Tuesday, October 22, 2024

 

Weather-changing El Niño oscillation is at least 250 million years old



Modeling experiments show Pacific warm and cold patches persisted even when continents were in different places



Duke University

El Nino in August 2023 (NOAA) 

image: 

A new modeling study shows that the El Niño event, a huge blob of warm ocean water in the tropical Pacific Ocean that can change rainfall patterns around the globe, was present at least 250 million years in the past, and was often of greater magnitude than the oscillations we see today.

view more 

Credit: NOAA




DURHAM, N.C. – The El Niño event, a huge blob of warm ocean water in the tropical Pacific Ocean that can change rainfall patterns around the globe, isn't just a modern phenomenon.

A new modeling study from a pair of Duke University researchers and their colleagues shows that the oscillation between El Niño and its cold counterpart, La Niña, was present at least 250 million years in the past, and was often of greater magnitude than the oscillations we see today.

These temperature swings were more intense in the past, and the oscillation occurred even when the continents were in different places than they are now, according to the study, which appears the week of Oct. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"In each experiment, we see active El Niño Southern Oscillation, and it's almost all stronger than what we have now, some way stronger, some slightly stronger," said Shineng Hu, an assistant professor of climate dynamics in Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.

Climate scientists study El Niño, a giant patch of unusually warm water on either side of the equator in the eastern Pacific Ocean, because it can alter the jet stream, drying out the U.S. northwest while soaking the southwest with unusual rains. Its counterpart, the cool blob La Niña, can push the jet stream north, drying out the southwestern U.S., while also causing drought in East Africa and making the monsoon season of South Asia more intense.

The researchers used the same climate modeling tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to try to project climate change into the future, except they ran it backwards to see the deep past.

The simulation is so computationally intense that the researchers couldn't model each year continuously from 250 million years ago. Instead they did 10-million-year 'slices' -- 26 of them.

"The model experiments were influenced by different boundary conditions, like different land-sea distribution (with the continents in different places), different solar radiation, different CO2," Hu said. Each simulation ran for thousands of model years for robust results and took months to complete.

“At times in the past, the solar radiation reaching Earth was about 2% lower than it is today, but the planet-warming CO2 was much more abundant, making the atmosphere and oceans way warmer than present, Hu said.” In the Mezozoic period, 250 million years ago, South America was the middle part of the supercontinent Pangea, and the oscillation occurred in the Panthalassic Ocean to its west.

The study shows that the two most important variables in the magnitude of the oscillation historically appear to be the thermal structure of the ocean and "atmospheric noise" of ocean surface winds.

Previous studies have focused on ocean temperatures mostly, but paid less attention to the surface winds that seem so important in this study, Hu said. "So part of the point of our study is that, besides ocean thermal structure, we need to pay attention to atmospheric noise as well and to understand how those winds are going to change."

Hu likens the oscillation to a pendulum. "Atmospheric noise – the winds – can act just like a random kick to this pendulum," Hu said. "We found both factors to be important when we want to understand why the El Niño was way stronger than what we have now."

"If we want to have a more reliable future projection, we need to understand past climates first," Hu said.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42488201) and the Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet (2022-03617). Simulations were conducted at the High-performance Computing Platform of Peking University.

CITATION: "Persistently Active El Niño–Southern Oscillation Since the Mesozoic," Xiang Li, Shineng Hu, Yongyun Hu, Wenju Cai, Yishuai Jin, Zhengyao Lu, Jiaqi Guo, Jiawenjing Lan, Qifan Lin, Shuai Yuan, Jian Zhang, Qiang Wei, Yonggang Liu, Jun Yang, Ji Nie. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oct. 21, 2024. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2404758121

 

Boris Kagarlitsky: A letter from prison on the situation of the Russian left

Published 
Boris Kagarlitsky at rally

[Editor’s note: Writing from the Russian penal colony where he is currently confined, anti-war Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky sent the following letter to the October 8 online conference “Boris Kagarlitsky and the Challenges of the Left Today”, held in honour of him and his work. This letter was written for the panel dedicated to discussing the situation of the left in Russia.]

