Friday, September 13, 2024

Rethinking 9/11: Fascism, Memory, and the Crisis of Democracy in the 21st Century


 
 September 13, 2024
Facebook

At this moment in history, we find ourselves in a society defined by relentless speed, overwhelming amounts of information, the proliferation of misinformation, and widening inequality.[1] Fascist politics are increasingly legitimized, long-term commitments are devalued, and the far-right’s vision of society constantly shifts, maintaining control through chaos and confusion. In such an environment, memory becomes fragmented and diluted, stripped of its complexity. The gravity of loss and its emancipatory possibilities are divorced from both the past and present, with little effort made to examine how it shapes politics, democracy, and the future. Loss is now produced and legitimized through historical amnesia—a refusal to interrogate, critically engage, or unearth history as a resource for addressing current crises.

Now, 23 years after 9/11, we must ask ourselves: what lessons have we truly learned from that tragic day? How did we, as a society, squander the political and moral opportunities to nurture the newfound sense of solidarity that emerged from such a profound crisis? And how did American foreign policy, through the war on terror, contribute to shaping contemporary Afghanistan—now one of the most repressive countries in the world, especially for women?[2]

Today, the rise of far-right authoritarianism and fascism, especially in the United States, is exacerbated by a society that prioritizes instant gratification, the commodification of experience, and a relentless focus on material self-interest. The triumph of corporate capitalism has led to staggering economic and political inequities and a disavowal of collective civic engagement. Public life has become privatized, government is demonized, and a culture of cruelty and hyper-individualism reigns. Within this landscape, “loss tends to be an experience we are advised to ‘get past.’” [3] But the consequences of this loss—whether it’s the erosion of democracy or the undermining of civic duty—are profound. What was once called “a war on terror” following 9/11 has produced in the last 23 years a country in which fear, if not domestic terrorism, has become central to politics itself.

The Post-9/11 Landscape: Memory, Militarism, and Fascism’s Roots

The decades following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have been pivotal in shaping this shift toward authoritarianism and fascist politics in the U.S. Initially, 9/11 triggered a collective moment of grief and shared vulnerability, but it also laid the groundwork for militarism, xenophobia, and the erosion of civil liberties. The way in which 9/11 has been remembered and commemorated reflects a tension between genuine collective memory and the manipulation of that memory for political opportunism.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the United States experienced a fleeting moment of national unity, idealism, and solidarity. The loss of nearly 3,000 Americans, followed by over 6,000 more due to illnesses linked to toxic exposure at Ground Zero, sparked a profound collective mourning. In our vulnerability, we found compassion, a renewed dedication to public service, and a shared purpose grounded in sacrifice. Public servants—firefighters, police officers—were hailed as heroes, and the social contract seemed temporarily rebuilt around common goals. In that brief window, the country appeared to embrace a sense of community that transcended a poisonous and unchecked individualism.

Memory, however, can serve as both a symbol of despair and a threshold for hope, often blurring the line between the two. The shock and violence of 9/11 ruptured an era that had prematurely declared the end of ideology, history, and global conflict, replacing that narrative with unbearable grief, sorrow, and loss. Two and a half decades later, we face the burden of not only remembering the victims of that barbaric violence but also of asking what remains of the fleeting moment when community, solidarity, and compassion briefly reemerged from the shadows. What does it mean to expand our understanding of the loss experienced after 9/11 and recognize that, for a short time, this tragedy presented a rare opportunity—a “crucial experiment” in which the very possibility of the social state and democracy itself was once again up for debate?[4]

In the days following 9/11, the American public glimpsed what philosopher Étienne Balibar has termed “the insurrectional element of democracy,” a moment when “the very possibility of a community among humans” came into sharp focus.[5] Yet, just as quickly, this idealism was hijacked. The Bush administration exploited the tragedy as a springboard to expand the military-industrial complex, erode civil liberties through the Patriot Act, and launch a series of unjust wars. Instead of nurturing democratic values, 9/11 became a pretext for fear-mongering, increased surveillance, and hyper-nationalism, laying the groundwork for the rise of far-right extremism in the U.S. and perpetuating a culture of fear and suppression.

As the memory of 9/11 was weaponized, it shifted from a moment of unity to a tool for fostering divisions. The so-called “War on Terror” was steeped in racism and xenophobia, with Muslims and immigrants becoming scapegoats. Within a short period of time, the notorious war on “terror” ‘included invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, unleashed blood and brutality from the Middle East, Asia and Africa to major European capitals [and] resulted in nearly a million dead and 38 million refugees.[7] This laid the groundwork for authoritarian policies that have only intensified in the years since. Fascism, which thrives on fear, resentment, and the dehumanization of the “other,” found fertile soil in this post-9/11 landscape, and is now a central organizing principle of the Republican Party in the United States.

The Rise of Fascism in the United States: From 9/11 to Trumpism

The rise of fascist politics in the U.S. is partly indebted to the post-9/11 period. After the initial surge of patriotism, the Bush administration’s policies ushered in a new era of militarism and nationalism that blurred the lines between democracy and authoritarianism. The erosion of civil liberties, mass surveillance, and the expansion of the security state created a framework for the far-right to build upon. These seeds blossomed under Donald Trump’s presidency, which took the latent fascist tendencies of the post-9/11 era and amplified them.

