Archive | May 2016

The Continued Growth of Worldwide Support for BDS and the Existential Threat it’s Creating for Israel

  

The “Prime Minister” of the illegal entity occupying Palestine, Benjamin Netanyahu has made some ridiculous claims in the past. In 1992, he told the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from acquiring nuclear weapons, and added that that threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”, thus “volunteering” the US to go to war against Iran. 

Four years later, in 1996, when Iran still had not begun on any plans to develop the nukes, during his address to a joint session of US Congress, he again reiterated his claim that Iran was very close in getting the bomb. Apparently, based on his claim four years before, Iran must either have already developed it or been within months of developing it. “The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close”, he warned, once again. Then, after seeing no signs of developing any nukes by Iran for two decades, again he claimed last year that Iran would get the nukes, very soon. I can imagine his frustration in not getting the war he wanted. He must have been saying to US in his head: “will you just get on with it and attack Iran already?”

He made the same claim about Iraq, in 2002, when he asserted in front of another joint session of Congress that Iraq was well underway in developing nuclear weapons. The following year, he got his wish and the US attacked the nation, supposedly to prevent it from getting the atomic bomb. No signs of any such plans or operations were ever found. The war resulted in literally destroying the country and killing over a million of its citizens. At least, Israel felt safer afterwards.

But, it wasn’t just the issue of the nuclear weapons that he has used to encourage a US attack on Iran, which the US intelligence agencies have contradicted him on in no uncertain terms and said that Iran has no nuclear weapons plan and has not decided to develop one. 

He has also claimed Iran is supporting terrorism and that it’s trying to take over the world. Of all the ridiculous and illogical claims that he’s made, this must win the first prize. Israel alone has a bigger and more advanced military with a much stronger Air Force, navy and better equipped army than Iran. It also has several hundred nuclear bombs with which it could level Iran with Iran unable to retaliate since it has none. So, Iran couldn’t even take over Israel, let alone the world. Take all the military equipment, weapons, aircraft, tanks and missiles that Iran possesses and line them up. Then, make them much more technologically advanced and much more lethal and effective. When, you’re done, multiply them by 80. That’s the US military compared to Iran! The US military expenditure is 80 times that of Iran. In fact, Iran’s military spending is about the same as Norway’s and barely enough to be a deterrent against a single neighbor’s attack, let alone for taking over the world. By the same logical reasoning, you can tell which country does indeed have the intention to actually take over the world. You can look at two things in determining that: first, who has accumulated the largest and most lethal military force, which is far superior than what would be sufficient for self-defense. A much larger military than is required for self-defense is a good indication of the intention to use it, not to defend against possible attacks by others, but for attacking nations that pose no threat to it. The other thing one can look at is history. Iran has never attacked any country. The US, on the other hand, almost never stops attacking other nations (and Israel has repeatedly done so in its short history) and has hundreds of military bases and continues to move into newer territories, builds new bases and never completely leaves once it invades a country. Now, that’s a country that intends to take over the world, with the help of Israel, no less.

An Israeli propaganda video intended to scare Europeans and turn them against Palestinians and stop the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement from growing, while also raising alarms about Iran, depicts ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh) terrorists as a giant boulder rolling down towards Europe threatening to level the entire continent, slowed only by Israel, which tries to save Europe from terrorists. Helping ISIS in the animation is Hamas and Iran! Some lies are exaggerations and half truths, some are twisting of the facts and some are just squarely the opposite of the truth. While calling Palestinians who are resisting the occupation of their historic and native homeland against colonial occupiers terrorists is nothing new, the claim that they and especially Iran help ISIS isn’t just a flat out lie, but is ridiculous and contradictory to well known facts and evidence. Iran is one of very few nations in the region that has actually been fighting ISIS terrorists, both in Iraq and Syria. It was instrumental in helping Iraq take back two provinces from ISIS. This has been widely reported even by US and other Western news organizations. On the other hand, US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel have been giving weapons to ISIS to fight the Syrian government and try to overthrow it. Iran and Syria have every incentive to fight ISIS. US, Israel Turkey and Saudi Arabia have every incentive to help ISIS. It’s been widely reported that they have done just that through Turkey, including even in New York Times (June 4, 2014).

