Finding the Moral Courage to Recognize a Genocide

by Ana Malinow

AUGUST 8, 2024

Silence in the face of a polio epidemic

Last week, Gaza’s Ministry of Health announced the detection of poliovirus in sewage water samples, placing residents at significant risk of contracting this highly infectious virus. Despite a 99% decline in global polio cases since 1988 due to extensive vaccination campaigns, the eradication of polio is now under threat. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, characterized by Israeli military actions that have damaged or destroyed water infrastructure, has exacerbated conditions conducive to the spread of diseases. Limited access to clean drinking water, poor hygiene, overcrowding, and disruptions to childhood immunizations, including boosters, all contribute to this public health crisis.

In response to this alarming development, U.S. medical professional organizations have remained conspicuously silent. On November 3, the American Public Health Association (APHA) issued a statement recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense but failed to address the 16-year blockade of Gaza and its devastating humanitarian impact. The APHA referred to the situation as a “growing humanitarian crisis arising from limited access to basic human necessities” without mentioning the ongoing bombing campaign targeting civilians in Gaza. Less than two weeks later, the same organization issued a one-sentence call for an immediate ceasefire in the “Hamas-Israel war.”

On November 11, the American Medical Association’s (AMA) House of Delegates declined to consider a resolution co-sponsored by the Minority Affairs Section supporting a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. Former AMA president, Andrew Gurman, MD, stated, “This resolution deals with a geopolitical issue, which is in no way the purview of this house,” emphasizing that their role is to address issues facing doctors and patients in the U.S. This stance contrasts sharply with the AMA’s previous condemnation of attacks on healthcare workers and facilities in Ukraine, where it called for an “immediate ceasefire and an end to all attacks on health care workers and facilities.”

Why are medical professional organizations staying silent?

As reported in MedPage, nine months into the genocide, the AMA passed a resolution calling for peace in Israel and Palestine but still refrained from demanding a ceasefire. In April, the World Medical Association (WMA), alarmed by the escalating healthcare and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including starvation and lack of medical care, unanimously passed a resolution calling for a “bilateral, negotiated, and sustainable ceasefire,” with support from the Israeli Medical Society.

A compelling article published by Mondoweiss, an online journal providing analysis on Palestine, Israel, and the U.S., questioned the silence of U.S. public health institutions amidst a genocide financially and ideologically supported by their own government. The author suggested several reasons: a failure to recognize the root causes of health disparities driven by colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism; a history of harm inflicted by U.S. medical institutions on marginalized communities; and the substantial investments of U.S. universities in the weapons industry.

I propose an additional explanation. For too long, U.S. physicians have been blind to the paradox within our training and healthcare system. As Eric Reinhart argues in a JAMA Commentary published last year, medical education has been political, but in a manner that is “overwhelmingly conservative, profoundly uncritical, and reflexively protective of an ethically bankrupt field that has spent a century building up a capitalist healthcare industry.” This has led doctors and medical students to accept and uphold a for-profit, market-driven healthcare system that often disregards how politics shapes our profession.

Medical professionals must speak out

Given this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that many health professionals lack the moral courage to acknowledge a genocide. However, we must demand more from our professional associations. They should call for an immediate ceasefire, safe and unrestricted humanitarian access to Gaza, the evacuation of urgent medical cases including children with family members, the protection of civilian infrastructure, and an end to the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel. These actions are essential to uphold our ethical obligations and avoid complicity in what UN experts describe as potential serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws.

The medical community must rise to the occasion, recognizing and addressing the genocide in Gaza, which today includes a potential polio epidemic, with the urgency and moral clarity it demands. We cannot afford to remain silent in the face of such profound suffering and injustice.

Dr. Ana Malinow is a retired pediatrician, who has dedicated her career to serving immigrant, refugee, and marginalized children. She has written extensively on U.S. health care policy. She co-leads National Single Payer.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

 

Venezuela Is a Marvellous Country in Motion

by Vijay Prashad / August 8th, 2024

Credit: Francisco Trías

I have been in Caracas, Venezuela, for the past two weeks, before and after the presidential election on 28 July. In the run-up to the election, two things became clear to me. First, the Chavistas (supporters of Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian project that is now led by President Nicolás Maduro) have the enormous advantage of an organised mass base. Second, knowing that the odds were not in their favour, the opposition, led by far-right María Corina Machado and the US government, were already signalling defeat before the election even took place by alleging that it would be fraudulent. Since at least the 2004 recall referendum, when the opposition tried to remove Chávez from office, it has become a right-wing cliché that the electoral system in Venezuela is no longer fair.