Trumpism represents the most overt manifestation of fascism in modern America. His presidency was characterized by the embrace of white nationalism, the rejection of democratic norms, and the stoking of fear, division, and hate. Trump’s rhetoric targeted immigrants, Muslims, and people of color, framing them as existential threats to the American way of life. His administration’s policies mirrored this fascist ideology, from the family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border to the Muslim travel ban. Trump’s alignment with far-right extremists, including his tacit endorsement of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, fueled the rise of violent far-right movements.

This shift toward authoritarianism was further cemented by Trump’s attacks on the media, judiciary, and democratic institutions. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and the subsequent January 6th insurrection were the culmination of years of undermining the pillars of democracy. Trump’s influence continues to loom large, as far-right extremism remains a potent force in American politics, emboldened by his rhetoric and policies. In his September 10thdebate with Vice President Kamal Harris, Trump made clear both his embrace of authoritarianism and his addiction to lies, racism, pathological misogyny, contempt for democracy, and embrace of dictators like Viktor Orban—a modern dictator who has claimed he is against mixed races and democracy itself.

The Crisis of Memory and the Erosion of Democracy

The rise of fascism in the U.S. cannot be understood without recognizing the role that memory—or the lack thereof—plays in shaping contemporary politics. Memory is both a tool of resistance and a weapon of manipulation. In the post-9/11 world, collective memory has been eroded, commodified, and weaponized by those in power. The memory of 9/11 has been used to justify wars, normalize surveillance, and erode civil liberties. Meanwhile, historical amnesia about the dangers of fascism has allowed far-right movements to rebrand themselves and grow.

This crisis of memory is reflected in how the public increasingly disconnects from the past, failing to learn from the lessons of history. Fascism thrives on this amnesia, presenting itself as a new solution to old problems while obscuring the horrors of its past iterations. In the U.S., the failure to reckon with the country’s legacy of racism, violence, and inequality has allowed far-right movements to flourish under the guise of nationalism and patriotism. Moreover, corporate culture has not only normalized fascist politics in the U.S., it embraces it in its cultural politics and the powerful media platforms at its disposable. For instance, Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News star who is currently hosting one of America’s top podcasts, followed by millions, hosted for two hours in 2024 an apologist for Adolf Hiter. In the course of the conversation, the audience was treated to another version of Holocaust denial, the lie that Churchill not Hitler was responsible for WWII, and that everything we have been told about Nazi Germany is a lie. Michelle Goldberg captures profoundly what the implications of this type of fascist myth making means politically. She writes:

the weakening of the intellectual quarantine around Nazism — and the MAGA right’s fetish for ideas their enemies see as dangerous — makes it easier for influential conservatives to surrender to fascist impulses…. Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future. If Hitler is no longer widely understood as the negation of our deepest values, America will be softened up for Donald Trump’s most authoritarian plans, including imprisoning masses of undocumented immigrants in vast detention camps. [6]

The attack on and falsification of memory is central to the rise of fascism. Instead of engaging with the complexities of the past, public memory is increasingly reduced to spectacle. Events like 9/11 are transformed into symbols of victimhood and used to stoke fear and division, rather than being platforms for reflection and dialogue. This pathological rewriting of memory erases the possibility of solidarity and collective responsibility, leaving a vacuum that fascism fills with its narrative of fear and exclusion.

Democracy in Crisis: Fighting Fascism Today

In the face of these rising threats, the fight against fascism and the defense of democracy have become urgent. The authoritarian drift in the U.S., intensified by post-9/11 policies and accelerated by the Trump era, has placed democratic institutions in peril. The suppression of voting rights, the rise of disinformation, and the erosion of trust in public institutions are all part of this broader attack on democracy. Yet, there is hope. The resurgence of democratic movements—whether through racial justice protests, climate activism, or efforts to protect voting rights—demonstrates that the fight for democracy is not over. These movements are a reminder that solidarity, memory, and collective responsibility remain powerful antidotes to fascism. They challenge the authoritarian narrative of division and exclusion with one of inclusivity and shared purpose.

Conclusion: Memory, Fascism, and the Future of Democracy

The rise of fascism in the U.S. post-9/11 is a stark reminder that democracy is fragile and requires constant vigilance. The erosion of memory, the commodification of loss, and the manipulation of fear have all contributed to the current crisis. Far-right movements thrive in this environment, exploiting societal divisions, fostering fear, and undermining democratic institutions.

But the future is not yet written. The challenge now is to reclaim the memory of past struggles against fascism, rebuild collective solidarity, and reimagine a democratic future. This means confronting the forces of neoliberalism and authoritarianism, resisting the pull of fascist politics, and embracing a vision of democracy rooted in justice, equality, and shared responsibility. Memory must be a tool for resistance, guiding us as we confront the dangers of fascism and work to create a future where democracy can truly flourish.

[1] Jonathan Crary, 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, (Verso, 2013) (Brooklyn, NY: Verso Press, 2013).
[2] Ishaan Tharoor, “Afghan women endure draconian Taliban, 23 years after 9/11,” The Washington Post (September 11, 2024). https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/11/afghanistan-women-taliban-rights/

[3]. Sheldon Wolin takes up this issue in Sheldon Wolin, “Political Theory: From Vocation to Invocation,” in Jason Frank and John Tambornino, eds. Vocations of Political Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 3-22.
[4]. Etienne Balibar, We, The People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 116
[5]. Ibid., Balibar, p. 119.
[6] Michelle Goldberg, “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His Show” The New York Times [September 6, 2024]. Online: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/tucker-carlson-holocaust-denial.html

[7]”FN Not only did the “anti-terrorist wars” cost of $1.5 trillion dollars, they unleashed a regime of torture, abductions, Black sites, and a regime of terror. Nikos Mpogiopolous,” September 11,” Imerodromos (September 11, 2024): https://www.imerodromos.gr/11h-septemvrh/.