The fact is that truth works against Israel, so, it constantly has to lie and depend on and hope for people’s ignorance and resort to fear mongering for its continued genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. Netanyahu with his outrageous lies and claims on the one hand and extreme measures and unbridled violence against Palestinians, on the other, is indicative of a looming crisis for Israel that can’t be averted by military force and keeps deepening and threatens to upend the whole idea of Zionism. On May 20, defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, abruptly announced his resignation, over Netanyahu’s extremism and said he was “fearful for Israel’s future”. Then, discussing his resignation, former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, told PBS in an interview, that “Israel has been infected by the seeds of fascism” and that there is “no serious leader left in the world who believes Israel anymore”. 

A few months ago, two prominent American Zionist professors announced in an op-ed piece in Washington Post their decision to support boycotting Israel, although they refused to support or even name the BDS movement, “in order to save Zionism”, which threatens the existence of Israel as a “Jewish state”, due to the excesses and extremism of Israel’s current leadership. They repeated several times that their motivation was only to help Zionism survive, rather than to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people, which didn’t even make it into their list of concerns. Not surprisingly, the Post refused to publish my response to the professors. What such Zionists refuse to see is that Israel has no other choice, but to move on a path of genocide and extermination, which they see not as a humanitarian problem, but as a threat to Zionism and the “Jewish state”. As I explained in a previous piece in my blog (sakosefiani.com), that’s the only logical conclusion of carving out a colonial settler state for a particular “chosen” people by forcefully and, through massacres, displacing the people who already live on that same land, because they’re of the “wrong” race or religion or ethnic background. 

There is no other option. You either complete the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing through committing mass murder, genocide and extermination or abandon the racist and colonial ideology of Zionism and establish a secular and democratic state for all inhabitants of the land, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background. There is no other option and there is no middle ground or a kinder gentler Zionism to satisfy the “moral” standards of Ehud Barak or American Zionist professors wishing for a tenable “Jewish state”, just as there is no kinder gentler colonialism or kinder gentler racism and apartheid. 

The “existential” threat Israel is feeling, which leads it to wish the destruction of any nation in the region that opposes it, is from within, not without, is from the very nature and foundation of the Zionist state that’s built on racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and massacres. You cannot make Israel acceptable to the world through lies for ever. The truth has a tendency to come out, no matter how powerful your propaganda machinery is. You can slow it and even stop it, but only for so long. What’s causing Israel its crisis is truth coming out and no amount of tanks, fighter jets, warships and missiles can stop it. Not even the US empire can stop it. 

Israel’s crisis is also a testament to and, in no small measure, owing to the success of the BDS movement. It’s that success, which makes some of the leaders of the occupation to have doubts about the state’s future and some American Zionist professors to boycott it, in order “to save it” (save what? Apartheid and ethnic cleansing? The denial of equal rights to non-Jews or the Right of Return to Palestinian refugees to their homes? Or the wall of separation?)

To those who try to discourage the movement by saying it won’t work, I say just ask Israel’s leaders if it’s working or not.

Advertisements

US Wars for Empire in the Third World and the Confused “First World” “Leftists”

 
Have you ever met a right wing person take progressive positions, like defending workers’ unions, advocating raising of wages or speaking against corporations and their greed? So, why do so many “leftists” defend NATO and its imperialist wars? Is imperialism a force for progress, freedom and justice? Does accumulation of surplus value and capital through exploitation of workers not apply to multinational corporations that exploit overseas workers? Is the military wing of imperialism separate from its economic exploitation and hegemony? Does its military operate independently of and is blinded to corporate drive for profits and economic domination? 

Isn’t there a nationalistic element among those so-called “leftists” who join “their country”’s imperialism and imperialist media in justifying wars of imperialist conquest and regime change against nations that are “unfriendly” towards the US and are supposedly led by “brutal dictators”? Are those leaders any more brutal than US leaders who order devastating wars against nations that can’t defend themselves against the empire and kill hundreds of thousands and even millions of their inhabitants? Since when does a “dictator” in a third world country justify such devastating wars waged by imperialism that helps no one but imperialism? 

How many times do US leaders have to be caught having lied to justify such wars for our “leftists” to see that they lie and fabricate stories and fake “enemy attacks” to see the pattern and not fall for them? Are these so-called “leftists”, who are now barking about the “Assad regime” and his “atrocities”, believing US and Israeli lies, stupid or are they imperialist shills pretending to give rat’s ass about progressive values and social justice? 