Translated by Dmitry Pozhidaev for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Is it worth discussing the position of the left in Russia as a separate problem? At first glance, there seems to be little reason: after all, the most pressing issues right now are related to political democratisation and ending the military conflict. In prisons and camps, we are alongside representatives of other democratic ideologies, facing the same problems, eating the same gruel, and also dreaming of freedom. And yet, it is necessary to speak about the unique role and tasks of the left. Both for the sake of political prospects and, paradoxically, for the current moment.

True, we have very few opportunities to influence the situation. But we possess a powerful resource that others lack: we understand the socio-political and structural reasons that have led to the current situation.

Let us be honest, the majority of Russian society — both at the top and bottom — would like to return to the blissful times of the 2010s, which ended with the COVID pandemic and the outbreak of the large-scale military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.1 Even from a political standpoint, a return to the (rather limited) level of freedom we had then would be a huge step forward today. Unfortunately, we cannot simply return to the past. You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

And the changes that have taken place in Russian society are much more significant than is commonly understood. Even at the economic level, we are seeing completely new trends — an industrial revival (albeit in the spirit of “military Keynesianism”), a labour shortage that is changing the labour market, a weakening dependence on the West and simultaneously increasing dependence on China.

It inevitably brings to mind the events of World War I, when the forced measures of the Tsarist regime and the Provisional Government created the conditions for the radical policies of the Bolsheviks. Or World War II, when Britain’s wartime measures paved the way for social-democratic reforms. In this case, it does not matter how we feel about [Vladimir] Lenin or Clement Attlee; both responded not only to their ideologies but to the situation and objective societal needs. Equally important is that leftist ideology, in both cases, helped to recognise these needs and fulfil them (how successfully and substantively is another question).

Russia today needs not only democratisation but also to overcome the oligarchic and resource-based nature of its economy. It is precisely this type of economy that has created the structure of interests that led us to authoritarianism and military adventures. Democracy without social and economic transformations simply will not work. And if some new Thaw2 suddenly falls into our lap, it will not turn into a “Spring of Freedom” if we preserve the same political and economic institutions. There is no road back to the managed democracy of early Putin times. We must move forward.

Potentially — thanks to our ideological tradition, the critical work we have done and continue to do, and for many other reasons — the left has the capacity to respond to the emerging historical demand more than any other force, which is incapable of imagining solutions beyond the market, capitalism and bourgeois decency. But this is only a potential* opportunity; in reality, are we ready? No, of course not. We are completely unprepared. And I will say more: we will never be ready in advance. That is not how history works. Emotional readiness is the most we can hope for and what we can work with.

Nevertheless, the need for change is not only objective. It is keenly felt by society, even if not articulated in specific demands. Believe me when I say, after months in various prisons with many different people, I have seen this with my own eyes. And here is the paradox: the desire for change coexists with fear of it. Just like in Viktor Tsoi’s famous song.3 Apparently, this mood in Russia is not new. Emotional readiness means we are not afraid. It is not enough to not fear repression. We must also not fear ourselves, nor be afraid to make independent decisions. We must not make them haphazardly, but based on our knowledge and principles.

People who recognise the emerging needs will spontaneously become our allies, even if they do not share our ideological formulations. I see this clearly in my interactions with other political prisoners. To attract people, we must not wave red flags or shout beautiful slogans, but speak clearly and practically, care about our credibility, and be where we need to be.

Years ago, someone compared the political stance of the left to a broken clock that shows the correct time twice a day. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that joke. However, my old friend Pavel Kudyukin, repeating this phrase, added: but at those two times a day, that clock does show astronomically accurate time! The main thing is not to miss that moment.