This article first appeared in LA Progressive.

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.

Tariq Ali on U.S. & U.K. Arming Israel’s War on Gaza, Pakistan Protests & Macron’s Embrace of the Right

September 11, 2024
Source: Democracy Now!

We speak to acclaimed historian, activist and filmmaker Tariq Ali about Western governments’ support for Israel’s war on Gaza and popular protest in support of Palestine, which Ali calls the “biggest divide we’ve seen in politics almost since the Vietnam War.” He argues that this division is “challenging the very nature of democracy” and the international rule of law. Ali also shares his analysis of South Asian politics — in Pakistan, where former Prime Minister Imran Khan has accused the United States of engineering his ouster, and in Bangladesh, where a student-led uprising recently toppled the authoritarian regime of its former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Finally, we cover developments in Europe. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has appointed conservative leader Michel Barnier as prime minister, despite the electoral gains of the country’s left-wing coalition. This comes as far-right and anti-migrant sentiment spreads throughout the Global North.




Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has arrived in Britain to meet with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Foreign Secretary David Lammy. The focus is expected to be on the Middle East, Ukraine and the Asia-Pacific. Blinken’s meeting comes just days after the United Kingdom announced it’s suspending some arms exports to Israel, citing a risk they might be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer of the Labour Party, defended the decision.


PRIME MINISTER KEIR STARMER: This is a serious issue. We either comply with international law or we don’t. And we only have strength in our arguments because we comply with international law.

AMY GOODMAN: Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the British Parliament last week many weapons exports to Israel will continue, including parts for F-35 fighter jets.


DAVID LAMMY: This is not an arms embargo. It targets around 30, approximately of 350 licenses to Israel in total, for items which could be used in the current conflict in Gaza. The rest will continue.

AMY GOODMAN: Oxfam responded to the British government’s move by calling for all arms exports to be suspended to Israel.

To talk about Britain, Israel’s war on Gaza, and much more, we’re joined by Tariq Ali, the acclaimed historian, activist, filmmaker, editor of the New Left Review and the author of over 50 books, including the forthcoming You Can’t Please All: Memoirs 1980-2024. He’s joining us here in our studio in New York.

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Tariq. It’s great to have you in person.

TARIQ ALI: Very good to be with you and Juan, Amy. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in this studio, about 12 years almost.

AMY GOODMAN: Amazing. Well, today you are here, and Antony Blinken is meeting with Keir Starmer in London and the Foreign Minister David Lammy. There have been massive protests in London around a U.K. policy toward supporting Israel in its war on Gaza, and now you have this stopping of some arms shipments to Israel. Can you talk about the U.K. stance and the U.K.-U.S. relationship, especially when it comes to Gaza right now and Israel?

TARIQ ALI: The U.K., Amy, has been totally complicit in this war. They’ve sent help. They’ve sent fighter jets. Their personnel are involved. So, for them to pretend somehow that they’re an impartial party is utterly ridiculous. This war has been supported by the Conservative government, and it’s now being supported by the Labour government. Keir Starmer, the prime minister you just showed on the screen, as leader of the opposition, supported the genocide in Gaza, supported the cutting off of electricity, supported the cutting off of all water supplies.

I think they have received legal advice that they have to do something or they are liable to international law by the courts — not that that amounts to very much, as we see these days. But I think that’s the reason they made a few cuts to the aid. But as they themselves say, these are meaningless. They’re purely symbolic.

And the bulk of the country now wants aid to Israel, and the military aid particularly, cut off. The antiwar movement in Britain is one of the largest in the world. We’ve had, I think now — it’s almost a year, Amy, since this war began. Almost a year. And we’ve had dozens and dozens of demonstrations, some including a million people. So the country is opposed to this, you know, across the board.

But we have these governments in power — I call them the extreme-center governments, because, right or left, they do the same thing. And why is Blinken visiting Starmer? Normally they send orders online. So, why the need for a personal visit is to boost each other’s morale. I can see no other reason for it.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tariq, it’s not just the U.K. government, but most of the European Union governments. Could you talk about the wide gap between how these governments are dealing with Israel’s war on Gaza and the rest of the world, especially the Global South?

TARIQ ALI: Well, the Global South is more or less, you know, formally hostile to it. This is the biggest divide we’ve seen in politics almost since the Vietnam War, that the Global South opposed to the war and the West very much in favor of it, Juan. And this comes across very clearly. Now, the other thing is that the demonstrators — you know, Jews, non-Jews, Palestinians, non-Palestinians — who’ve been marching in the streets of Western cities are identifying here very clearly with the Global South, so even in their own homeland, not to mention in the United States, the demonstrations and the campus struggles. So what we are seeing is a big divide on a global level and a divide on an internal level, where large sections, if not majorities, are against what their governments are doing in backing unconditionally what the Israelis have been up to for a year now in Palestine.