I’m really sick of these fake “leftists” who are supposedly for “democracy”, which apparently must be accomplished through NATO warplanes and bombers and foreign terrorists and mercenaries, who kill tens of thousands of people using US, Saudi and Israeli weapons. These “leftists” must feel comfortable with a war criminal and mass murderer like Hillary Clinton, who laughs out loud about the brutal murder of Libyan president Gaddafi, who was trying to unite Africa against imperialism, move away from using the Dollar and nationalize the continent’s oil to benefit its people. She said proudly “we came, we saw, he died”. Who came, who saw? NATO war planes and bombs in pursuit of world domination for their wealthy ruling classes; that’s who. Who benefited from that military intervention, the people of Libya or imperialism? Maybe I’m mistaken here. Maybe Hillary doesn’t represent imperialism and works against it!?

And, who will benefit from overthrowing the Syrian government? Are the ISIS terrorists who get weapons from the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel the revolutionary forces that Assad is supposedly murdering and who need the “revolutionary” support of these “leftists”? Or maybe Obama, Clinton and their imperialist friends in Europe are supporting a people’s revolution that Assad, Russia and Iran are trying to suppress!? 

Speaking of Russia, is it a coincidence that such individuals join the voices of imperialism and reaction from Washington and London to Paris and Brussels against Russia’s intervention in Syria? Isn’t that influenced by decades of US nationalistic propaganda presenting the US as a force for good around the world and any nation that opposes it as evil? It’s no surprise that many of these same “leftists”, some of whom have been “active” for decades in “revolutionary” and “socialist” parties, also supported the US instigated coup in Ukraine and condemned Russia’s and President Putin’s “aggression”, instead of imperialism and its fascist puppets and neoliberal tools like IMF and World Bank that wanted to come in and make their bankers rich off the backs of the Ukrainian people, as they did to the Greeks and others.

It’s time – actually past time – for American and European left to wake the f. up, grow up and shed its Eurocentric pro-imperialist brainwashing and unite against world imperialism headed by the US that’s driving the world toward mass destruction and annihilation. 

Obama in Vietnam

  
“Big nations should not bully smaller ones”, said President Obama in his speech in Hanoi, Vietnam, during his visit there on May 24, in reference to Vietnam’s disputes with China. Of course, he’s right. Big nations should not bully smaller ones; they should attack, invade and, in the words of US Air Force Chief of Staff, Curtis LeMay, during the Vietnam war, should “bomb them back into the Stone Age”. They should drop tens of thousands of bombs, including cluster bombs, “Daisy cutter” bombs, “Walleye” bombs, “Pineapple” bombs, agent orange and many more, including both “dumb bombs” and “smart bombs”, and when they decide to leave, when there is no more military advantage to be gained in conducting further bombings, they should “carpet bomb” them and “kill anything that moves” and “anything that’s alive”. The Chinese need to learn from the Americans and who better to teach them that than someone who, during his eight years of presidency, has attacked, invaded or bombed “to Stone Age” several “smaller” nations which couldn’t defend themselves against the US?

Of course, major US news organizations who reported or broadcast his speech would see no irony here. This is how New York Times reported on the speech: “As Obama Presses Vietnam on Rights, Activists Are Barred From Meeting, … underscoring the gulf with Hanoi on human rights”. Yes, the chief peace maker, arbiter and human rights advocate, the United States of America, is on the one hand concerned about China bullying Vietnam, and on the other, with human rights in Vietnam. “The White House had requested the meeting as a signal to Vietnam’s Communist government that the United States cares about human rights here”, went on the article. Yes, the US cares about human rights in Vietnam. That’s why it bombed the country “back to the Stone Age” and killed 3 million of its population. 

Mr. Obama stressed “accountability with respect to government”, by which I suppose he means that the government should be accountable for its actions. Again, they should learn from Obama, because what government accountability means to him is that when someone blows the whistle on a government action, such as waging an unjust war and invading a country, on false pretexts, you put him in solitary confinement for three years, torture him and then sentence him to 35 years in prison, and when someone reveals that the “government” is spying on all its citizens without a cause or warrant, you try to have him caught overseas, arrested and flown home to “face justice”!