  • 1

    Translator's note: Nowhere in this essay does Kagarlitsky refer to the conflict in Ukraine as a “war”. This is not because he avoids acknowledging it as an unjust war of conquest on Russia’s part — he calls it as such in his latest book, The Long Retreat (Verso, 2024). Rather, the omission is due to the fact that all letters sent from prison are subject to censorship and must comply with the requirements set by prison censors in order to be sent out. 

  • 2

    Translator's note: This refers to Khrushchev's Thaw (1956-1964), a period of political and cultural liberalisation in the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. It marked a relaxation of censorship, greater intellectual freedom, and a departure from Stalinist repression, fostering hope for reform and democratisation.

  • *

    All emphasises in original letter

  • 3

    Translator’s note: “Peremen!” (“Changes!”) is a song by Viktor Tsoi and his band Kino. Released in 1986, it became an unofficial anthem of Perestroika, symbolising the desire for political and social reform during the late Soviet era. The song resonated with youth and movements calling for change in the Soviet Union.

 

Boris Kagarlitsky: Change is inevitable

Published 
MastodonFacebookTwitterEmail
Protest in Russia

First published at Novaya Gazeta

[Editor’s note: Writing from the Russian penal colony where he is currently confined, anti-war Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky sent the following letter to the October 8 online conference “Boris Kagarlitsky and the Challenges of the Left Today”, held in honour of him and his work. In it, Kagarlitsky discusses the global crisis of our time, ongoing wars, the economy and the collapse of the familiar world order in Western Europe, where the far right is gaining popularity.]

Despite some obvious differences, it appears to me that there are certain similarities between current events in Russia and Israel. We know that the Israeli government needs the war to last as long as possible, both as its political survival is contingent on it, and due the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would face indictment should it collapse.

The end of the war would mean both the end of the current ruling coalition and, more generally, the start of serious political change that the current government simply cannot allow to happen. As a result, it has found it easier to start a new war in Lebanon than to end the old one. Conservative politics have turned into the politics of war.

The situation in Russia is similar in many respects. Paradoxically, it no longer matters how the hostilities end. After three years, the situation is such that any end to the so-called “special military operation” will mean the start of wide-ranging political change in the country. I think the same may apply to Ukraine. One way or another, the conservative faction in the country’s leadership now has a single goal: to maintain the current state of affairs for as long as possible.

The only point now of the special operation is not victory over Ukraine, but dragging the operation out for its own sake, ideally for decades. Even in its early days, pro-Kremlin political analysts said that Russia needed 10 years of war, akin to the decade of stability Stolypin dreamed of.

The trouble is that is not the way things work. And nor will they in future. Now, even endlessly replaying the same situation still brings change by creating new problems. Opinion polls show that the mood is changing: people are tired. However, the authorities are much more tired and the economy is tired too.

You can hold on to a position for a long time, but you then have nowhere to go. There are no prospects, not even for the elite. So a “party of peace” must inevitably form within the structures of power.

The paradox is that the “party of war” cannot leave things as they are. It needs to keep up momentum in order to maintain control at every moment of the war. Look at Russia’s budget. If we assume that this is the budget of a state waging a full-scale war, then the budget is actually very reasonable. But if this is the budget of a state where peace and prosperity reign, and this is merely a special operation somewhere on the western outskirts, then the budget is catastrophic. This is too “peace-time” a budget to carry out general mobilisation. In other words, by maintaining the status quo, the system acquires an increasing number of contradictions, and risks getting tangled up in them.

I have no doubt that a “party of peace” will eventually be forced to move in and take control of the situation. The only question is how long will it take, and how many more people will die and suffer on both sides before they seriously look for a peaceful solution?

But that’s not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is that a peaceful solution inevitably brings with it immediate — not eventual — radical political change. The current configuration of power leaves no other option.

Of course, the liberal public, “rational bureaucracy” and most of society agree and want to return to the good old days, when there was no Covid-19, no special operation and no war in Israel, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Bring back 2019!