And this divide is going to continue, given what is going on with the U.S.-China rivalries. And so, this gulf now which has opened up is going to be difficult to resolve. I mean, whatever else, on foreign policy, I don’t think there will be any big change in the United States regardless of who is elected. So, the demonstrations still go on, a year later, all over Europe, including France. The Germans have banned demonstrations. They don’t allow them because of their special links to the Judeocide and Holocaust of the Second World War, for which the Palestinians are now being punished. That’s what’s going on.

And it’s quite a critical situation, because lots of young people who I come across and speak to are challenging and questioning the very nature of democracy, the nature of the system which exists, where one court, international court, after the other has said this genocide must stop, pressure on the International Criminal Court not to prosecute Netanyahu, which has been demanded. And so, international law itself has now been questioned.

So we are now in a situation where what the United States says goes. The decisions are made in the White House and the Pentagon and the State Department. These are the key institutions which determine what happens in Israel. And why the U.S. is doing this puzzles many people who are sympathetic to them. Why are they doing this, when we’ve had presidents like Truman, like Reagan, like Bush Sr. stopping Israel from doing things like this when it was necessary? Now not a single phone call, both political parties totally complicit in this war. They might have other disagreements, but on the Gaza war, they are completely united, apart from indies, like Jill Stein, who, personally, I would vote for, were I a U.S. citizen, a sort of excellent politician. But apart from her and a few others, there’s no one else in the mainstream who’s come out against this. And this is very disturbing, I think, for democracy itself and for all its legal, political institutions.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tariq, I wanted to ask you, in terms of — you’re talking about the state of democracy. In your own homeland of Pakistan. Imran Khan has been detained since — for over a year now, accused of inciting violence, a former prime minister. And the U.N. panel recently had findings that Imran Khan’s detention is politically motivated. Do you think there will be any pressure on Pakistan to release him?

TARIQ ALI: So far, there hasn’t been any pressure. And Imran Khan, when he was first dismissed from office, claimed that the United States was behind the dismissal because of the positions he had taken on Ukraine at that particular time. He directly accused the State Department of having engineered his dismissal.

So, the fact that he is still in prison is a sign that the people who control Pakistan are the military. Politicians come and go. Political parties come and go. Politicians change sides in order to gain office. But effectively, Juan, it is the Pakistani Army that has run the show for many, many decades. They make the decisions. They choose the politicians, including Imran. He was a military choice. And his successors are military choices.

And now they are nervous, because normally they can discredit a politician very quickly. They haven’t been able to do it in the case of Imran Khan, and all the opinion polls show that were there to be an election in Pakistan, Imran would win by large majorities throughout the country. The Army have now made him a martyr. They’ve made him a popular hero. And he has been locked up in prison on completely frivolous and bogus charges.

AMY GOODMAN: So, there’s also the discussion of banning the PTI party, the Khan party, talking about it, oh, inciting violence, leaking classified information. What would that mean?

TARIQ ALI: Well, the classified information he revealed, Amy, which should be of interest to viewers here, is that a senior figure from the Pakistan Foreign Office said — wrote a letter back home from the United States saying that in the United States, he had been told in very clear language that Imran had to go. Well, in Pakistan, as in other parts of the world, these letters are not — they don’t remain secret for too long. So, Imran referred to the letter in public, stating something which most people knew. And as a result of that, they’ve charged him with betraying official secrets. I mean, there was no official secret. Everyone knew this in the first place.

And so, I think they’re determined to get rid of him. Banning his party won’t help, because his popularity will increase. And if there’s another uprising, like we’ve seen in Bangladesh recently, that could erupt in Pakistan, then they’ve had it. I mean, they’ll have to shoot people on the streets. And we’ll see a repeat of the uprisings of the ’60s and ’70s.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tariq, I wanted to ask you about Bangladesh. The supporters of the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina have claimed that the United States was behind that, as well, that it wasn’t really a popular uprising as much as a color revolution. I’m wondering your thoughts. Is there any credible evidence that that is so?

TARIQ ALI: I don’t think so, Juan. I mean, you know, because the United States has done these things in the past, it can do them everywhere. And what we saw in Bangladesh was a very authoritarian government, confronted largely by students demanding democratic rights and freedoms and an end to laws which they regard as anti-democratic. And they won. She ran. She was taken by a special plane waiting for her to India and is now blaming the United States for this. In my opinion, there is no evidence to show U.S. involvement so far. Some may come out. We will see.

But I think more disturbing is that the students who replaced her had no real alternative. So quite a few unprincipled parties, political parties, and politicians who were there and are now in power, or close to it, are mistreating Awami League supporters. And that, too, is unacceptable.

But in Bangladesh, as in Pakistan, behind the scenes in Bangladesh, it’s the military who rules. The appointment of a sort of banker who became a celebrity and won the Nobel Prize, Dr. Yunus, very, very aged man, older even than me, and he is not going to be able to deliver anything. Behind him, it’s the Army.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to what’s happening in France. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets Saturday protesting President Macron’s appointment of the conservative Michel Barnier as the new prime minister even though leftist parties won the most of votes in July’s snap parliamentary elections. This is the leader of the leftist Unbowed party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, speaking last week.


