that do virtually all of the work in the capitalist economy. There is no known substance on Earth that can replace it.

Peak Oil

Since the oil price shock of 2008, “peak oil” has become something of a household word in the United States, but I’ll just give a few facts to back up the validity of the concept. First, US oil production peaked in 1970. Oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859, and the US quickly became the main exporter of petroleum in the world, like Saudi Arabia is today. After its oil supply peaked, the US became a chronic importer of oil and went into severe debt to pay for it. Today, contrary to the cries of “Drill, Baby Drill!”, there is no amount of drilling that could bring US oil production back to the level of 40 years ago. In fact, production is about half what it was then, and still declining.

A second essential fact is that global discovery of oil peaked in 1960 and for the last 50 years less and less oil has been found across the planet. Demand keeps growing, but supply has not been, despite the efforts of every oil company to discover more “black gold.” With all the cheap, easy oil pretty much gone, they’re left to spend millions to drill in remote locations, like the Gulf of Mexico, which is now a disaster area. So we know peak oil is a real phenomenon because it happened to the US. And we know there’s not enough oil being found anywhere in the world to sustain growing demand. The only question is when the global peak will be reached.

Global oil production has hit a wall, despite skyrocketing prices. Kenneth Deffeyes

There are a whole slew of geologists, ecologists and engineers dedicated to answering that question, and I can’t add much to their debate. But I do want to highlight this remarkable graph created by Princeton geologist Kenneth Deffeyes, author of the books Hubbert’s Peak and Beyond Oil. He graphs global production of oil against the price of a barrel (equal to 42 gallons). We can see that as global production hits about 27 billion barrels, the price spikes into the heavens. We would expect, according to Economics 101, that as the price increases, supply would also increase. It’s in the interest of producers to pump more oil from the ground, and develop more expensive oil wells, in order to take advantage of the high prices. Instead, we can see that no matter how expensive oil has gotten, production has hit a wall. What Deffeyes argues, and I agree with his analysis, is that the peak has already been hit. No matter how wildly the price of oil fluctuates, growth in production is no longer possible.

In Beyond Oil, Deffeyes also makes the case that there is nothing that can do for the capitalist economy what cheap and plentiful oil has done. Solar and wind are great technologies, and they certainly have a role to play in transitioning to a democratic and sustainable future, but not being liquid fuels, they’re useless for powering the Army’s tanks and planes in Afghanistan. Even hydrogen fuel cells or electric engines would solve little, because there would still need to be a massive influx of energy to make up for the 40% provided by petroleum. And that’s without factoring in necessary growth.

Efficiency is another crucial piece to look at. Efficiency in energy can be measured in Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI). The ERoEI of oil is something like 10-to-1, meaning for every calorie or joule of energy expended in getting oil out of the ground and making it a usable fuel, 10 times that much energy is made available by it. If the ERoEI for a particular fuel was 1-to-1, it would be useless. It would take just as much energy to extract the fuel as they could get out of it. This is the trouble with “non-conventional” fuels such as the tar sands, corn ethanol, or coal liquefaction. All are tremendously destructive to the planet, but none comes anywhere near oil in terms of efficiency, and corn ethanol may actually waste more energy than it produces. The bottom line is that no energy source is as abundant, cheap, versatile, easy-to-transport, and efficient as oil.

Oil is also not the only energy source hitting its peak. Natural gas appears to be in the same position, and coal and uranium aren’t far behind. All are being exploited at a rate much higher than can be sustained. This is why Richard Heinberg has written a book called Peak Everything, and argues that from ecological limits alone, growth is no longer possible. Capitalism needs abundant and growing sources of energy to move its resources, products and labor around the world, to organize them into the production process, and to power the assembly lines. We are now entering a period in which for the first time in 500 years, less energy will be available, the energy that exists will be more expensive, and therefore profits will be severely constrained. Without energy, the shark stops swimming and dies.

Did peak oil trigger the economic crisis? It’s difficult to know for sure. One thing is certain, in 2007-8 the price of oil skyrocketed to a record high of almost $150/barrel, while production stayed flat. And as former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan noted in 2002, “All economic downturns in the United States since 1973… have been preceded by sharp increases in the price of oil.”

I will explore social limits, the other piece of the puzzle, when I finish responding to your great question in the next part of the interview.

Alex Knight is a proponent of the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway. He is working on a book titled “The End of Capitalism” and seeks a publisher. Since 2007 he has edited the website endofcapitalism.com. He has a degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s in Political Science, both from Lehigh University. He lives in Philadelphia, where he is a teacher and organizer. He can be reached at alex@endofcapitalism.com

Michael Carriere is an assistant professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, and urban design. He is currently working on a book, with David Schalliol, titled “The Death and (After) Life of Great American Cities: Twenty-First Century Urbanism and the Culture of Crisis.” He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Chicago.

—–

The following exchange between Michael Carriere and Alex Knight occurred via email, July 2010. Alex Knight was questioned about the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway.

The interview will be available in four parts.

Part 1. Crisis and Opportunity

MC: The current financial crisis is clearly a moment of peril for both individuals and the broader system of capitalism. But would it also make sense to see it as a moment of opportunity?

AK: Absolutely. I see opportunity springing from every crack in the structure of capitalism. For all those who wish to see a different world, this moment is dripping with opportunity because the old order is crumbling before our eyes.

Shock and Awe on the New York Stock Exchange

The crisis extends far beyond the broken financial system. Millions of people are losing their jobs, homes, and savings as the burden of the crisis gets shifted onto the poor and working class. Public faith in the system, both the government and the capitalist economy, has been shattered and is at an all-time low. And it’s not just the economic crisis. The bank bailouts, the endless wars in the Mid East, the BP spill and the meltdown of the climate, and about a dozen other crises have shaken us deeply. It’s become common sense that the system is broken and a major change is needed. Barack Obama was elected in the US precisely by promising this change. Now that he is failing to deliver, more and more people are questioning whether the system can provide any solutions, or whether it’s actually the source of the problem.

Shattered faith is the dominant sentiment today. You can see it in people’s faces – the disappointment, grief, worry, and anger. To me, this loss of faith presents an enormous opening for putting forth a new, non-capitalist way of life. People are ready to hear radical solutions now, like they haven’t been since the Great Depression.

Historic Crossroads

If we go back to 1929, we’ll see some interesting parallels to our current moment. When that depression started, millions lost their livelihoods to pay for the bankers’ crisis. Faith in capitalism sunk to rock bottom. The public flocked to two major ideologies that offered a way out: socialism and fascism.

Socialism presented a solution to the crisis by saying, roughly: “Capitalism is flawed because it divides us into rich and poor, and the rich always take advantage of the poor. We need to organize the poor and workers into unions and political parties so we can take power for the benefit of all.”

Socialism attracted millions of followers, even in the United States. The labor movement was enormous and kept gaining ground through sit-down strikes and other forms of direct action. The Communist Party sent thousands of organizers into the new CIO, at the time a more radical union than the AFL. Socialist viewpoints even started getting through to the mass media and government. Huey Long was elected Senator from Louisiana by promising to “Share Our Wealth,” to radically redistribute the wealth of the country to abolish poverty and unemployment. (He was assassinated.) Socialism challenged President Roosevelt from the left, pushing him to create the social safety net of the New Deal.

On the other side, fascism also emerged as a serious force and attracted a mass following by putting forth something like the following: “The government has sold us out. We are a great nation, but we have been disgraced by liberal elites who are pillaging our economy for the benefit of foreign enemies, dangerous socialists, and undesirable elements (like Jews). We need to restore our national honor and fulfill our God-given mission.”

When people hear the word fascism, they usually think of Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, where successful fascist movements seized state power and implemented totalitarian control of society. Yet fascism was an international phenomenon during the Depression, and the United States was not immune to its reach. General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in US history, testified before the Senate that wealthy industrialists had approached him as part of a “Business Plot” and tried to convince him to march an army of 500,000 veterans on Washington, DC to install a fascist dictatorship.

Today we are approaching a similar crossroads. When I hear the story of the Business Plot I think about the Tea Party, which has sprung from a base of white supremacist anger, facilitated by right-wing elements of the corporate structure like Fox News. This is an extremely dangerous phenomenon. The “teabaggers” have moved from questioning Obama’s citizenship, to now trying to reverse the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, such as the ability of everyone, regardless of color, to enjoy public accommodations like restaurants.