Just after midnight on election night, July 28 (Chávez’s seventieth birth anniversary), the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that, with 80% of the votes counted, there was an irreversible trend: Maduro had won re-election. These results were then validated a few days later by the CNE with 96.87% of the votes counted, showing that Maduro (51.95%) defeated the far-right candidate Edmundo González (43.18%) by 1,082,740 votes (the other opposition candidates received merely 600,936 votes combined, which means that even if the votes received by other opposition candidates had gone to González, he still would not have won). In other words, with 59.97% voter participation, Maduro received just over half of the votes.

Credit: Zoe Alexandra

I talked to a high-level advisor to the opposition, who asked to remain anonymous, about the results. He said that, though he sympathised with the opposition’s frustration, he felt that the final result seemed about right. In 2013, he explained, Maduro won by 50.62%, while Henrique Capriles received 49.12% of the votes in the presidential elections that took place just over a month after Chávez’s death. This was before the oil prices collapsed, and before sanctions tightened. At that time, with Chávez gone, the opposition smelled blood, but they could not prevail. ‘It is hard to beat the Chavistas because they have both the programme of Chávez and the ability to mobilise their supporters to the ballot box’, he said.

It is not that the far right does not have a promise of social transformation; they want to privatise the state-owned oil company, return expropriated property to the oligarchy, and invite private capital to cannibalise Venezuela. Rather, it is that their promise of social transformation is at odds with the dreams of the majority. That is why the right cannot win, and that is why an important line of attack since 2004 has been to cry fraud.

Credit: Francisco Trías

And so, on election day, just after polls closed and before any official results had been released, Machado and Washington, as if in concert, began to bleat about fraud, building on a line of attack that they had been establishing for months. Machado’s followers immediately took to the streets and attacked symbols of Chavismo: schools and health centres in working-class areas, public bus stations and buses, offices of Chavista communes and parties, and statues of figures who had set the Bolivarian Revolution in motion (including a statue of Chávez as well as the Indigenous Chief Coromoto). At least two militants of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Isabel Cirila Gil from Bolívar state and Mayauri Coromoto Silva Vilma from Aragua state, were assassinated in the aftermath of the election, two sergeants were killed, and other Chavistas, police, and officials were brutally beaten and captured.

It was clear by the nature of the attack that these far-right forces of a special kind wanted to erase the histories of Venezuela’s indígenas and zambos, as well as the working class and the peasantry. Every day since the election, hundreds of thousands of Chavistas have taken to the streets of Caracas and elsewhere. The pictures in this newsletter were taken by Francisco Trías at the 2 August Women’s March, by Zoe Alexandra (Peoples Dispatch) at the 31 July March of the Working Class in Defence of the Homeland (two of many mass mobilisations that have taken place since the elections), and by me at a pre-election rally on 27 July. In each of these marches, the chant no volverán – they will not return – reverberated amongst the crowd. The oligarchy, they said, will not return.

Credit: Vijay Prashad

The Bolivarian Revolution began in 1999, when Chávez ascended to the presidency. Waves of elections were held to change the constitution and overcome the oligarchy’s resistance (as well as that of Washington, which has tried many times to overthrow Chávez, such as the failed coup d’état in 2002, and Maduro, such as the ongoing use of sanctions as a tool for regime change and attempts to invade the Venezuelan border). Chávez’s government nationalised the oil industry, renegotiated rent prices (through the 2001 Hydrocarbons Law), and removed the layer of corrupt officialdom from the spigot of national profits.

The national treasury was able to earn a greater percentage of royalties from multinational oil firms. The stated-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) set up the Fund for Social and Economic Development (Fondespa) to finance schemes benefitting oil workers, their communities, and other projects. The oil wealth was to be used to industrialise the country and to halt Venezuela’s dependency on its oil sales and on imports. Diversifying the economy is a key part of the Bolivarian agenda, including reviving the country’s agriculture, and in so doing working to meet the fifth strategic objective of The Plan for the Homeland to ‘preserve life on the planet and save the human species’.

Credit: Francisco Trías

It was because of that oil money that Chávez’s government could increase social spending by 61% ($772 billion), which it used to uplift the lives of the population through large-scale programmes such as various misiones (missions) that set out to make the rights enshrined in the 1999 Constitution a reality. For example, in 2003 the government set up three missions (Robinson, Ribas, and Sucre) to send educators into low-income areas to provide free literacy and higher education courses. Mission Zamora took in hand the process of land reform, and Mission Vuelta al Campo sought to encourage people to return to the countryside from urban slums. Mission Mercal provided low-cost, high-quality food to help wean the population off highly processed imported foodstuffs, while the Mission Barrio Adentro sought to provide low-cost, high-quality medical care to the working class and poor and Mission Vivienda built more than 5 million homes.