JEAN-LUC MÉLENCHON: [translated] And so the election has been stolen from the French people. The message has been denied, and now we’re finding out about a prime minister that was named with the permission and maybe on the suggestion of the far-right National Rally, knowing that the second round of the legislative election has been entirely concentrated on making this National Rally fail.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon, head of Unbowed. You have the leftists winning, and the president, Macron, who called the snap election and yet lost it, giving the prime ministership to the right.

TARIQ ALI: It’s appalling, Amy. I mean, this is the sort of trend we see in most of the Western world, a very authoritarian approach to politics if they lose. And Jean-Luc Mélenchon was determined to fight. He created a new united front with the socialists and all progressive parties to make sure that the extreme right-wing party of Marine Le Pen was defeated. Macron had said before the election, “Let the far right come to power. They’ll discredit themselves.” Well, that didn’t happen because of the campaign waged by La France Insoumise, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in particular. Effectively, they created a united front which defeated the far right. And this spoiled brat Macron, who belongs — who came up from nowhere, you know, a sort of technocrat politician, now operates as if he’s a statesman. I mean, I think he has discredited himself considerably. And we shall see. He had a meeting with the far right. He has not met Mélenchon once. He’s made it clear that he’s not going to appoint a president from the group or the bloc which got the largest votes.

And this is the trend I was referring to earlier, of they feel they can get away with anything. And there have been demonstrations. There have been a few strikes, as well. But there’s been no big protest from the so-called international community, i.e. the State Department in D.C. You know, no protest from Foggy Bottom at all that this is intolerable behavior, because, you know, they tolerate it when their own allies do it.

How it’s going to turn out for Macron, we shall see. I think there is now 52% voted for his impeachment. I mean, in opinion polls, 52% of French people said that Macron should be prosecuted and impeached. So he’s divided the country quite, quite sharply. So, we’ll see what he does. I mean, Barnier is a joke figure. He got 4% of the vote, and he’s been appointed prime minister.

I mean, what’s needed in France actually, to be serious, is an abolition of this Fifth Republic that was created by de Gaulle after he seized power as a general in 1958. And it was designed to give the president maximum powers. It’s not a democratic state, you know, in any sense of the word. The democracy has tried to push through it. And so, we need a new republic. And, you know, Mélenchon has been arguing, and many of us have been, let’s have elections to a constituent assembly to choose and draft a new constitution. We need a Sixth Republic in France, because the Fifth Republic has failed.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tariq, I wanted to ask you, though — across Europe, the extreme right wing, especially anti-immigrant parties, have been gaining strength, even though in Britain and France they’ve been beaten back. But even the center has become increasingly more anti-immigrant, anti-African, anti-Arab, anti- — in the United States — Latin American. What’s your sense of the prospects for progressives and radicals to win popular support, given that sectors of the working class and the middle classes are falling prey to this anti-immigrant phobia?

TARIQ ALI: Oh, Juan, this is always the case at times of crisis — social, political, economic — that people from the working class and the middle class, as you call it here, get carried away. It’s a simple propaganda: “We don’t have enough jobs. We don’t have enough money. Look at these people coming from outside.” Well, in Europe, you can say that, but in the United States, as I always point out, everyone has come from the outside, except Native Americans. So, what is the big deal? That, you know, you just want to exclude people of color. In Europe, of course, they went and searched for workers all over the former colonies, because after the Second World War, there was a big shortage of labor. And what they did, effectively, was to go and plead with West Indian Black nurses to come and run the British National Health Service, for workers to come and run the factories. And this is a population which they are now targeting.

But the most reprehensible feature of this, as you point out, is that mainstream politicians have not managed to frontally take on these arguments. In fact, in the new Labour government, you have politicians sort of slyly saying, “Well, yes, there are problems. We have too many immigrants. Labour is working very hard to try and stop the flow.” And the result of this is illegal gangs promising migrants in poverty-stricken countries or countries where you have large numbers of people dislodged by wars, as we see in the Middle East today and as we’ve seen for the last five or six years, who want to come and seek refuge. And they’re being denied entry into the countries which have made these wars. And, in effect, many of them are drowning in boats in the English Channel, just dropping dead, being pushed out by unscrupulous gangsters who promised them that they would get them in illegally. So it’s a really grim situation on that front.

And this is now in Germany, too, that in recent state elections in the former eastern Germany, Thuringia, the far-right party, AfD, won the largest vote. I mean, you know, they can still be outvoted, but they won a large vote. And this is spreading in other parts of Germany, too, which also takes in the fact that some of these far-right groups are saying, “Why are we backing a war with Russia? Why are we supporting Ukraine? It’s not in our national interest. Why are we following the Americans?” So, it’s immigration and a lot of other issues actually being tied together by these parties. And the extreme-center governments, center-left and center-right, do nothing. They’re actually provoking this by doing nothing at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Tariq Ali, we want to thank you for being with us and in our studio. We look forward to having you back to talk about your memoirs when they are released. Tariq Ali is a British Pakistani historian, activist, filmmaker, editor of the New Left Review, the author of over 50 books, including the forthcoming You Can’t Please All: Memoirs 1980-2024, in from London, here in New York City.