I think it’s fair to name the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Christian Right, etc. parts of a potential neo-fascist movement in the United States. Their words and actions too often encourage attacks on people of color, immigrants, Muslims, LGBT folks, and anyone they don’t see as legitimate members of US society. Ultimately, many in this movement are pushing for a different social system taking power in the United States: one that is more authoritarian, less compassionate, more exploitive of the environment, more militaristic, and based on a mythical return to national glory. This is not a throwback to Nazi Germany. It’s a new kind of fascism, a new American fascism. And it’s a serious threat.

Tea Party racism in Denver, April 15, 2009

On the other hand, this crisis is also an opportunity for all of us who see capitalism as a destructive force and believe the message of the recent U.S. Social Forum that “Another World is Possible. Another US is Necessary.”  “Socialism” in the post-McCarthy/Cold War era of the United States is a dead word, because it carries a lot of baggage from the Soviet Union. Rightly so, the USSR was a terrible dictatorship that is hardly an example to follow. The question is, how do those of us who are progressive and anti-capitalist articulate our ideas to resonate with a mass audience in this moment?

Common Values

I argue that we need to speak to the population in a language of our common values: democracy, freedom, justice, and sustainability.

Adopting this mainstream language is not an attempt to be deceptive. These words have captured people’s hearts for a real reason: they offer a window to the world we want to see. It is the government, corporations, and media who deceive us by evoking these words to justify their atrocities, as in “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” (Over a million dead, and the Iraqi people are no closer to any kind of “freedom” I would want.) Rather than surrendering these noble ideals to the right wing, where they become meaningless dogma, I see immense potential to take language back and use it with honesty, as if words actually mean something.

So what if progressives reclaim these common values and make them guideposts on the way to a better society? For example, how can we talk about freedom if there is no self-determination, either in Iraq or here in the US? Let’s be honest, what freedom do we really have? The freedom to choose Coke or Pepsi, or similarly, to vote Democrat or Republican?

What about the freedom to determine our own destinies outside the constraints of corporations and government? What freedom is more basic than freedom from poverty and suffering? How can anyone speak of freedom if they have no income and no opportunity to escape unemployment? Or if they have nowhere to live because their home was foreclosed? What if their community is torn apart because so many youth are filling the prisons on nonviolent drug offenses? Is a prisoner free? Is their mother, spouse, or loved ones free? What does freedom mean if you’re queer or trans, and you face emotional and physical violence every time you express who you are and live your own life? How can we claim to be a free society if immigrants live in fear of being locked up by ICE and deported? What freedom do you have if your neighbor has none?

I think real freedom requires self-determination, the ability of an individual or community to choose their own destinies. We can’t pretend we have freedom in this country until “we, the people” have a say in our neighborhoods, towns and cities, in our workplaces, our schools, and our government. This requires that the public actively participate in managing their own affairs, for example through neighborhood councils to have a say in the neighborhood, through labor unions to have a say at work, student unions to have a say at school, and other democratic organizations that give people the power to defend their rights. There is a dire need to hold our corrupt representatives in Washington accountable to popular will. But to be truly free, might we also need to structure government in a new way, so it can be run by the people themselves? Or even to abolish the government, if it can’t do what the people say?

So I believe when we get to the meaningful core of the word “freedom,” it poses a radical challenge to capitalist society. We can say similar things about “democracy,” “justice,” and “sustainability,” and I would add, “love.” I’ll talk more about this in response to your third question. These values reinforce each other, and if we honor them for their true depth of meaning, they can be effective tools for change.

The Power of Imagination

This might sound good, but do progressives have the power to achieve these kinds of changes? It may sound farfetched. The media and government, especially in the U.S., have done an excellent job convincing us that we can never win. People with our views are routinely excluded from official conversation on the news or in elections. When we try to protest and take our voices to the street, they corral us within “free speech zones” so we look crazy and feel powerless. If a progressive voice does get through to the public somehow, it’s dismissed as “unrealistic.” We’re pressured to just vote for the lesser of two evils and be silent. The result of this silencing is that we have no idea how many people share our values and aspirations, because we’re often too intimidated to proclaim our views proudly. Worse, to some degree we’ve internalized this silencing so that we hesitate even to imagine our progressive hopes and dreams, lest they accidentally slip past our lips into polite conversation.

The stifling of progressive views is part of a larger culture of silence that helps the system maintain control. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman call it Manufacturing Consent, the use of media and propaganda to create a passive, obedient population. The message we receive constantly from media is that we are spectators, not participants. Rather than take a stand on an issue and risk being wrong or foolish, why not leave it to the experts? Besides, we’re too busy being consumers, workers and students to worry about politics. Better to not make waves. We might as well amuse ourselves with television, celebrity gossip, and Facebook, and try not to get involved. From all the propaganda we consume over the course of our lives, we come to develop the core belief that we are powerless to affect change. This myth of powerlessness is one of the biggest lies in the history of the world, and we need to dismantle it.

What the U.S. Social Forum proves is that there is a large, broad-based movement for change here in the United States, the very core of the global capitalist machine. There are millions of average, everyday people all across the nation who are working and pushing in a progressive direction in large and small ways, whether on immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, housing, health care, education, prison justice, queer and trans justice, environmental justice, peace in the Middle East, etc. The system doesn’t want you to know about this, which is why they don’t show it on television. Our movements are alive and well. They are strong. They are inspiring. And in many places they are winning.

Coalition to Save the Libraries confronts the Philadelphia City Council and its Budget Cuts, May 21, 2009

I’ll just share a local example from here in Philadelphia. In late 2008, Mayor Nutter announced he would close 11 libraries due to budget constraints. Seemingly out of nowhere – but actually out of strong communities throughout the city – a movement emerged to oppose and prevent this decision, facilitated by the multiracial, multigenerational Coalition to Save the Libraries. The coalition organized creative actions at library branches slated for closure and at City Hall. People from across the city came together to imagine what kind of library system would best serve the public. Pressure kept mounting until the Mayor had to abandon his closures. All the libraries remain open to this day, despite continuing budget cuts and layoffs.  Kristin Campbell wrote a fuller description of how grassroots organizing saved the libraries.

We can look at this victory and downplay it as limited because it only restored a public service that shouldn’t have been attacked anyway. But like all grassroots organizing it points towards a better future, for the simple reason that people became empowered by working together. Capitalism is a system of disempowerment. It cannot tolerate our active participation in public affairs. As soon as we begin to break our silence and speak out against the injustices we are being subjected to, the system begins to quake and it searches for ways to pacify and silence us again. If we remain alert, active, and vocal, we can break the culture of complacency and bring more and more people into the awareness of their own power. So I think that’s the opportunity we have in this crisis.

I want to excite people’s imaginations of what a better world might look like. There is no better time to do it. If my theory is right, then capitalism, the system that has dominated the world for the past 500 years, is coming to an end. Recognizing this opens up a world of possibility for the future. Maybe that’s scary, because who knows what will happen? We might be driven into a neo-fascist nightmare. Things might keep getting worse, in which case maybe we should just find reasons to enjoy our current way of life while it lasts. I can see some of my friends saying that. But that leaves out two crucial truths that I want to highlight.

The first truth is that capitalism is a terribly abusive and destructive system, which we would be better off without. The second truth is that if we organize and push for a better world, we might win. So the time for complacency is over, and the time for taking bolder steps toward our dreams is here.

Alex Knight is a proponent of the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway. He is working on a book titled “The End of Capitalism” and seeks a publisher. Since 2007 he has edited the website endofcapitalism.com. He has a degree in electrical engineering and a Master’s in political science, both from Lehigh University. He lives in Philadelphia, where he is a teacher and organizer. He can be reached at alex@endofcapitalism.com

Michael Carriere is an assistant professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, and urban design. He is currently working on a book, with David Schalliol, titled “The Death and (After) Life of Great American Cities: Twenty-First Century Urbanism and the Culture of Crisis.” He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Chicago.

The Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations is a Beirut, Lebanon-based organization engaged in “strategic and futuristic studies on the Arab and Muslim worlds, (emphasizing) the Palestinian issue.” In July 2010, it published the latest in its “Am I Not a Human?” series titled, “The Suffering of the Palestinian Child under the Israeli Occupation,” saying:

Palestinian children grow up “under the Israeli occupation, surrounded by cruelty, oppression, killing, starvation and destruction.” Yet, like all children, they dream of playing and living normally and safely. Instead, their father may be dead or in prison, their brother killed, their home destroyed, and their mother forced to give birth at an Israeli checkpoint, risking her and the newborn.