Through these missions, poverty rates in Venezuela declined by 37.6% from 1999 to the present (the decline of extreme poverty is stunning: from 16.6% in 1999 to 7% in 2011, a 57.8% decline, and if you begin measuring from 2004 – the start of the missions’ impact – extreme poverty declines by 70%). Venezuela, one of the harshest unequal social orders prior to 1999, became one of the least unequal societies, with the Gini coefficient dropping by 54% (the lowest in the region), indicating the impact that these basic social policies have had on everyday life.

Credit: Francisco Trías

Over the past twenty years, during my frequent stays in Venezuela, I have spoken with hundreds of working-class Chavistas – many of them Black women. Since the tightening of the sanctions, Venezuelans have faced immense privations and freely proffered their complaints about the direction of the revolution. They do not deny the problems, but unlike the opposition, they understand that the root of the crisis is the US hybrid war. Even if there is increased social inequality and corruption, they locate these ills in the violence of the sanctions policy (which even the Washington Post now admits).

During the massive marches to defend the government in the week following the elections, people openly described the two choices that faced them: to try and advance the Bolivarian process through Maduro’s government or to return to February 1989 when Carlos Andrés Pérez imposed the IMF-crafted economic agenda known as the paquetazo (packet) on the country. Pérez did this against his own election promises and against his own party (Acción Democrática), provoking an urban rebellion known as the Caracazo in which as many as 5,000 people were killed by government forces in one fateful day (though death toll estimates vary widely).

Credit: Francisco Trías

Indeed, many feel that Machado would usher in an even worse era in the country, since she has none of the social democratic finesse of Pérez and would like to inflict shock therapy on her own country to benefit her own class. A popular Venezuelan saying captures the essence of this choice: chivo que se devuelve se ’esnuca (the goat that returns breaks its neck).

Canadian billionaire Peter Munk, who owned Barrick Gold, wrote that Chávez was a ‘dangerous dictator’, compared him to Hitler, and called for him to be overthrown. This was in 2007 when Munk was upset because Chávez wanted to control Venezuela’s gold exports. The general orientation of the Chávez government was to ‘delink’ from the global economy, which meant preventing multinational firms and powerful countries in the Global North from setting the agenda of countries such as Venezuela.

This idea of ‘delinking’ is the main focus of our latest dossier, How Latin America Can Delink from Imperialism. Building upon the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – Peoples’ Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) 2030 Strategic Agenda, the dossier proposes four key areas that must be delinked in order to set the foundation for a sovereign development strategy: finance, trade, strategic resources, and logistical infrastructure. This is precisely what the Bolivarian process has set out to do, which is precisely why its government has been so harshly attacked by US imperialism and by multinational corporations such as Barrick Gold.

Credit: Zoe Alexandra

On the day after the election, it rained. At one of the marches to defend the Bolivarian process that day, a Chavista recited a few lines from a 1961 poem by the Venezuelan poet Víctor ‘El Chino’ Valera Mora (1935–1984), ‘Maravilloso país en movimiento’ (Marvellous Country in Motion).

Marvellous country in motion
Where everything advances or retreats
Where yesterday is a push forward or a farewell.

Those who don’t know you
Will say that you are an impossible quarrel.

So frequently mocked
Yet always standing upright with joy.

You will be free.

If the condemned do not reach your shores
You will go to them another day.

I keep believing in you
marvellous country in motion.Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. Prashad is the author of twenty-five books, including The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Read other articles by Vijay, or visit Vijay's website.

American Theocracy: Politics Has Become Our National Religion

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / August 7th, 2024

You shall have no other gods before me.

— The Ten Commandments

Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore.

— Donald Trump

Politics has become our national religion.

While those on the Left have feared a religious coup by evangelical Christians on the Right, the danger has come from an altogether different direction: our constitutional republic has given way to a theocracy structured around the worship of a political savior.

For all intents and purposes, politics has become America’s God.

Pay close attention to the political conventions for presidential candidates, and it becomes immediately evident that Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into worshipping a political idol manufactured by the Deep State.

In a carefully choreographed scheme to strip the American citizenry of our power and our rights, “we the people” have become victims of the Deep State’s confidence game.