Tariq Ali

Writer, journalist and film-maker Tariq Ali was born in Lahore in 1943. He owned his own independent television production company, Bandung, which produced programmes for Channel 4 in the UK during the 1980s. He is a regular broadcaster on BBC Radio and contributes articles and journalism to magazines and newspapers including The Guardian and the London Review of Books. He is editorial director of London publishers Verso and is on the board of the New Left Review, for whom he is also an editor. He writes fiction and non-fiction and his non-fiction includes 1968: Marching in the Streets (1998), a social history of the 1960s; Conversations with Edward Said (2005); Rough Music: Blair, Bombs, Baghdad, London, Terror (2005); and Speaking of Empire and Resistance (2005), which takes the form of a series of conversations with the author.

 

Targeting Childhood in the West Bank-By Area


From October 7, 2023–July 31, 2024, Israeli forces and settlers killed Palestinian children in the West Bank at a rate of one child every two days. We partnered with Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) to create visuals for their new report, “Targeting Childhood: Palestinian Children Killed by Israeli Forces and Settlers in the Occupied West Bank”.

Israeli forces and settlers targeted Palestinian children playing outside, protesting in the streets, walking home from school, and even standing inside their own homes in various towns and villages in the West Bank, at distances ranging from five meters up to 300 meters away. They killed a total of 141 Palestinian children during the reporting period. The majority–116 children–were killed with live ammunition targeting vital areas like the head and torso. In 43% of cases, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining ambulances or firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics, and civilians attempting to provide aid. In eighteen cases, Israeli forces confiscated the bodies of the children they killed, in violation of international law.

In both Gaza and the West Bank, the impact of Israel’s genocidal violence on Palestinian children is devastating. In Gaza, Israeli forces have killed over 16,500 children, with public health experts now conservatively estimating that, when direct and indirect fatalities are fully accounted for, fatalities will reach at least 4x higher than what has been officially reported. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and settlers are escalating attacks against Palestinian communities.

Amid the ongoing brutal genocide in Gaza and Israel’s continued invasion and forced displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, we join advocates for justice in calling for an arms embargo on Israel. In the words of Khaled Quzmar, DCIP’s general director: “Israeli forces are killing Palestinian children with calculated brutality and cruelty all throughout the occupied Palestinian territory. The international community must act urgently to enact an arms embargo and sanctions to protect Palestinian children’s lives.” 



Targeting Childhood in the West Bank-By Distance


From October 7, 2023–July 31, 2024, Israeli forces and settlers killed Palestinian children in the West Bank at a rate of one child every two days. We partnered with Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) to create visuals for their new report, “Targeting Childhood: Palestinian Children Killed by Israeli Forces and Settlers in the Occupied West Bank”.

Israeli forces and settlers targeted children playing outside, protesting in the streets, walking home from school, and even standing inside their own homes, at distances ranging from five meters up to 300 meters away. They killed a total of 141 Palestinian children during the reporting period.



Special thanks to Hadeel Saalok and DCIP for their collaboration on this visual.

Visualizing Palestine is the intersection of communication, social sciences, technology, design and urban studies for social justice. Visualizing Palestine uses creative visuals to describe a factual rights-based narrative of Palestine/Israel. Read other articles by Visualizing Palestine, or visit Visualizing Palestine's website.

IRELAND

No excuse for further delay to enacting Occupied Territories Bill, Matt Carthy TD

Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have been dragging their heels for too long as a genocide unfolds in front of our eyes.
Matt Carthy TD, Sinn Féin spokesperson on Foreign Affairs

From Sinn Féin

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Foreign Affairs Matt Carthy TD has said that legal advice published recently creates ‘a legal imperative for Ireland to meaningfully sanction Israel and enact the Occupied Territories Bill and Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill’. Authored by Professors of EU Trade Law at King’s College London and the City University of London, Carthy describes the legal opinion as a ‘scathing rebuke and correction of the advice the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have been using as a shield to avoid sanctioning Israel for nearly a decade.’

Speaking after attending the launch of the legal advice, Teachta Carthy said: “Israel’s near year long genocidal campaign against Gaza has now killed at least 40,819 Palestinians, including more than 16,456 children. They have targeted hospitals and healthcare workers, the injured, women and children and journalists. They breach the most fundamental treaties of international law and international humanitarian law on a daily basis, more recently seeking to expand the scale of brutality already endured by Palestinians in the West Bank to equal that unleashed on Gaza. And yet the Irish government, which rightfully has taken action in support of Palestine, has as of yet cowed from introducing any meaningful sanctions against Israel.

Government must now move to enact the Occupied Territories Bill and the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have been dragging their heels for too long as a genocide unfolds in front of our eyes. Israel is in breach of international law and Ireland has yet to meaningfully sanction it. The Occupied Territories Bill was introduced more than 6 years ago, has passed in the Seanad and was approved by the Dáil to proceed more than 5 years ago.

Sinn Féin’s Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill passed Second Stage in the Dáil last year and has since been the subject of every obscure legislative delaying tactic by government, meaning that Irish taxpayer money continues to be invested in companies which operate in illegal Israeli settlements within Palestine. Government is hiding behind advice from the Attorney General which has today been exposed as critically flawed at the time it was written, outdated and irrelevant in the context of Israel’s genocide and subsequent ICJ ruling. Not only does today’s legal advice lay bare that there is no excuse for not enacting the Occupied Territories Bill, but there is in fact a legal imperative as a matter of urgency to enact both bills.