Palestinian children grow up differently from most others, their development “distorted by an occupation,” destroying their innocence, dreams and well-being. They live in constant fear, forced to grow up while still a child. “Actually (they are) grown up, for (they challenge) the toughest circumstances,” helping their families, replacing a parent when lost, and confronting Israeli incursions. “Amazingly….Palestinian child(ren set) the example to mature people,” even when very young.

They live when “we think that the world has become (more) civilized” without cruel colonizations, when global leaders defend human rights, dignity, democratic freedoms, and peace rhetorically, yet are indifferent to oppressed Palestinians, children always the most vulnerable, yet they persist and endure despite enormous hardships and obstacles, what Western children can’t imagine.

From September 2000 (the start of the second Intifada) through 2007 alone, 1,400 children were killed, 230 under age 12. What about others under occupation, with no father, injured or handicapped, hungry, impoverished or in prison? Still more who’ve lost friends and relatives, who live in fear and can’t sleep, who feel helpless when Israelis attack, and unprotected under a ruthless occupation, ongoing for over 43 years, affecting them physically, emotionally, and economically, making them feel isolated, helpless, and unaided, world leaders indifferent to their plight and their families.

Demographics

Palestine is a young society, children comprising the majority. In its June 2007 annual report, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) said 2.1 million are under age 18, representing 52.2% of the West Bank and Gaza, distributed as follows:

— 17% below age five;

— 15.4% from five – nine;

— 13% from 10 – 14; and

— 6.8% from 15 – 17.

They’re Palestine’s future, their development and regeneration hope for liberation, pursued courageously until achieved, but at a huge price.

From September 29, 2000 – December 31, 2008, children witnessed around 5,900 killings, over 35,000 injured, about 7,500 of their parents and relatives imprisoned, and the destruction of nearly 78,000 buildings through April 30, 2007.

A British study found that Palestinian children during the Intifada displayed higher political awareness levels. They know names of destroyed villages, especially where their parents were born, are knowledgeable about the conflict, and show commitment to resist it.

A separate report on Lebanese refugee children reveals extreme hardships under poor conditions in crowded homes without clean water, air, electricity, playgrounds, or job opportunities for their parents. In addition, children under age three experience a high rate of birth defects and respiratory diseases. In northern Lebanon, it’s 44.5%. Yet their Lebanese Baccalaureate passing rate is 73.9%, showing a commitment to achieve.

Palestinian Children: Their Rights and Violations

Israel repudiates children’s rights and welfare, treating them harshly like adults, in violation of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, its Principle 1 saying:

“Every child, without exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to (fundamental human and civil) rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.”

They’re entitled to special protections and opportunities to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy normal way under conditions of freedom and dignity – including their right to life, an adequate standard of living, healthcare, education, leisure, safety and peace, what Israel has denied them for over four decades.

Wounded and Killed Children

Aya Fayyad’s story reflects others, her death a tragedy other parents face, her mother Fatima saying her daughter’s loss on August 31, 2003, the eve of her school year, left her dazed and unable to imagine her nine-year old was dead.

She’d gone out to play, riding her bike when tank shells exploded. Other children escaped, but not Aya, struck by bomb shrapnel and killed.

On June 10, 2004, Iman al-Hams, a 13-year old girl, headed for school with two of her classmates. Nearing the Girit military post, they heard shooting. Iman ran to escape it and was shot dead by 20 “machine gun bullets that settled in her tiny body.” Not satisfied, three soldiers and their commander approached her, shot her multiples times to be sure, claiming her school bag contained explosives, later admitting there were only books.

Hundreds of similar incidents claimed other lives and thousands wounded or disabled. PCBS’ April 2008 annual report cited 959 deaths from September 29, 2000 – February 2, 2008 – 384 in the West Bank, another 573 in Gaza and two in Israel, the number injured (including many seriously) totaling 28,822, the total disabled about 2,660, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMH).

PMH also reported that 31.4% of killed children were shot in the head, another 32.5% in the chest, showing intent to kill, soldiers often firing at close range and committing murder – part of their training and indoctrination from kindergarten to be warriors and Arab-haters, Amnesty International (AI) responding in a press release saying:

“The majority of Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied Territories when members of the IDF responded to demonstrations and stone throwing incidents with unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. Eighty Palestinian children were killed by the IDF in the first three months of the Intifada alone.”

AI also mentioned Sami Fathi Abu Jazzar, shot in the head by Israeli soldiers on the eve of his 12th birthday in the aftermath of a stone-throwing demonstration, injuring six other children with live fire, AI representatives witnessed it firsthand, concluding soldiers’ lives weren’t endangered.

In 2001, AI reported that Palestinian children were killed by “random” IDF firing, shelling or bombarding residential neighborhoods “when there was no exchange of fire and in circumstances in which the lives” of soldiers weren’t at risk. “Others were killed by (targeted) assassinations when the IDF destroyed Palestinian houses without warning, and by flechette shells and booby traps used (in) densely populated areas.”

Other children were killed at checkpoints, by settlers, and by being prevented from reaching hospitals when their lives were in danger – cold-blooded murder by other means.

Children in Detention and Custody

In its April 2008 report, the Palestinian Ministry of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs said over 7,000 children had been arrested since the start of the second Intifada, 360 still in detention, some as young as 10, treated harshly like adults, in violation of international law requiring special treatment for children.

Of these, 145 have been sentenced, 200 still await trial, and 15 are administratively held without charge. The report also explained that about 500 other prisoners were arrested as youths, turning 18 in prison.

Other data confirmed around 75 children ill, not being treated, nearly all tortured by being beaten, hooded, painfully shackled and deprived of sleep for several days in the shabeh position – hands and legs bound to a small chair, at times from behind to a pipe affixed to the wall, painfully slanted forward, hooded with a filthy sack, and played loud music nonstop through loudspeakers.

Most children were arrested at home (77%), some at play, others at demonstrations. Most are students, some waiting over two years for a trial, becoming ill from poor food, hygiene, and lack of healthcare.

The Ministry’s 2007 report said about 220 were arrested, many still detained “under very bad conditions, receiving harsh treatment and prevented from pursuing their education or having any prospect of a prosperous future.”

One 16-year old youth was arrested heading to school for failing to have his ID card. Afterward, he was beaten, sent to Etzion detention camp, handcuffed, blindfolded, and beaten again brutally to get him to confess to stone-throwing and reveal names of other children with him at the time. During interrogation, his head was immersed in cold water, then hot, then the toilet. Later moved to Adorim camp, he was again beaten, tortured, held in solitary confinement for 34 days, then judicially-ordered held on “restrictive order” and transferred to Telmond Prison, in violation of Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) stating:

“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment….

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily….

Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect…. (and)

Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance….”

CRC also mandates detention as a last resort for the shortest possible time. Israel does it preemptively, repressively, and irresponsibly to harass, abuse, inflict bodily and emotional harm, torture or kill – legalized by authorities decades ago, including harming children with:

— bad food and unsafe water;

— poor healthcare or lack of it;

— bad sanitation and hygiene;

— insect infested cells;

— cramped and crowded conditions;

— inadequate air and light;

— insufficient clothing, blankets and other protections;

— no play or recreation;

— isolation from the outside world;

— no family visits;

— the absence of counselors and specialists;

— detention with adults, some violent;

— solitary confinement;

— verbal, physical and sexual abuse; and

— no education.

Torture is official Israeli policy, explained in this writer’s August 2008 article, accessed through the link below:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/08/torture-as-official-israeli-policy.html

Nothing is too brutal or extreme, including against women and children, one 15-year old saying he was stripped naked, forced into an extremely painful position, then burned by lit cigarettes to make him confess. Others are tortured to collaborate. A 10-year old said “They beat me on various parts of my body with plastic hoses. I had to have a surgical operation to have a platinum transplant in my arm. They kept me naked for a whole night, handcuffed and blindfolded; and I was not allowed to go to the toilet for two days!”

The Palestinian Prisoners Club reported that 95% of children are tortured, 85% to confess under duress and sign Hebrew documents they can’t read or understand.

Health Status

Harsh occupation causes health problems, physical and psychological from witnessing violence, mainly against loved ones and friends. “These conditions raise the death rate among children,” soldiers often obstructing ambulances and medical workers from reaching casualties and the sick, and they prevent deliveries of vital equipment and materials, especially to Gaza.