Every confidence game has six essential stages: 1) the foundation to lay the groundwork for the illusion; 2) the approach whereby the victim is contacted; 3) the build-up to make the victim feel like they’ve got a vested interest in the outcome; 4) the corroboration (aided by third-party conspirators) to legitimize that the scammers are, in fact, on the up-and-up; 5) the pay-off, in which the victim gets to experience some small early “wins”; and 6) the “hurrah”— a sudden manufactured crisis or change of events that creates a sense of urgency.

In this particular con game, every candidate dangled before us as some form of political savior—including Donald Trump and Kamala Harris—is part of a long-running, elaborate scam intended to persuade us that, despite all appearances to the contrary, we live in a constitutional republic.

In this way, the voters are the dupes, the candidates are the shills, and as usual, it’s the Deep State rigging the outcome.

Terrorist attacks, pandemics, economic uncertainty, national security threats, civil unrest: these are all manipulated crises that add to the sense of urgency and help us feel invested in the outcome of the various elections, but it doesn’t change much in the long term.

No matter who wins this election, we’ll all still be prisoners of the Deep State.

Indeed, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. To put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.

When it comes to the power players that call the shots, there is no end to their voracious appetite for more: more money, more power, more control. Thus, since 9/11, the government’s answer to every problem has been more government and less freedom.

Yet despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.

However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, the Constitution provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.

Unfortunately, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.

Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.

The rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, once the map by which we navigated sometimes hostile government terrain, has been unceremoniously booted out of the runaway car that is the U.S. government by the Deep State.

What we are dealing with is a rogue government whose policies are dictated more by greed than need. Making matters worse, “we the people” have become so gullible, so easily distracted, and so out-of-touch that we have ignored the warning signs all around us in favor of political expediency in the form of electoral saviors.

Yet it’s not just Americans who have given themselves over to political gods, however.

Evangelical Christians, seduced by electoral promises of power and religious domination, have become yet another tool in the politician’s toolbox.

For instance, repeatedly conned into believing that Republican candidates from George W. Bush to Donald Trump will save the church, evangelical Christians have turned the ballot box into a referendum on morality. Yet in doing so, they have shown themselves to be as willing to support totalitarian tactics as those on the Left.

This was exactly what theologian Francis Schaeffer warned against: “We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country. To say it another way, ‘We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.’”

Equating religion and politics, and allowing the ends to justify the means, only empowers tyrants and lays the groundwork for totalitarianism.

This way lies madness and the certain loss of our freedoms.

If you must vote, vote, but don’t make the mistake of consecrating the ballot box.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it doesn’t matter what religion a particular candidate claims to subscribe to: all politicians answer to their own higher power, which is the Deep State.

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

On Being a Patriot

by Kim Petersen / August 8th, 2024

Journalist and political analyst Caleb Maupin put out a video “Scott Ritter’s home raided by the FBI.” Maupin affirmed his solidarity with Ritter, a staunch opponent of US militaristic support for Ukraine and Israel.

Ritter’s anti-imperialist stand is nothing new. He first came to wider attention with his opposition to US plans to attack Iraq for having weapons-of-mass-destruction. Ritter, the then United Nations weapons inspector, said that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed.” History has proven Ritter correct. The US government was wrong.

Nonetheless, many patriots often trot out the canard “my country, right or wrong.”

Scott Ritter, a former US marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector, is a fierce critic of US militarism. Yet, he does not equivocate when it comes to his patriotism: “I’m an American Patriot who puts my country and its security first.”

This fidelity called patriotism is universal. For example, it is one of the 12 goals of socialism in China. Generally, it is understood to mean “love of country.” Thus, the Chinese characters for love and country.

Patriotism: “devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country.”

To vigorously support one’s country? Right or wrong? And what exactly is a country? Is it specific to a geographically defined dimension?

Country: “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.”

This definition of country does not clarify precisely the orbit of patriotism. Is it government? It couldn’t be that because people, who consider themselves to be patriots, in countries with elections are often voting governments out. And one can often hear citizens venting displeasure with their government. Does this mean they are not patriots? Ritter, undeniably, does not hide his displeasure with government.

Nation: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

Well, the United States often describes itself as a melting pot: “a term that was used to describe Americanization in which immigrants adopt American culture and abandon culture from their home country.”

So, US culture is the result of abandoned cultures?

Previously, I asked why people like Scott Ritter and colonel Douglas Macgregor keep professing their love of the US while pointing out its dishonesty, bullying, war crimes, warmaking, corruption, etc. Why love such a country?