Sinn Féin welcome that the Taoiseach has sought fresh legal advice himself in relation to trade with Israel, but this advice cannot be limited to trade with the Occupied Territories – government must seek the Attorney Generals advice in relation to invoking Ireland’s right to challenge the European Commission on its failure to act regarding genocide.”


  • This was originally published in Sinn Fein’s email bulletin on 6th September 2024.
  • Matt Carthy is a TD for Cavan–Monaghan and Sinn Féin’s spokesperson on Foreign Affairs. You can follow him on FacebookTwitter and Instagram.

Where is Starmer Taking Ireland? – Geoff Bell, Labour For Irish Unity


“Keir Starmer’s first interview as leader of the Labour Party relating to Ireland, in July 2021, saw a return to the colonial mode.”

By Geoff Bell

Historically, the Labour Party and Labour governments have often been part of Ireland’s British problem. Too often they were informed by a colonist mindset. In 1921 the Labour Party supported Ireland’s partition and the establishment of the British semi-state in what came to be known as “Northern Ireland”. In 1949 the Atlee-led Labour government passed the Ireland Act, strengthening partition. And one of the most repressive periods of direct rule by the British government during the Troubles was overseen by Labour’s Secretary of State Roy Mason and Prime Minister James Callaghan from 1976-79.

There have also been those within the party who actively opposed these policies. The largest parliamentary revolt by Labour MPs against the 1945-51 Government was over its capitulation to Unionists. A small group of Labour MPs in the 1960s campaigned against Unionist discrimination and sectarianism in the North of Ireland. Roy Mason’s regime prompted the birth and growth of the Labour Committee on Ireland. This won majority support among constituency parties for British withdrawal from the North at the 1980 party conference, although the trade union block vote ensured the defeat of the key resolution. Nevertheless, the change in mood eventually paved the way for the Blair government to oversee and enable the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) of 1998, This was a significant step away from unionism, stating, “it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone…without external impediment…to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent…subject to the agreement and consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

What now? Keir Starmer’s first interview as leader of the Labour Party relating to Ireland, in July 2021, saw a return to the colonial mode. He declared he would campaign against Irish unification in Ireland should a referendum take place on the issue. He did not appear to realise that this would contravene the GFA.

Since then neither he nor his spokespersons on Ireland have repeated this intention. Beginning with shadow Secretary of State Peter Kyle a new position emerged. This was that Labour would be an “honest broker” in Northern Ireland. Both Starmer and his now Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, have echoed this, which might appear liberal and listening, but we have heard such phraseology before.

Notably, the British narrative during the Troubles when the British Army was portrayed as being the “pig in the middle” – the well-intentioned chaps keeping apart the two uncivilised Irish tribes. The troops were never that: they were pro-unionist, working in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, while targeting the Catholic community with house searches, beatings and in Ballymurphy in 1972 and Bloody Sunday in 1972 shooting Catholic civilians sight. So, it is best to be cautious of those who repeat or recast the old colonialist claim of British state political neutrality.

But at least Labour has now promised to amend the Tories’ Northern Ireland “Legacy” legislation, which was designed to give an amnesty to all British security killers during the Troubles and stop investigations into their crimes. This is a welcome commitment, and it is one demanded by all parties, North and South, including the DUP.

However, the devil will be in the detail, and we await that before passing judgement. 

Already, on 6 September Secretary of State Benn said parts of the Tory legislation will be retained, notably the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information (ICRIR).  This is opposed by many victims and civil liberties groups and is known to be heavily staffed by present and former members of the Northern Ireland police, whose crimes are meant to a major focus of investigation of the ICRIR. It is the old story of the accused judging themselves. To make matters worse said that “achieving full consensus on legacy issues may simply not be possible.”

Even leaving this issue aside, both Starmer and Benn seem at times to inhibit an Irish fantasy world. They refuse to acknowledge the all-Ireland debate now taking place on building a new Ireland. There have been numerous meetings and public forums in both parts of island on what this should look like. Many of these were organised by the cross-community organisation Ireland’s future.

But while one of the first acts of Hilary Benn on being appointed Secretary of State was to attend a march of the avowedly anti-Catholic Orange Order, he refuses to engage in this new Ireland debate.  Only the unionist Parties in the North practice a similar abstentionism. How is the British government’s partisanship on this issue the actions being an “honest broker”?

This issue was raised in an editorial in the pro-nationalist Irish News, commenting on a recent meeting between Starmer and his southern Irish equivalent Simon Harris. “What was missing”, said the newspaper, “was a firm clarification of their attitude towards the notably vague criteria for a possible Irish border poll.” The newspaper was referring to the promise in the GFA that a decision on such a poll would be in the hands of the British, but Ireland is now moving on from this colonialism. As the editorial continued:

“The discussion on the circumstance in which a referendum can be called remains at an early stage, but there can be no doubt of the wider post-Brexit direction is taking us.

There will be an expectation that Mr Harris and Sir Keir will soon set out their detailed vision of how the key issue linked to the unity debate can be democratically resolved.”

More generally it remains the case that British intervention in Ireland been and remains the deepest cause of political contention in the island.  To date, Stermer has refused to discuss even the criteria for a border poll, saying it is “not on the horizon”.  Again, how does this traditional British arrogance and intransigence equate to the GFA statement on Irish-self-determination? And how does it square with being an “honest broker”?  A real honest broker would allow, no, encourage the people of Ireland to decide the own future. The first step is for the present Labour government to open discussions with the relevant Irish political parties and community groups on the practical mechanics of this process. The British labour movement should discuss how it can help.