Even seriously ill adults and children can’t access proper medical care abroad or in East Jerusalem in hospitals equipped to help them. They’ve also been isolated and denied proper nutrition, 64% of children becoming anemic from lack of sufficient sustenance.

UNICEF reported that one baby in three risks death because of Gazan medical shortages, and the Separation Wall and checkpoints cause a 20% West Bank death rate – 61 births from 2000 – 2004 occurring at them because soldiers obstructed passage, 36 dying immediately.

Israel also prohibited the distribution of special nutritional meals to about 20,000 Gazan children under age five, most never having had them in their lives, and suffer anemia, stunted growth, and general body weakness from malnutrition and extreme poverty – compounded by the siege.

Mental health is also impacted, a 2004 PCBS survey showing 8.8% of children experience horrible accidents firsthand, most are intimidated by air raids, bombings, shellings, incursions, and the constant threat of more. UNICEF said about one-fifth of children are exposed to family violence from daily pressure, including poverty, unemployment, and lack of essential services and support networks.

A Gaza Community Mental Health Program study found 94.6% of children witnessed bombings and killings. Another Israeli Adler Research Center one showed 70% of West Bank children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

As a result, the National Plan of Action for Palestinian Children said 93% of children are insecure, living in fear of being attacked, and 52% believe their parents can’t help. As a result, they experience an array of psychological symptoms, including:

— panic, fear and stress;

— anxiety, sadness and depression;

— forgetfulness and poor memory;

— hyperactivity and violence;

— fainting;

— digestive disorders and loss of appetite;

— involuntary urination and headaches;

— insomnia or excessive sleep;

— disturbed sleep or nightmares;

— feelings of helplessness with no safe haven, even at home; and

— hatred toward their occupier, instilling a spirit to resist.

The Socio-Economic Situation

“Child rights agreements state that every child has a right to special care and assistance, and a right to a proper environment that fosters his growth, well-being, self-respect and dignity in a good family environment.”

Palestinian children, however, are impeded under occupation, and an environment designed to be threatening and unsafe. This reality “denies them the joy of living an innocent childhood,” and for some, the inability to become adults.

Yet Fourth Geneva’s Article 27 states:

“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.”

CRC’s Article 16 states:

“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.”

For decades, Israel has spurned international law and dozens of UN resolutions condemning or censuring its actions, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on, or urging it to end them. Israel never did and continues defying the rule of law, even its own, including High Court rulings authorities won’t accept, and actions like the following:

An Israeli military court ordered a seven-year old girl named Farah, whose father was assassinated five years earlier, to pay an 1,850 shekel fine in one month, without explanation, saying appropriate legal measures would be taken for refusing.

Another ruling prevented the parents of two-and-a-half year old Ahmad and nine-and-a-half year old Sawsan from accompanying their children through the Erez crossing for two urgently needed heart operations. They had to go alone on foot, Haaretz calling it “one of the most horrible and cruel scenes broadcast daily (and) a shameful stigma to Israel.”

Other socio-economic negatives include deteriorated home environments, lost homes, jobs, and mass impoverishment – 56.1% in the West Bank, 82% in Gaza, and 24% of children living in abject poverty, according to PCBS figures.

As a result, they have to leave school to help out, tilling fields, selling miscellaneous items on streets, anything for a few shekels, especially in fatherless households, a situation not conducive to proper development.

Education

“Israel works on hindering the education of Palestinians.” Besides violating their basic right, it jeopardizes a new generation, UNRWA commissioner-general, Peter Hansen, saying:

“Imagine the political fallout if every schoolchild in London had missed a month’s schooling last year because teachers could not get to their classes,” or if children, heading to and from school, were endangered by tanks, checkpoints, and soldiers – a daily reality in Occupied Palestine, under the harshest conditions facing unimaginable obstacles and disadvantages, impacting education like everything else, affecting a proper environment for teaching and learning.

Yet Palestinians consider education vital to protect and sustain, the 2007-08 UN Development Program Report showing the Occupied Palestine Education Index at 0.891, the highest of all Arab states, followed by Libya at 0.875, Lebanon at 0.871 and Kuwait at 0.868 – the Index measuring the rate of children who attend school. The overall Arab average is 0.687.

Final Comments

For over six decades, over four under occupation, Israel has pursued a ruthless, violent, racist policy of slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians, especially children, to cripple new generations physically and emotionally, to crush their spirit to resist, to harden a ruthless colonial agenda in violation of fundamental international humanitarian law with respect to basic human freedoms, self-determination, and the right of people to live freely on their own land in peace.

The “parties involved in this cause, including the Palestinian Authority, the media, (global activists) and human rights organizations, (must) work hard to expose (Israel’s) brutality….in international forums, in particular the UN General Assembly, to condemn (its) occupation to the world community, to accuse and prosecute it in international judicial institutions for committing the most horrific and inhumane crimes,” especially against children, representing hope and regeneration.

By Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Nazareth: A fascinating debate is entering Israel’s political mainstream on a once-taboo subject: the establishment of a single state as a resolution of the conflict, one in which Jews and Palestinians might potentially live as equal citizens. Surprisingly, those advocating such a solution are to be found chiefly on Israel’s political right.

By Jonathan Cook

Ken O’Keefe (born July 21, 1969) is an American born activist who renounced his US citizenship on March 1, 2001. He has since acquired Irish, Hawaiian and Palestinian citizenship. On January 7, 2004, O’Keefe burned his US passport in protest of “American Imperialism” and called for US troops to immediately withdrawal from Iraq. He replaced his US passport with a World Citizen Passport, proclaiming “ultimate allegiance to my entire human family and to planet Earth.” He is a former U.S. Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War and subsequently spoke out about the use of depleted uranium as a “crime against humanity” and the US military using soldiers as “human guinea pigs” (with experimental drugs that were directly linked to Gulf War syndrome). He is also a social entrepreneur utilising direct action marine conservation in which he pioneered endangered Green Sea Turtle rescues in Hawaii. But he is more widely known for leading the Human Shield Action to Iraq (2003) and as a survivor of the Israeli attack on the MV Mavi Marmara (2010) in which he participated in “defending the ship” and “disarming two Israeli Commandos”.

In October 2009 he founded Aloha Palestine, a social enterprise dedicated to purchasing a ship and conducting regular and reliable trade with Palestinians in Gaza. For more Information Click World Citizen – Ken O’Keefe http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/

===================

On May 31 Israeli forces attacked innocent unarmed human rights activists on the Freedom Flotilla which had terrible consequences, resulting in the death of (at least) nine civilians and the wounding of over 40. It was unprovoked, unwarranted, and illegal. As recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations (UN) and every government in the world, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza when Israeli military forces took control of the six ships in international waters on 31 May 2010, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 then applied to the civilians on board.

Elias Harb: How long did the IDF boats shadow the Mavi Marmara, at what point did they fire the first shots?

Ken O’Keefe: We were followed for several hours before the attack; the first shots were fired at first contact, when the first assault boats came up to the side of our ship. The first murder occurred within the first three to five minutes.

EH: Were people aboard the Mavi Marmara who had been shot by the gunboats already being medically treated as the helicopter assault began?

KO: Yes, absolutely. We found ourselves in a combat situation in which we did not have combat weapons and as a result the injuries piled up very fast. The situation was chaotic, exactly as the Israeli leadership designed it. As Ehud Barak said previous to our departure, they would stop us “at any price.”

EH: The Israeli attack on May 31 in the dead heat of the night must have been has been a terrible experience for passengers in the free Gaza flotilla. You are an ex-marine, what do you think was the objective of the Israeli Commandos, was it to deter the passengers or did they have something else in mind?

KO: Having combat experience I saw the attack as a mirror of what we are trained to do as US Marines in war. You need to achieve tactical advantages over your enemy. The Israeli commandos did this by firing smoke bombs, percussion grenades, tear gas and live rounds, creating a state of fear and chaos. With that you achieve an advantage by disorganizing your enemy. These are basic strategies, very easily understood.

It was clear from the beginning that this was an attack, and it was also clear within the first three to five minutes, when I saw one of our photographers with a bullet dead centre in his forehead, that one of their primary objectives was to hide the truth. They did this by trying to jam all our satellite transmissions; unsuccessfully, killing a photographer and confiscating all of the footage and releasing only that which could to some degree support their propaganda needs.