Alas, and as obvious as such a consensus might be, it is impossible. Not in Russia, nor Ukraine, nor Israel, nor Western Europe, nor the US. The political and social frameworks have changed. And the global economy finds itself in the same impasse as global politics. The neoliberal project ran its course between 2008 and the 2010s.

However, since the mid-2010s, some within the Western elite have essentially been doing the same thing Israel and Russia are now doing at the military and political level, namely trying to preserve and reproduce at all costs a system that no longer works. The effort comes at ever greater expense, requires ever more resources, and again brings with it insoluble problems and contradictions.

It is why the far right is having such success in Europe and America. These are the forces that advocate for the preservation of the system, but from an anti-system ideological position. In a sense, this is the last political recourse for conservatism, but it is extremely dangerous. So change is inevitable.

We may not know when or how rapidly that change will come, but our main problem is that in all the years of waiting we have become unable to, and got out of the habit of, taking action. This is a good time for the left, but is the left up to the challenges of the time? And could it be that at the very moment when ample opportunities open up before us, we will be confused and helpless?

Russian history has witnessed time and again the sudden impact of freedom, landing like a natural disaster. Of course, what I say above does not just apply to the left. We are all so used to being helpless victims or embittered critics that we mind find any other role inorganic and incomprehensible.

We will have to re-learn. The first step is to end the culture of pessimism that has dominated for many years among those who see themselves as guardians of advanced democratic values, both in the left-leaning and the liberal sense. Pessimism and fatalistic humility are incompatible with accountability and a readiness to be more than spectators, to be participants in and agents of social change. I can only quote Hamlet: “The readiness is all”.

 

Examining Labor’s Political Captivity

Examining Labor’s Political Captivity

Every election year many of the U.S. trade unions scramble – or stumble – into action to elect “labor’s friends”. More likely they are involved mostly to try to stop those bent on liquidation of the unions, always the greatest part of the motivation to mobilize voters. Identifying the sworn foes of the union movement is not that difficult today – these forces openly declare their hatred of unions. As best expressed by the pathologic opposition shown toward the unions by most of the Republican Party elected officialdom today.

So far as picking friends, and then hanging the trade union seal of approval on them, the labor movement repeats year after year every imaginable “lesser-evil” decision-making gymnastics.  Decade after decade this bar for support has been lowered by the unions, paralleling the slow but steady capture of the labor officialdom by the Democratic Party apparatus. Merely recognizing the very existence of the unions, or at best making fuzzy promises are all that’s required for Democrats to win labor’s political support. Track records of candidates are rarely – or selectively – kept, and the failure or refusal to deliver on promises by a candidate is almost never grounds for excommunication on labor’s part.

Dangerous Man-made Fog

Outside observers of labor’s political action processes are frequently confused or mystified. But this should come as little surprise, since the bulk of the union activists – and certainly the membership – would likewise be unsure of what exactly is going on. As the unions are systematically assaulted by corporations and governments, frequently shrink as a result, and are blocked by corporate lawlessness from growing and rebuilding, the political and electoral union decision making and implementation becomes more and more clouded and obscured. In a labor movement predominantly “led” by administrators and not authentic labor leaders, the already warped political environment is destined for further distortion under these conditions.

Few Choices Allowed

An assessment of labor’s political action, its methodology, its outcomes, and its challenges must begin with the incredibly limited choices that are permitted in the first place. With virtually all political direction being supplied to the unions today via the Democratic Party and its operatives, all independent thinking or third parties are routinely banned from any consideration of labor’s support.

Even at the lowest electoral levels the Democratic Party machinery seeks out and squashes all political thinking outside the “box” of mainstream Democratic policy and practice. A glance at the documented roster of attacks meted-out to any challengers of the two-party setup is chronicled in detailed fashion at Ballot Access News. It is imperative to recognize that the failure of virtually any independent political alternatives to develop and take root in the labor movement is not just a freak accident, or the result of no base of support for them, it is the result of systematic interference and opposition to it by all levels of the Democratic Party. This lack of alternative political forces for labor has dramatically accelerated the decline of the labor movement.