  • Geoff Bell is a regular contributor to Labour Outlook. His most recent book is The Twilight of Unionism (Verso). He is on the executive of Labour for Irish Unity.
  • If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
Israeli Air Force Burns Up 20 Refugee Tents, Kills 40, In Strikes on Humanitarian Zone

By Juan Cole
September 10, 2024
Source: Informed Comment

Image by Dawn News



Al Jazeera Arabic reports that the Israeli occupation army committed yet another massacre on Monday evening, targeting a tent encampment of internally displaced refugees in the al-Mawasi area of the district of Khan Yunus in the south of the Gaza Strip. Civil defense said that 40 persons were killed, and another 60 injured. The bodies of the dead were still being recovered.

Powerful flames swept through the tents, burning up at least 20 of them. The rockets left a impact craters 9 meters / yards deep. There were some 200 tents at al-Mawasi, so ten percent were burned up by these air strikes.

The civil defense spokesman said that entire families had vanished into the sand during the bombardment, adding that early estimates indicate that we are confronting one of the ugliest massacres since the beginning of the Israeli war on Gaza.

The spokesman said that the Israeli air force had used heavy missiles in its raid on the tents of the refugees.

The Israeli military justified the killings in what they had designated a safe zone on the grounds that it included a Hamas command center.

As I have pointed out before, what the Israeli military likely actually means is that their drones, using biometric data, identified a couple members of the al-Qassam Brigades in the area and struck at them without regard to civilian casualities. The Israeli rules of engagement allow up to 20 civilian deaths per militant killed, so a death toll of 40 might indicate that two members of the al-Qassam Brigades were taken out. No civilized military has such a permissive ROE when it comes to civilian casualties. The extremist Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to kill all 30,000 members of the al-Qassam Brigades in revenge for the October 7 attacks. It is not permitted, however, in the international law of war to simply murder enemy combatants who are not armed and not engaged in battle, and who are surrounded by civilians. Since October 7 was planned and executed by a small cadre of perhaps elite 3,000 commandos, it is possible that many rank and file Qassam Brigades members did not even know about it.

In a statement, Hamas denied that any of its gunmen were in the area of the airstrike.

Almost all of the 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza have been expelled from their homes repeatedly by the Israeli military, which has turned virtually the entire territory into refugee settlements. Ironically, 70% of Gaza families were made refugees in 1948 from their homes in Beersheba and elsewhere in southern Israel, so they have now been chased from their homes once again by the Israelis who had occupied their original domiciles in 1948. All Palestinians have been made like Jesus in Matt 8:20 : “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that the Israeli military has ordered Palestinians out of parts of northern Gaza where it was earlier agreed there would be a military pause so that children would receive polio shots. Only about a third of the children who must be vaccinated have been, with the Israeli air force pausing bombing runs in the morning and the early afternoon for makeshift vaccination centers, but resuming them in the late afternoon and evening. This procedure discourages families from gathering for the shots and endangers the health workers administering them.

Only half of the necessary medicines are now available in the Strip, with insulin supplies running very low, which is a death sentence for those with diabetes.

OCHA says that Israeli aerial and ground assaults persist throughout the Gaza Strip, inflicting additional civilian casualties, expulsions, and razing of residences and other non-military infrastructure. Ground maneuvers, especially in Beit Hanoun, southwestern Gaza City, eastern Khan Younis, Deir al-Balah, and both east and south Rafah, with intense combat, are also still being reported, along with Palestinian rocket launches toward Israel.

Between the afternoons of September 5 and 8, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health (MoH), the Israelis killed 94 Palestinians in Gaza and 307 were injured.

From October 7, 2023, to September 8, 2024, at least 40,972 Palestinians were killed and 94,761 sustained injuries, as reported by the MoH in Gaza.

OCHA reports these Palestinian casualties at the hands of the Israeli military for this past Frida.y through Sunday:“On 6 September, six Palestinians, including four women, were reportedly killed and five others injured when a residential building was hit near Bader Mosque in Az Zaytoun area, in Gaza city.
On 6 September, seven Palestinians were reportedly killed when a house was hit in An Nuseirat Refugee Camp in northern Deir al Balah.
On 6 September, five Palestinians were killed, including two women and two unidentified corpses recovered in pieces, and at least 10 others were injured when an apartment was hit in Al Yarmouk street, in central Khan Younis.
On 7 September, five Palestinians, including two children and two women, were reportedly killed, and others injured, when a house was hit in Al Bureij Refugee Camp in northern Deir al Balah.
On 7 September, at least eight Palestinians, including a boy, were reportedly killed and others injured in western An Nuseirat Refugee Camp, in northern Deir al Balah.
On 7 September, six Palestinians, including two children and three women, were reportedly killed and others injured when a house was hit near the entrance of Al Bureij refugee Camp, in northern Deir al Balah.
On 8 September, five Palestinians including the Deputy Director for the Civil Defence (PCD) were reportedly killed and others injured when their house was hit in Jabalya. According to the PCD [Palestinian Civil Defense], the number of PCD staff killed so far has risen to 83.”



Juan Cole

Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three and a half decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context, and he has written widely about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. His books include Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires; The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East; Engaging the Muslim World; and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East.