EH: Israel has declared that there were terrorists among the activists, how do you respond to that? Can you give us a makeup of the passengers?

‘KO: Nelson Mandela was a terrorist according to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan because he refused to renounce violence or recognize the racist Apartheid system that made him and his people sub-human. I agree with Nelson Mandela 100%, and I have no doubt that virtually all of us on that ship feel the same. I say the right of self-defence is a central issue and I feel we should not shy away at all from saying that yes, we did use non-lethal force to repel a murderous, racist, Apartheid acting Israeli force…’

Furthermore, we had three Israeli commandos completely disarmed, completely at our mercy, surrounded by at least one hundred men inside the ship, away from the attacking Israeli commandos outside. I myself helped disarm two of them, one of which I took possession of his 9mm pistol which had real bullets. If I wanted to, if I was a “terrorist”, I would have surely turned that gun on the commando I just disarmed. But I did not, nor did any of my brothers on that ship.

The terrorists on that night wore Israeli commando uniforms, complete with Balaclavas, assault rifles and pistols. They executed people in international waters, that is the truth no matter how much propaganda spin is applied.

EH: Of the activists that were killed, were any people you knew? Were any personal friends?

KO: I see all of them as brothers, literally as brothers. But I did not establish personal relations with those that were murdered.

EH: Israel declares that it had the legal right to confront the flotilla from reaching Gaza. What is your position on that?

KO: Israel likes to have it both ways, if it is an occupying power it does (according to law) have not just the right, but obligation to protect its citizens. But that right does not include attacking a civilian ship on a humanitarian mission in international waters. Furthermore, if it wants to claim the rights of an occupying power it has a positive obligation to provide for the safety and welfare of the occupied people. Not only is it not doing this, they are treating the Palestinian people like dogs and subjecting them to a brutal collective punishment policy. Most shameful of all is the fact that the population of Gaza includes over 800,000 children. In this fact the world is guilty of gross complicity in allowing the Israeli blockade to continue. Those of us on those ships are the effective conscience of humanity.

EH: How were you and other activists treated by the Israeli Authorities after you were detained?

KO: Like dogs, although better than the Palestinian people experience every single day. We were denied water, food, access to toilets, access to an attorney, access to a phone, women were sexually harassed, we were threatened, beaten, lied to, you name it, if it is a form of disrespect the Israeli’s probably did it. So let us amplify our treatment times 100, and we begin to know what Palestinians are dealing with. I myself can say without any doubt, if I acted as I did as a Palestinian in jail, I would be dead. No doubt about it

Ken O’Keefe was brutally beaten by Israeli security forces.

EH: Israel has accused you of planning to form and train commando units for Hamas once reaching Gaza. How do you respond to that?

KO: I respond by saying what you rarely hear in the west, that I support the right to resist and the right of self-defense 100%. I respond by pointing out once more that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist for refusing to renounce violence in the face of South African Apartheid. The Founding Fathers of America were the “terrorists” of the day if you asked the British colonial powers. The Irish kicked the British out of most of Ireland through resistance. Israel was created on the back of Israeli terrorism, that is undeniable. The truth is the truth and if you subject any people to invasion, occupation, theft of land and resources and mass-murder in the form of war, they will fight; with any means necessary. The Swedish people would fight, and certainly the American and British people would fight if they were dealing with what the Palestinian people are dealing with.

The people of Britain and America are delusional when they refuse to acknowledge that people who resist are “heroes” according to their own definition. Those that refuse to fight, or worse yet collaborate with the invader; they are the cowards and traitors.

Having said all that, I would urge that the Palestinian resistance be intelligent first and foremost. Do not resist for the sake of resistance, resist for the sake of justice, and never lose your way on that path. I think the time has come to embrace all forms of non-violent struggle, as so many are already doing, and capitalize on the growing support from people of conscience from around the globe. It has been a far too long time coming, but the support is there. I have to say, it is my hope that the South Africa model is adopted and the struggle becomes about human rights for all people, not about “two states”. I know the world will support his just as they did in South Africa.

As far as me training commando units for Hamas, this is beyond a joke. If I was going to Gaza for this purpose, why did I disarm an Israeli commando only to let him go? Does that sound like a “terrorist” to any person with a functioning brain?

EH: Israel seized all cameras and communication machinery .Do you have a plan for getting your personal possessions back from Israel? Do you know how others are doing in this same respect?

KO: I am more focused on what I can control. The Israeli’s are the definition of pirates, common thieves among other nasty things; I accept that I will likely never get my property back.

However, Israel has my laptop, my personal information, my Irish and Palestinian passports and my DNA in the form of my blood on cloths and my toothbrush, etc., they have what is required to link me to future acts of terrorism and they are fully capable of attempting to frame me for crimes that I will never commit. They can also do this to others; that we should all be well aware of.

EH:It was reported that Israeli authorities confiscated your passport and another documents. Did they return your documents?

KO: No, they have stolen all this and more.

EH: Israel has announced that there has been an “easing of the blockade” Some say this is P.R. stunt or Israeli propaganda. What is your position on Israel’s easing of blockade restrictions?

KO: Anything less than the end of the blockade is unacceptable, period.

EH:The pro-Israeli lobby is pressuring U.S.Congress to declare free Gaza activists as “terrorists” How do you respond to that?

KO: This is Orwellian doublespeak in which truths are turned upside down. That is the purpose of propaganda and corrupt governments. It is identical to Nelson Mandela being accused of terrorism while America and Britain, and Israel, were happily doing business with the openly racist Apartheid government. The truth is that the Apartheid government were the terrorists and Nelson Mandela was the face of resistance, a true freedom fighter. Resisting terrorism can hardly be called terrorism.

Nothing has changed really as far as governments and propaganda; the US government is an embarrassing farce posing as a “democracy”. They shame the people of America; they are servile prostitutes to an agenda that knows nothing of justice, lust for power and greed for material wealth is what they worship. So it surprises me not that they may define us as “terrorists”. Stop waving that flag Americans and start reading your Constitution, and then read the “Patriot Act”; real patriots are needed now and it is time for your government to fear you.

EH:It was reported that you disarmed Israeli commandos. How many did you disarm and how?

KO: I was involved in disarming two of them, one of his 9mm pistol, the other of his assault rifle. They had fallen from the top deck to the deck below, myself and another brother were there, we immediately acted to neutralize and disarm them. It was that simple, I am sure any man of means would do what I did in that situation.

EH: Can you update us on how critical is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza?

KO: I feel somewhat irrelevant in saying this as the people of Palestine make it perfectly clear themselves, but the situation is dire. Anything less than the complete end of the blockade will maintain this reality. Once again, the most disgraceful fact being that 800,000 children are being subjected to this collective punishment policy. Shame on us all for allowing that.

EH:What are you focused on now?

KO: I am working with people to purchase a ship that will be the biggest ship yet for the next flotilla. That flotilla is being planned for June 8th, the anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. We do it next year so as to make it as powerful as it needs to be to end the blockade. On this ship we will have at least one respected representative from every single nation on Earth. We will have at least 100 representatives of colonized, occupied, aboriginal peoples including native Americans, Hawaiians, Maoris and others; the point of this being for all people who know injustice to express their solidarity with the people of Palestine. We will defend the ship with non-lethal means. We will have survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. We will have 9-11 family members, hopefully Hugo Chavez and Nelson Mandela and everyone serious about justice and peace. We will have a formidable ship and we will succeed. So we call on the people of Palestine and the world to make the purchase of this ship possible.

EH: Can you tell us about Aloha Palestine, trade vs. aid.?

KO: Once we break the blockade, and we will, we will use our ship to further the mission of Aloha Palestine (http://AlohaPalestine.com). While it is that so many people are focused on bringing in aid, we are focused on importing the raw materials into Palestine in order to reopen the factories, create jobs and revive the Palestinian economy. To then in turn export Palestinian products to the European Union and beyond.

We do this because we know that the people of Palestine, like all people, do not choose to live on charity. We must establish full trade; safe and fair trade, in doing that self-determination will begin to return to the people. Ideally what I want is for Aloha Palestine’s assets, the ship and otherwise, to be owned by the people of Palestine and our company to serve the community of Gaza.

EH: Thank you Ken O’Keefe

By Elias Harb – Editor Intifada Palestine

On July 15, I attended a reception in Washington DC to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam. Geoff Millard and I spoke to Sen. John McCain. When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans against the War, McCain retorted, “You’re too late.  We already won that one.”