New York Times went on to quote John Sifton of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who criticized Obama for seeking closer ties with Vietnam, saying that “Vietnam has demonstrated itself that it doesn’t deserve the closer ties the U.S. is offering. Detaining or preventing civil society from meeting President Obama is not just an insult to the president, it’s also a human rights abuse in itself, a deprivation of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of movement”. As if the US is doing the Vietnamese nation a favor by “offering closer ties”; as if the “closer ties”, which Vietnam “doesn’t deserve”, is meant to benefit Vietnam, in any way, rather than American corporations. If “Human Rights Watch” were truly concerned about the people of Vietnam and their rights, it would oppose “closer ties” because of what such ties would mean for the Vietnamese people, which a look at nations that do have such close ties with the US would quickly reveal, not because some activists were barred from meeting the head of US imperialism, which “was an insult to the President”. 

But, this also goes to show the mindset among such bourgeois pro-imperialist “human rights” organizations of the West. Even assuming that close ties with imperialism would be beneficial to Vietnam, which HRW takes for granted, its mindset is typical within Western imperialism: that to punish a government, you punish its people by refusing to lift the embargo. This is the mindset that leads to devastating economic sanctions against “smaller nations”, causing tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of deaths and even wars that end up reducing a nation to a pile of rubble, because their government didn’t respect the people’s “human rights” and therefore they “deserved” what they got. If economic sanctions, not to mention bombing attacks, isn’t bullying, I don’t know what is.

If we accept that Obama cares for human rights for the Vietnamese people, we should also accept that we’re all 4 year olds. US objectives in Vietnam are as much about its neighbor China, which he referred to as “bigger nation” in his speech, as they are about Vietnam, itself. As far as the former is concerned, what he’s trying to do is reinforce and widen the territorial gap and dispute between the two nations and use that to heavily arm Vietnam against China. Not only does that give the US an opportunity to sell tons of new expensive weapons to Vietnam, which benefits American weapons manufacturers, it also prepares conditions for future military confrontation with China by turning one more of its neighbors into a virtual military base, thus surrounding China, similar to what it has succeeded in doing, to a large degree, against Russia, making those neighboring nations targets for a possible nuclear war.

As for Vietnam, itself, in addition to securing huge profits for US arms manufacturers, also by bringing Vietnam into the community of nations within the so-called “free trade zone” of the TPP, it opens up a new source of cheap labor and raw materials and a large new market for US corporations. This is part of “his” (more accurately of the US military industrial complex he’s acting on behalf) “pivot to China” strategy, which was from the outset as much military in nature as it was economic. For imperialism, these two are never separate or far apart and always go hand in hand. US military paves the way and ensures profitable conditions for them, as the corporations come in and operate under the watchful eyes and guard of the military, often in places where they could not have existed were it not for the military wing of the military-industrial complex.

“Big nations should not bully smaller ones”. They should “bomb them to Stone Age”, impose an embargo against them and then return and arm them against their bigger neighbor in preparation for military confrontation which puts them at harm’s length, and they should of course exploit their cheap labor and natural resources to enrich one’s multinational corporations.

Obama: “I Won’t Apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki”

  
Obama said during his recent  trip to Hiroshima that he won’t apologize on behalf of the US for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which instantly killed over 140,000 innocent men, women and children – expecting women, women nursing infants, toddlers and elderly alike – and many more in the following years, knowing that the vast majority of the victims would be innocent civilians. The reason why Obama or any other head of US empire won’t apologize is because if they did for that horrendous war crime which deliberately targeted and massacred civilians in the tens of thousands, for which US leaders, including the president, would have been hanged, if the same standards were to be applied to them, as they were to Nazi officials, after WWII, they may have to apologize for other war crimes, too, which they keep committing.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger war crime than dropping the atomic bomb on large and densely populated cities where ordinary people go after their lives. But, what we must realize is that that genocidal mindset within the US military industrial complex was not only a thing of the past and has continued to this day. Relentless bombing of population centers is a routine and regular policy for the US, whether it’s in Korea or Vietnam or Yugoslavia or Iraq or Libya or anywhere else where they decide to overthrow a government and accomplish regime change. You’d think that after they witnessed – or at least saw and heard from far away – the horrors of the atomic bombs that they dropped, they’d be at the forefront of trying to abolish the bomb, but no, they “modernize” their stockpile and develop newer and “better” ones, with more deadly potential. And to be able to use them without retribution, they try to develop “shields” against retaliating nukes coming their way, in order to gain a “first strike” capability and make nuclear attack “feasible”. 