Ritter points out the multitudinous crimes of US empire, the racism, the crimes against whistleblowers and publishers (e.g., Julian Assange), the crimes of US allies (e.g., Israel; it took him a while to realize the evil of Zionism, but credit to him that he rejected a previously held position that he later found to be intellectually and morally untenable), the unfair “trade” practices (e.g., sanctions, theft of another country’s assets), the deterioration of US infrastructure (e.g., water in Flint, MI), the destruction of the environment, the inequality, homelessness, poverty, etc. Yet, he always says he is an American patriot and that he loves his country.

The logical disconnect seems huge, but it is also understandable. Why? If Ritter didn’t praise his American citizenship to the heavens, then he would likely be dismissed as anti-American, and people who swallow the patriotism Kool-aid would tune him out. A sad state of affairs.

If Ritter, Macgregor, and other American voices that speak in opposition to the imperialist agenda did not profess their love of the US of America, an entity that came into existence because of a massive genocide, then they all know that they would be silenced.

The world needs contrarian voices to be free to speak, and not just contrarian voices, all voices. People must have the opportunity to consider what the voices say. Are their facts verifiable, is their logic sound, and is their message morally based?

Ritter educates many of us about US militarism, what the fighting in Ukraine is about, who the actors are and why they are involved.

Back to Maupin

I do not always agree with Ritter, and I have expressed some of my reservations and my reasons for them. Likeliest, Ritter would like to revisit and amend some of his formulations, as most of us would. But Ritter is a cut above; he is experienced; he does his homework; he talks straight and extemporaneously.

A friend who started checking out Ritter’s geopolitical views on my recommendation, came across disturbing news about Ritter and asked me about it. The news of the FBI raid on Ritter’s domicile, has provided the monopoly media the opportunity to dredge up his past indiscretions and criminal activities. However, these should not just be brushed aside or dismissed. And neither should Ritter’s views be brushed aside. Whatever the facts are of the unsavory matter, Ritter had been punished. Now the state is piling on. Because past actions are past, we cannot undo them; the best we can do is atone.

Some might question whether a person with certain criminal deficiencies could be trusted about their reporting on geopolitics and militarism? The answer seems obvious. The focus ought to be on whatever information, from whoever. By all means, take into account the source; regarding the information, take what is good and factual and relegate what is bad and dubious to a lesser file.

Ritter is an important voice. The assumption is that the FBI raid was only about Ritter’s expressing his first amendment rights. Regardless, I have no problem to standing in solidarity with Ritter against imperialism, warring, and Zionism.

The common refrain “I love my country…” is almost mandatory in the US if uttering any criticism of the state. As ex-military and a declared patriot, Ritter had created a space to function as a critic of the international crimes of America. That space appears to have severely narrowed. To express non-allegiance with America – despite it being a moral abomination – would invite the wrath of the state. For one, these critics would be slandered and have their communication platforms targeted, as Maupin knows well since his book Kamala Harris & the Future of America was banned by Amazon. This is another example of the government and its allies undermining free speech.

As Maupin said in the video, an injustice to one is an injustice to all. It is a call for the free speech rights of Ritter, and it emphasizes the same rights for all of usFacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Read other articles by Kim.

New Banksy artwork 'stolen' from above London shop

Agence France-Presse
August 8, 2024 

The wolf silhouette was located on the roof of an empty shop in Peckham

© HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP

The piece was the fourth animal-themed artwork that Banksy had installed in various parts of the UK capital this week.

The street artist, whose identity is unknown and the subject of feverish speculation, confirmed on Instagram that the works were his own.

The wolf silhouette was located on the roof of an empty shop in Peckham, southeast London.

Photos from the scene carried by local media show a person climbing up a ladder to retrieve the satellite dish while another holds the ladder for them.

Further images show an individual in shorts walking off with the piece of art.

"We were called to reports of a stolen satellite dish containing artwork at 1:52 pm (12:52 GMT) on Thursday, 8 August in Rye Lane, Peckham," London's Metropolitan Police force said in a statement.

"There have been no arrests. Inquiries continue."

The two elephants were depicted with their trunks outstretched © BENJAMIN CREMEL / AFP

On Monday, a Banksy of a goat precariously perched on top of a wall with rocks tumbling down appeared in Richmond, southwest London.


Then on Tuesday two elephant silhouettes with their trunks stretched towards each other appeared in Chelsea, southwest London.

On Wednesday, the black silhouette of three monkeys appeared on the side of a railway bridge as if they were swinging.

Several months usually pass between new Banksy artworks and this week's sudden spurt has sparked speculation among fans about their meaning.


© 2024 AFP