McCain is now the second U.S. official to declare “mission accomplished” in a war that continues to ravage the people and land of Iraq. “[I]t would be a huge mistake to see Iraq as either a success story or as stable,” Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, wrote on Informed Comment.  McCain’s declaration of victory in Iraq is as specious as the one George W. Bush made after he strutted across the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.

Gen. David Petraeus is often credited with reducing the violence in Iraq after the “surge” of 30,000 extra U.S. troops.  But the violence continues unabated.  Every few days there are reports of suicide bombings, car bombs, roadside bombs, and armed attacks in Iraq.  About 300 civilians continue to die each month and more than two million Iraqis continue to live as refugees.

I wonder how McCain defines “victory” in Iraq.  The U.S. mission there has never been clear since the invasion in 2003.  First the search for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless.  Then it became evident there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.  Finally we were told the U.S. invaded Iraq to accomplish regime change and bring democracy to the Iraqi people.  But if democracy is the goal, there has been no victory.

Neither Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki nor Ayad Allawi won a mandate in Iraq’s March election, which created a power vacuum. ”The shortages of power, which remain a chronic problem seven years after the American invasion, have combined with a near paralysis of Iraq’s political system and violence to create a volatile mix of challenges before a planned reduction of United States forces this summer,” according to the New York Times.  Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, described the “elitist authoritarianism that basically ignores the people.”

Sunni Arab insurgents have taken advantage of the political vacuum to mount “effective bombing campaigns” and target the banks, says Cole. Last month, attackers in military uniforms tried to storm the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad, causing explosions and gun battles with soldiers and police. Fifteen people were killed and 50 were wounded.

Most Iraqis have less than six hours of electricity per day. Baghdad’s poorer neighborhoods have as little as one hour per day, leaving them without so much as an electric fan to withstand the blistering heat – 120 degrees in some places. The electricity shortages caused thousands of Iraqis to join street demonstrations in Baghdad last month.

The political situation in Iraq is worse than it was before the U.S. invaded.  Although Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, he nevertheless raised the Iraqi standard of living to a respectable level.  “Saddam [had] improved the school system in Iraq and literacy for women was phenomenal for that of an Arab country at the time,” William Quandt, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Virginia who has served as an adviser to the American government on Mideast policy, said on the PBS News Hour. “People didn’t go hungry in those days in Iraq,” Quandt added.

“We knew Saddam was tough,” Mr. Said Aburish, author of a biography of Hussein called ‘Secrets of His Life and Leadership,’ noted on PBS Frontline. “But the balance was completely different then. He was also delivering. The Iraqi people were getting a great deal of things that they needed and wanted and he was popular.”

Al Qaeda did not operate in Iraq before Bush’s “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Now Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia terrorizes Iraqis in areas like Amil in Mosul. “They say you have to slaughter soldiers and police,” Staff Col. Ismail Khalif Jasim told the New York Times.

There is a campaign of assassinations aimed at government officials across Iraq, the Times reported a few weeks ago: “Some 150 politicians, civil servants, tribal chiefs, police chiefs, Sunni clerks and members of the Awakening Council [former Sunni insurgents now aligned with the Iraqi government and U.S. military] have been assassinated throughout Iraq since the election.” Speculation about those responsible includes Shiite militia allies, Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Kurdish political parties, and Iran.

Reconstruction of what we have destroyed in Iraq remains elusive. After six years and $104 million spent on restoring a sewage treatment system in Falluja, U.S. officials are walking away without connecting a single house. American reconstruction officials have also walked away from partially completed police stations, schools and government buildings in the past months. “Even some of the projects that will be completed are being finished with such haste, Iraqi officials say, that engineering standards have deteriorated precipitously, putting  workers in danger and leaving some of the work at risk of collapse,” the Times reported earlier this month.

President Obama is scheduled to reduce the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq from 80,000 to 50,000 by the end of August.  But that does not mean stability has been attained, nor does it mean the occupation will end.  The U.S. is sending civilian “contractors” – perhaps more accurately called mercenaries – to replace them.

The number of State Department security contractors will more than double – from 2,700 to between 6,000 and 7,000 – according to a July 12 report of the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting. The State Department has requested 24 Blackhawk helicopters, 50 Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, and other military equipment from the Pentagon. The gigantic U.S. embassy and five “Enduring Presence Posts” (U.S. bases) will remain in Iraq. The contractors are simply taking over the duties of the departing soldiers.

Transferring military functions to civilians is “one more step in the blurring of the lines between military activities and State Department or diplomatic activities,” said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington D.C.

The U.S. government has changed the language describing military activity in Iraq from combat operations to “stability operations,” but U.S. forces will continue to kill Iraqis. “In practical terms, nothing will change,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Lanza told the Times. “We are already doing stability operations.”

Bush’s war of choice in Iraq has caused 4,413 American deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates that between 97,110 and 105,956 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Untold numbers have been seriously wounded. By September, we will have spent nearly $750 billion on this war and occupation.

John McCain should examine the actual state of affairs in Iraq.  It he does, he might stop declaring victory.

By Marjorie Cohn, War Is A Crime .org

http://warisacrime.org/node/54234

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law” and “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” (with Kathleen Gilberd). See www.marjoriecohn.com.

The past few years have proven to be particularly awful for the Palestinian people. The suffocating Israeli siege of Gaza, despite some slight loosening, continues to this day, with Egypt’s active support and Washington’s tacit approval; Israel’s 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, was the single most devastating event for the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories since 1967; Israel’s settlement program proceeds unabated; Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla has raised the level of violent confrontation further; and Israel’s crackdown on domestic dissent, particularly among its Palestinian citizens, has reached unprecedented levels with the arrest of activists and threatened measures against Arab MPs.

The Israeli Occupation Archive asked Noam Chomsky for his assessment of the current situation and future prospects.

IOA: The Goldstone report, the Abu Dhabi Mossad assassination, the Gaza Flotilla attack: all these have severely weakened Israel’s international reputation — in Europe, in Turkey, in Egypt. How has the US-Israeli relationship fared through all this, and how has this affected the larger US strategic project in the Middle East and its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Noam Chomsky: I would add the Gaza attack itself, quite apart from the Goldstone report. It was so savage that it led to a substantial change in attitudes among the general population, though not noticeably among the political class or the media. But governmental relations haven’t changed, and no change should have been expected. Washington strongly supported the Gaza attack, and participated directly in it. The attack was clearly timed so that Obama could keep to the hypocritical “there’s only one president so I cannot comment” stance. It ended, surely by plan, at the moment that he took office, so that he could adopt the posture of “let’s look forward and forget the past,” very convenient for partners in crime. The media and commentators — unanimously, to my knowledge — evaded the central fact about the war: the issue was not whether Israel had a right to defend itself from rockets, but whether it had the right to do so by force. It surely did not, because the US-Israel knew that peaceful means were available but refused to pursue them: accepting Hamas’s offer to renew the cease-fire, which Hamas had observed even though Israel did so only partially. That suffices to establish the criminality of the attack. Disproportionality in the use of force is a minor crime by comparison. The other events you mention had little impact in the US, with one exception: there is now some concern in the US military and intelligence that support for Israeli crimes and intransigence may harm military operations in the field. General David Petraeus quickly retracted his comments to this effect, but others are expressing the same concern, among them Bruce Riedel, an influential long-time senior intelligence official and presidential advisor. Israeli intelligence understands this problem very well. Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned the Israeli Knesset that they are treading on thin ice for this reason. That might prove significant.

IOA: The Obama administration announced a Middle East peace initiative following the president’s June 2009 speech in Cairo. What is your assessment of this initiative — what was its original intention and where has it gone, and in what respects does it differ from the policies of previous US administrations?

NC: Obama basically reiterated the terms of the Road Map, which bans Israeli settlement expansion, but with a wink: his spokesperson informed the press that his demands were purely “symbolic” and that unlike Bush I, he would not consider penalties if Israel rejected the demands, as of course it did, in various overt and devious ways. George Mitchell is a reasonable choice as negotiator, but in nominating him Obama made it quite clear that he is not serious about a meaningful political settlement, so that Mitchell’s hands are tied. I wrote about that at the time, and won’t repeat.

IOA: Arab allies of the US remain committed to the Arab League peace initiative. Is a settlement along these lines — a Two-State solution, based on the 1967 borders — consistent with US interests in the region? If so, what is stopping the United States from actually applying pressure on Israel, and not just talking about peace?