A nuclear war with Russia launched from countries bordering it is not off the table for the US and is indeed contemplated and planned for, as they continue to stir and take advantage of disputes and using them to station missiles at Russia’s borders, knowing the incredible risks and danger such policy entails.

What we must also understand, is that when a US president speaks, he or she doesn’t express just his or her own opinion or position, even when he says he does, but rather for and on behalf of the military industrial complex, which is hell bent on taking over the world for profits for corporations, at all cost. As an institution, it feels no remorse or empathy. Mass murder is just a necessary chore and racism and dehumanizations a tool to bring the public along, a public that gets nothing from all the killings, but less money left to improve their own lives.

Hillary vs. Trump: Who’s the Lesser Evil?

  
A Facebook ad for Hillary Clinton asked for help to beat Trump because it said “beating Trump won’t be easy”. And, new polls show that support for Trump is indeed growing, while Clinton’s is stagnating, which is beginning to worry establishment Democrats, who until now, have been confident in their candidate’s ability to beat Trump, and not just beat, but “crush” him. They argued all along that Hillary is the stronger candidate and has a better chance of beating him than Bernie Sanders, dismissing the fact that polls consistently showed that Sanders had a better chance of beating him in general elections than Clinton. 

Hillary, to be sure, is by far the preferred candidate for the Party establishment, who have put their money where their mouth – or rather their wallet – is and thrown their strong support behind her, not only through their “super delegates”, but by making the Democratic primaries look like elections in some third world country, run by the CIA and their paid generals. But, now they’re beginning to wake up to the fact that the product they just bought and brought home is defective. Even her closest allies will secretly, if not publicly, admit that she’s a “terrible candidate”. 

But, let’s pause for a second and contemplate what makes her such a “bad candidate”. I’m not talking about the fact that she’s one of the most hawkish and pro-war politicians in recent US history. In fact, only Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger – both of whom have, not surprisingly, expressed support for her – are hawkish enough to be even comparable to her, and without exaggeration, even they fall short in comparison. I’m also not talking about her close relations with big Wall Street banks or her support for neoliberal “free trade” agreements, such as the TPP or for supporting fracking or for her ties to arms manufacturers, big oil, big Pharma, Monsanto and Saudi kings, or her unconditional support for the apartheid state of Israel, or her desire to attack Iran, send troops to Syria and face off Russia and China, militarily. These are indeed reactionary and dangerous tenets, not to be ignored, regardless of who her opponent is in November. What makes her a terrible candidate, whom even the ruling class will only begrudgingly and reluctantly can bring itself to support as their “lesser evil”, is not ideological or political – they have no problem with her in that regard – but personality. When Donald Trump calls her “crooked Hillary”, people see and feel that he’s right, regardless of what they think of Trump, himself – and indeed most have very low opinion of him and deservedly so. This is not sexism, any more than telling the truth about Obama is racist. Most politicians – men and women – are disingenuous, two-faced, dishonest and crooked. But, many of them are just below the threshold beyond which the decibel level of their disingenuousness is so high that it’s hard to ignore. There are times when a politician may fall back into his or her more genuine self. But, for Hillary, to show that there is even a trace of genuineness in her, she has to make a deliberate effort and stage and act that moment of genuineness, which naturally comes off as what it really is: planned, staged, acted and fake. 

Ideologically, she’s very much in the camp of aggressive and militant imperialism, where you’d find the likes of Cheney and Kissinger, but while these two are controversial war mongers and liars, who fabricate stories, twist facts, mislead and lie to achieve their imperial goals, there still is some kind of genuineness about them. She, on the other hand, seems trapped in the body of someone who feels she has to pretend to be a “progressive”, who cares about the poor or the minorities or the victims of police brutality or the thousands of innocent people overseas when she eagerly and enthusiastically sacrifices for empire, without feeling anything. And that’s hard to do. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger see no need for such pretense. That makes them genuine, even if it means genuine sociopaths and war criminals. 