NC: The Arab initiative reiterates the longstanding international consensus and goes beyond, calling also for normalization of relations. It is accepted by virtually the entire world, including Iran. Would this be consistent with US interests? It depends on how we understand the phrase “US interests.” In general, it is well to bear in mind that the concept “national interest” is a rather mystical one. There are some shared interests among the population: not to be destroyed by nuclear weapons, for example. But on a great many issues interests differ sharply. The interests of the CEO are not the same as those of the woman who cleans his office. The interests of the huge mass of Christian Zionists or those allied with AIPAC are quite different from yours and mine.

It should hardly be controversial that the operative “national interest” is largely determined by those who control the domestic economy, an observation as old as Adam Smith and amply confirmed since. They seem quite satisfied with US rejectionism. In the media, the most fervent supporter of Israeli actions is the Wall Street Journal, the journal of the business world. Though Jews mostly vote for and fund Democrats, the Republican Party is even more extreme than the Democrats in support for Israeli actions, and is even closer to the business community High tech industry maintains close ties with its Israeli counterparts, and investment continues. For military industry, Israel is a double bonanza: it sells advanced armaments to Israel (courtesy of the US taxpayer) and that induces Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates to purchase a flood of weapons, less advanced, helping to recycle petrodollars and contributing to profits. Close intelligence connections go back to the 1950s. There seems to be no significant domestic force pressing Washington to join the world on this issue. A popular movement might make a difference, but for the present it is too weak and disunited to weigh significantly in the balance. Our primary task should be to change that.

IOA: Recent revelations about Netanyahu’s attempts to trick the US and derail the Oslo “peace process” exposed not his “lack of commitment” to the “peace process” but, rather, his commitment to stop it. How far do you think Israel can go against the publicly-declared positions of the United States before the Obama Administration states its displeasure and backs its words with some action? Do you think Washington has the will, or courage, to block further Israeli actions that are designed to stop the “peace process”?

NC: There is so far no sign that Washington has the will, or that some substantial force is pressing it to change direction.

IOA: Netanyahu’s on-going settlement program prompted the Palestinian Authority to stop negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians are now in a bind: accepting anything short of a complete stop of settlement construction means negotiating while Israel is undermining their future, while refusing to negotiate allows Israel to continue undermining their future. In the face of Netanyahu’s intransigence, what can the Palestinian leadership, current or future, do to extract itself from this predicament? And how can a Palestinian popular movement point its leadership in the right direction?

NC: Israel and its US backers would no doubt prefer for the Palestinian leadership to be immobilized in endless negotiations, while the concrete work of colonization proceeds — the traditional Zionist practice for a century. But the Palestinian leadership has other choices, and to some extent is pursuing them. Among these are boycotting settlements, participating in non-violent protests at Bil’in, Sheikh Jarrah, and elsewhere; construction and development, even in Area C (the area of full Israeli control), and rebuilding when Israel destroys what they do; countering the US-Israeli program since Oslo of splitting the West Bank and Gaza and finding ways to bring together conflicting factions; and vigorously making their case internationally, particularly in the US, which will continue to play a decisive role for the foreseeable future.

This last effort raises what should be the crucial question for those of us in the US. It is not our right or responsibility to lecture the Palestinian leadership on what they should do. That is up to the Palestinians to decide. But it is very definitely our responsibility to focus attention on what we should be doing. Of prime importance is to educate and organize the American public and to develop popular forces that can overcome the dominant propaganda images that sustain the US policies that have been undermining Palestinian rights. Here the tasks are vast. The examples I briefly mentioned are illustrations. On none of these issues is there public understanding beyond extremely narrow circles. Even the absurd doctrine that the US is an “honest broker” desperately seeking to bring together two recalcitrant opponents is reiterated daily with almost no challenge. Thus the US is hailed for conducting “proximity talks” between Netanyahu and Abbas. Departing from doctrinal mythology, some neutral entity should be conducting proximity talks between the US and the world, elementary truths that are next to incomprehensible in the US or much of the West. The same is true on specific issues. Take the invasion of Gaza. It is little understood that it was a US-Israeli invasion. Furthermore, there is virtually no recognition of the crucially important fact that the primary issue was not disproportionality or specific crimes during the military operations, but rather the right to use force in the first place, which was in fact zero, as mentioned. Skirting this central issue, as is done in virtually all commentary and even in the human rights investigations, gives the US-Israel a “free pass,” restricting critique to what are footnotes to the major crime. It is a major failing of the Palestine solidarity movements to have left such myths as these virtually unshaken.

In these and other areas there are important tasks of education and organization that have to be addressed seriously if US policies are to be shifted. They should lead to actions focusing on specific short-term objectives: ending the savage and criminal siege of Gaza; dismantling the illegal “Separation Wall,” by now a de facto annexation wall; withdrawing the IDF from the illegally annexed Golan Heights and from the West Bank (including illegally annexed “Greater Jerusalem”), which would, presumably, be followed by departure of most of settlers, all of whom, including those in East and expanded Jerusalem, have been transferred (and heavily subsidized) illegally, as Israel recognized as far back as 1967; and of course ending all Israeli construction and other actions in the occupied territories. Popular movements in the US should work to end any US participation in these criminal activities, which would, effectively, end them. That can be done, but only if a level of general understanding is reached that far surpasses what exists today. That is not a very difficult task as compared to many others that popular movements have confronted in the past, often with some success. In fact, it pretty much amounts to insistence that we act in conformity with domestic and international law, and that we adopt the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” called for in the Declaration of Independence. Hardly a radical stance, or one that should be difficult to bring to the general public, with enough effort. This by no means exhausts what should be our concerns. Others include the desperate conditions of refugees outside of Palestine, particularly in Lebanon. An immediate concern is to relieve these conditions, though what we can do in this case is more limited. There is no shortage of immediate tasks to be addressed.

IOA: What is your view of the current approaches of those opposing the Occupation — globally, as well as in the US? Where do you stand on BDS in its various forms? Your position on BDS has, at times, been challenged by anti-occupation activists. Has your position evolved over time? Is BDS more appropriate in Europe than in the US? And, what other strategies and tactics do you think people opposing the Occupation should focus on?

NC: The most important tasks, I think, are those I just briefly sketched, particularly in the US but also in Europe, where illusions are also widespread and far-reaching. There are many familiar tactics and strategies as to how to pursue these crucial objectives. They can also be supplemented by various forms of direct action, such as what is now called “BDS,” though that is only one of many tactical options. Merely to mention one, demonstrations at corporate headquarters, especially when coordinated in many countries, have sometimes been quite effective. And there are many other choices familiar from many years of activism.

As for what is now called BDS, my views are the same as when I was engaged in these actions well before the BDS efforts crystallized, and I am unaware of any challenge to them apart from inevitable disagreement on specific cases that are unclear. BDS is a tactic, one of many, and not a doctrine of faith. Like other tactics, particular implementations of BDS have to be evaluated by familiar criteria. Crucial among them is the likely consequences for the victims. As those seriously involved in anti-Indochina war activities will recall, the Vietnamese strongly objected to Weathermen tactics, which were understandable in the light of the horrendous atrocities but seriously misguided, predictably strengthening support for state violence. The Vietnamese urged nonviolent tactics that would help educate public opinion and increase popular opposition to the wars, and didn’t care whether protesters “feel good” about what they are doing. Similar issues arise constantly, in the case of BDS as well. Some implementations have been highly constructive, both in educating the public here — a primary consideration always — and in raising the costs of participation in ongoing crimes. Good examples are boycotting settlement products and US corporations that are engaged in support for the occupation. Such actions both impose costs and help educate the public here, by emphasizing what should be our prime concern: our own major role in these criminal actions, which is what we can hope to influence. It would be sensible to go far beyond: for example, to join the appeal of Amnesty International for termination of all military aid to Israel, which violates international law as AI observes, and domestic law as well. Unfortunately, there have been other initiatives that were poorly formulated and played directly into the hands of hardliners, who of course welcome them. Again it is easy to identify examples. We should at least be able to learn from ample experience, as well as to understand the reasons for these different consequences.

Tactical priorities should be somewhat different in Europe and the US, because of their different roles. The US stand is a decisive factor in implementing Israel’s policies, and therefore tactics here should aim to bring to the fore the US role, which is what activists can hope to influence most effectively. Tactics in Europe should be directed to what Europeans should know about and can directly influence: their own role in perpetuating the crimes against Palestinians.