While Cheney and Kissinger are ideological liars and sociopaths, who will sacrifice millions for empire and not feel anything, Hillary will do all that, but she does feel something: she feels joy and pleasure. Think for a moment about what she said and how she said it, after US and its European allies relentlessly bombed Libya, killing thousands, and after a US war plane bombed Gaddafi’s convoy and a mob of terrorists captured him, sodomized him with a knife, cut him in many places and brutally lynched, mutilated and killed him. She said laughingly: “we came; we saw; he died; hahaha”. A normal person feels no joy at torturous death of even her enemies. The only time she’s genuine is when she expresses such joy at the thought of violence, brutality and murder. 

Many people look at her and feel there is something about her that’s revolting and disturbing, but can’t quite put their finger on it. But, they don’t have to. They know they don’t like her and that’s enough to worry the Democratic Party establishment. And, that’s why her Facebook ad admits “beating Trump won’t be easy”. You’d think with all that Trump has said, it should be rather easy to beat him. Trump is the epitome of a racist, sexist, arrogant, ignorant, narcissistic asshole, but he’s different from Clinton in two major ways: he’s non-ideological and he’s genuine. There is nothing to like about such a racist and sexist asshole, either, and admittedly, his being non-ideological stems, at least in part, from his ignorance. But, at a time when US imperialism is waging multiple and endless wars and is surrounding Russia with tanks and missiles and provoking China in South China Sea and pushes for another world war, not being ideologically aligned with the most belligerent and militarist imperialist policies is actually a good thing. Now, I, for one, wouldn’t hold my breath for Trump to actually continue along the lines he’s been speaking, should he win the presidency, and he’s probably saying them for the wrong reasons, but at least, he’s taking positions against multiple endless wars and against military interventions and for negotiating with Russia and China. He’s also speaking of more even-handed policy towards occupied Palestine, rather than Clinton’s unconditional and unlimited aid and support for the settler state. Clinton leaves no doubt as to her desire for more wars and military interventions and confrontations, including against Russia and China, especially for intervention and provocation at Russia’s borders. Trump is also against neoliberal trade agreements, which Clinton has been in support of most of her political career. He’s clearly to her left on these issues. 

I’m not ignoring the domestic realm, which is where Clinton supporters feel an edge over Trump. But, in this area, too, her supporters are forgetting one major fact: while Clinton will implement pro Wall Street and corporate policies, same as Republicans and same as Trump, she will probably do them without major resistance from workers and the minorities, especially blacks. Trump, on the other hand, won’t be afforded such benefit. Trump will be a magnet for protests and even riots. And guess what has historically been more effective in bringing about real and significant change, whether it be voting rights for women and African Americans, civil rights, the right to collective bargaining for workers or abolition of slavery. None of these and other major societal changes were accomplished “incrementally” and by electing “the lesser evil”, even if we think Hillary is, which is far from clear. President Obama is a good example of it. It’s hard to find a more “credible” lesser evil than Obama was considered to be in 2008. He was claimed as the real thing, the best hope in more than a generation to bring fundamental change. The only “change” he brought was more wars, more killings, more riches for the rich and more poverty for the poor.

What is clear both from the 2008 and 2016 elections is that people want change from the ordinary, business as usual status quo. This is why Trump wins over establishment and known figures like Jeb Bush, Scott Walker. Marco Rubio and others and it’s why Bernie Sanders draws large crowds and has made it tough for Hillary to break away and put away the contest, despite all the Party and establishment support she’s been getting. This is why Democrats have to be worried now about November. She’s the epitome of a typical corrupt career and establishment politician, who represents the status quo more than any and for more of the same: close ties with fraudster bankers and large corporations, from big oil and Pharma to weapons manufacturers, promising more wars, more support for Israel and closer ties with corrupt Saudi dictators and Islamist terrorists to accomplish regime change. The frustration is so high among people that many Democrats consider Trump their “lesser evil”, despite his disgusting attitude towards women, immigrants and minorities. 

I must say if the issue is to pick “the lesser evil”, I don’t see how Hillary is it. We know Trump is a sexist and racist asshole, but more evil than Hillary? Trump is like that racist, sexist, homophobe asshole conservative uncle or cousin, whom we have to tolerate for couple of hours every year, but more evil than Hillary? I’m not so sure. The point is: the general elections aren’t going to be a walk in the park for Democrats, who pushed Bernie aside with all the force of the Party they could muster, in favor of Hillary, claiming that she will destroy Trump in November. At least, the polls don’t support that claim. To be sure, Sanders, too, is no revolutionary and was not about to deliver on the promise of major changes, either. But, his bid for the leadership of “the free world”, which is euphemism for world imperialism headed by the US military industrial complex and empire (yes, that’s what Bernie is hoping to be the leader of, too, just as Hillary and Trump), showed how corrupt and beholden to big money the Democratic Party is. 

Changes don’t happen incrementally, but consciousness does, slowly but surely, until it gets to the point when occupying government buildings and police headquarters seems much more promising than standing in long lines to vote.

After 8 Years of Obama, Now, Hillary Clinton Is Being Sold To Us As Another “Lesser Evil” Democrat!

  

Just during the presidency of Barrack Obama, the US has attacked, bombed or waged war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, killing thousands, including many women and children, has made assassinations from a “kill list” an openly acknowledged US policy, has orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, Honduras and Brazil, has stirred unrest in Venezuela, waging an economic war against it, has imposed heavy sanctions on Iran that impoverished millions, has moved tanks and missiles to Russia’s border in clear and dangerous provocation, has significantly increased military aid to the apartheid state of Israel, even after their massacre of over 2,000 defenseless men, women and children in Gaza and building thousands of new settlements on stolen Palestinian land in violation of international laws and UN Security Council resolutions, deported more immigrants than any other president, signed the NDAA into law which gives the military the legal right to have American citizens disappeared without a trace and without a charge or legal defense, increased the level of mass surveillance against citizens, punished whistle blowers, refused to press charges against bankers and defended Monsanto in court against small farmers, pushed for the passage of TPP neoliberal trade agreement and signed a bill that cut food stamps to the poor by largest amount since the program began. And ironically he was touted as a “progressive” Democrat and the “lesser evil”, who won the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanics and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!
 

Now, Hillary is running on a similar platform, promising to continue Obama’s policies, again as a “progressive” Democrat and as the “lesser evil”, with the difference that she wants even more wars and more confrontation with and provocation against Russia and Iran and wants to send US troops to Syria to overthrow the government.

They say it gets worse before it gets better. Can it get any more f…ed up than this? If these are American’s “progressives”, I hate to see its reactionaries. Personally, I don’t think Trump can be any worse than either Obama or Hillary. Actually, he can’t even be as bad as either one. What will stop him you ask? People on the streets, that’s who. Those same people who stay home when Democrats win the office will probably be in the streets because Republicans don’t claim to be on the side of minorities, workers and the poor, as do the Democrats. Democrats do what Republicans wish or say they wish to do. The kinds of reactionary and anti working class policies that Democrats get away with, Republicans can only dream about.

Which Way Forward for the Zionist State?

Palestine

It may shock many to hear this since it’s what many Israelis, especially Israeli settlers are saying, but Israel has no choice but to commit mass murder, genocide and mass extermination against the Palestinians. That’s because it’s impossible to occupy land populated by a people, expel those already living there and create a state specifically and exclusively for people of some other religion or ethnicity to come and colonize the land and not commit genocide and mass extermination.

Many among Israelis have realized this and are therefore understandably calling for the state of Israel to finish off Palestinians, killing them all, young and old, even their babies. This is not a surprising conclusion. It’s the logical end of creating a state on confiscated land after killing and forcibly removing its inhabitants to make the desired state possible. You have to do it if you want your colonization to continue. You have to continue the occupation and with it the brutal suppression of the resistance of the occupied. You have no choice.

Other Israelis and non-Israeli Jews, too, are slowly realizing this, but are coming to a totally different conclusion. They agree that the creation of a colonial settler state on occupied and stolen land and founded on displacement of the native population is not sustainable and since they see no option but genocide as the logical culmination of it, they are coming to the realization that Zionism was wrong from the beginning and must be abandoned and replaced with the idea of living with others on equal and just basis.

Still however many others continue to live in delusion and are hoping against hope that somehow and sometime, the Palestinians will just stop resisting and pack up and go live somewhere else and leave the land for Jewish settlers to come and occupy. These people speak of the hope for peace, but what they’re really hoping is that Palestinians will stop fighting back and accept their fate as a perpetually occupied people living under military occupation and apartheid, without the right to self-determination, not realizing that peace cannot exist without justice, that peace cannot be based on massacres, murders. beatings, incarceration, torture, home demolitions, military checkpoints, detentions, home raids and genocide. Genocide is the antithesis to peace. Genocide is war. Only justice can bring lasting peace.

Where do you stand on this?