IOA: Finally, what are the prospects for Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank and under siege in Gaza?

NC: One is along the lines I outlined earlier: withdrawal of the IDF from the occupied territories, ending the siege of Gaza and the efforts to separate it from West Bank, etc. That would probably lead to some variant of the international consensus on a two-state settlement, perhaps along the lines almost reached in the Taba negotiations of January 2001 (called off prematurely by Israel, another important matter virtually swamped by propaganda here) or the Geneva Accord presented in December 2003, welcomed by most of the world, rejected by Israel, ignored by Washington.

There is much discussion of what is often taken to be the alternative to a two-state settlement: “hand over the keys” of the territories to Israel, and then wage a civil rights/anti-apartheid struggle within the whole of Palestine. But there is no reason to suppose that the US-Israel would accept the keys, because they have another alternative that doesn’t leave them with a “demographic problem”: continue the US-backed Israeli programs of takeover of what is valuable in the occupied territories, leaving Palestinians in unviable cantons, with an island of elite prosperity in Ramallah, basically adopting the Sharon plan (essentially Olmert’s “convergence” of 2006) and the advice of Israeli industrialists years ago to shift policy from colonialism to neo-colonialism. The basic outlines are familiar, and by now Israel has effectively taken over more than 40% of the West Bank, isolating it from Gaza — with decisive US military, economic, diplomatic and ideological support throughout.

By Noam Chomsky

There has been a strong revival in recent years of support among Palestinians for a one-state solution guaranteeing equal rights to Palestinians and Israeli Jews throughout historic Palestine.

One might expect that any support for a single state among Israeli Jews would come from the far left, and in fact this is where the most prominent Israeli Jewish champions of the idea are found, though in small numbers.

Recently, proposals to grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank, including the right to vote for the Knesset, have emerged from a surprising direction: right-wing stalwarts such as Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former defense minister Moshe Arens, both from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. Even more surprising, the idea has been pushed by prominent activists among Israel’s West Bank settler movement, who were the subject of a must-read profile by Noam Sheizaf in Haaretz (“<“http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/endgame-1.302128“>Endgame,” 15 July 2010).

Their visions still fall far short of what any Palestinian advocate of a single state would consider to be just: the Israeli proposals insist on maintaining the state’s character — at least symbolically — as a “Jewish state,” exclude the Gaza Strip, and do not address the rights of Palestinian refugees. And, settlers on land often violently expropriated from Palestinians would hardly seem like obvious advocates for Palestinian human and political rights.

Although the details vary, and in some cases are anathema to Palestinians, what is more revealing is that this debate is occurring openly and in the least likely circles.

The Likudnik and settler advocates of a one-state solution with citizenship for Palestinians realize that Israel has lost the argument that Jewish sovereignty can be maintained forever at any price. A status quo where millions of Palestinians live without rights, subject to control by escalating Israeli violence is untenable even for them. At the same time repartition of historic Palestine — what they call Eretz Yisrael — into two states is unacceptable, and has proven unattainable — not least because of the settler movement itself.

Some on the Israeli right now recognize what Israeli geographer Meron Benvenisti has said for years: historic Palestine is already a “de facto binational state,” unpartionable except at a cost neither Israelis nor Palestinians are willing to pay. The relationship between Palestinians and Israelis is not that of equals however, but that “between horse and rider” as one settler vividly put it in Haaretz.

From the settlers’ perspective, repartition would mean an uprooting of at least tens of thousands of the 500,000 settlers now in the West Bank, and it would not even solve the national question. Would the settlers remaining behind in the West Bank (the vast majority under all current two-state proposals) be under Palestinian sovereignty or would Israel continue to exercise control over a network of settlements criss-crossing the putative Palestinian state? How could a truly independent Palestinian state exist under such circumstances?

The graver danger is that the West Bank would turn into a dozen Gaza Strips with large Israeli civilian populations wedged between miserable, overcrowded walled Palestinian ghettos. The patchwork Palestinian state would be free only to administer its own poverty, visited by regular bouts of bloodshed.

Even a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank — something that is not remotely on the peace process agenda — would leave Israel with 1.5 million Palestinian citizens inside its borders. This population already faces escalating discrimination, incitement and loyalty tests. In an angry, ultra-nationalist Israel shrunken by the upheaval of abandoning West Bank settlements, these non-Jewish citizens could suffer much worse, including outright ethnic cleansing.

With no progress toward a two-state solution despite decades of efforts, the only Zionist alternative on offer has been outright expulsion of the Palestinians — a program long-championed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party, which has seen its support increase steadily.

Israel is at the point where it has to look in the mirror and even some cold, hard Likudniks like Arens apparently don’t like what they see. Yisrael Beitenu’s platform is “nonsensical,” Arens told Haaretz, and simply not “doable.” If Israel feels it is a pariah now, what would happen after another mass expulsion of Palestinians?

Given these realities, “The worst solution … is apparently the right one: a binational state, full annexation, full citizenship” in the words of settler activist and former Netanyahu aide Uri Elitzur.

This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government’s effort to “solve” the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands — bantustans — had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider “reform” proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress’ demands for a universal franchise — one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa. The reforms began with the 1984 introduction of a tricameral parliament with separate chambers for whites, coloreds and Indians (none for blacks), with whites retaining overall control.

Until almost the end of the apartheid system, polls showed the vast majority of whites rejected a universal franchise, but were prepared to concede some form of power-sharing with the black majority as long as whites retained a veto over key decisions. The important point, as I have argued previously, is that one could not predict the final outcome of the negotiations that eventually brought about a fully democratic South Africa in 1994, based on what the white public and elites said they were prepared to accept (“Israeli Jews and the one-state solution,” The Electronic Intifada, 10 November 2009).

Once Israeli Jews concede that Palestinians must have equal rights, they will not be able to unilaterally impose any system that maintains undue privilege. A joint state should accommodate Israeli Jews’ legitimate collective interests, but it would have to do so equally for everyone else.

The very appearance of the right-wing one-state solution suggests Israel is feeling the pressure and experiencing a relative loss of power. If its proponents thought Israel could “win” in the long-term there would be no need to find ways to accommodate Palestinian rights. But Israeli Jews see their moral currency and legitimacy drastically devalued worldwide, while demographically Palestinians are on the verge of becoming a majority once again in historic Palestine.

Of course Israeli Jews still retain an enormous power advantage over Palestinians which, while eroding, is likely to last for some time. Israel’s main advantage is a near monopoly on the means of violence, guaranteed by the United States. But legitimacy and stability cannot be gained by reliance on brute force — this is the lesson that is starting to sink in among some Israelis as the country is increasingly isolated after its attacks on Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Legitimacy can only come from a just and equitable political settlement.

Perhaps the right-wing proponents of a single state recognize that the best time to negotiate a transition which provides safeguards for Israeli Jews’ legitimate collective interests is while they are still relatively strong.

That proposals for a single state are coming from the Israeli right should not be so surprising in light of experiences in comparable situations. In South Africa, it was not the traditional white liberal critics of apartheid who oversaw the system’s dismantling, but the National Party which had built apartheid in the first place. In Northern Ireland, it was not “moderate” unionists and nationalists like David Trimble and John Hume who finally made power-sharing under the 1998 Belfast Agreement function, but the long-time rejectionists of Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party, and the nationalist Sinn Fein, whose leaders had close ties the IRA.

The experiences in South Africa and Northern Ireland show that transforming the relationship between settler and native, master and slave, or “horse and rider,” to one between equal citizens is a very difficult, uncertain and lengthy process. There are many setbacks and detours along the way and success is not guaranteed. It requires much more than a new constitution; economic redistribution, restitution and restorative justice are essential and meet significant resistance. But such a transformation is not, as many of the critics of a one-state solution in Palestine/Israel insist, “impossible.” Indeed, hope now resides in the space between what is “very difficult” and what is considered “impossible.”

The proposals from the Israeli right-wing, however inadequate and indeed offensive they seem in many respects, add a little bit to that hope. They suggest that even those whom Palestinians understandably consider their most implacable foes can stare into the abyss and decide there has to be a radically different way forward.

We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it carefully. In the end it is not what the solution is called that matters, but whether it fulfills the fundamental and inalienable rights of all Palestinians.

By Ali Abunimah

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. This article first appeared on Al-Jazeera English and is republished with permission.