Occasionally, unions still experiment with support for Republicans – as they are the only other party allowed in the corrupt two-party ”system” embraced by labor. But this phenomenon has been reduced in recent decades as the Republican Party has moved ever rightward. When left-of-center Democrats do emerge within the Democratic Party, the unions are advised by these outside guiding forces to be “realistic” and avoid any left taint. Few other choices exist in this barren political wasteland.

If left-leaning Democrats do manage to build some support among the unions they will still face an all-out assault by the Democratic Party apparatus. Only left elements are to be feared, and always opposed. Pro-business, right-leaning and outright reactionary Democrats are reflexively supported by their Party officialdom. Unelectable but politically “safe” candidates are often supported by this machinery with upstarts and progressives routinely confronted with Democratic Party operatives working to oppose and defund their campaigns. Only Democrats acceptable to the party machinery enjoy full support.

DNC Incorporated

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the leadership group governing and controlling much of the party apparatus, and it maintains an extensive focus on the trade unions. It is a multi-billion dollar corporate-type organism comprising many different sections. The overwhelming majority of DNC and wider Party funding originates with the corporate and wealthy donors. The unions do possess a coveted resource base of hundreds of millions dollars in political funds along with tens of thousands paid staff who can be press-ganged into supporting Democrats at all levels. The DNC resource universe also includes many thousands of functionaries from DNC-controlled consulting companies and non-profits, along with supplementary staff from elected lawmakers and lower level organizations.

This “DNC Incorporated” reality is little known or understood, although the union membership pays a steep price.  These elements systematically influence and interfere in union affairs, play favorites in internal union elections, and sometimes profit handsomely from various consulting contracts with the unions. Staff are exchanged among the unions and the wider DNC operations, leading to diluted union loyalty at minimum. Meddling within the unions by the Democratic Party takes many forms and fringes on outright corruption at times. Jobs and perks for family, friends, and cronies, an endless stream of VIP trips and photo-ops, posh dinners and cocktail parties are all offered to a union “leadership” willing to play politics at the expense of their own members.

Air Force One

As recently as the Clinton Administration, it was a common – but true – cliché among the Washington, D.C., trade union leaders and functionaries that the “price” for union support from a Democratic President was nothing more than a luxury ride on Air Force One for the union leader. Continuing a long tradition going back to the days when travel was done by presidential train, union leaders by the score then gathered family and paid flunkeys to all hop-on and “enjoy the ride”. Photo-ops were of course abundant, where union photographers snapped streams of publicity stills to show the rank-and-file the importance and status of their union leaders riding on the “Presidential special”.

But during the Clinton Administration the overall political standing of labor was steadily reduced by the White House and the DNC apparatus, with this high-profile practice nearly abolished today. This symbolic demotion of labor by the Democrats leaves more room today on Air Force One for large donors and business leaders, reflecting the increasingly taken-for-granted status of the labor movement. Rather than labor leaders jet-setting on Air Force One with the President, current labor bigs are instead relegated to attending contrived meetings with White House staff. Or taking seats at luxurious dinners and receptions where at best they can quickly shake hands with the President and exchange a mere few words.

Gone are the days when labor leaders would participate in serious conferences at the White House with the President and his staff, sometimes from both parties, where serious situations were deliberated, and sometimes even significant demands were made of the President on all manner of trade union issues. The unions have today been reduced to mere props for the DNC operation, and to visually reinforce the subordinated status of labor for all onlookers. Some of today’s labor leaders live for the rare photo-op with a President or Cabinet member, to see it splashed on Facebook or in the occasional union publication. All presumably to prove the important standing of the leader.













O’Brien and His Polls

The recent flap over Teamsters President Sean O’Brien and his refusal to support a presidential endorsement of either Harris or Trump showcased another crisis for organized labor. A social media firestorm was unleashed by Teamsters and outsiders, all weighing-in with opinions on the merits and demerits of the O’Brien decision. But one of the primary points was lost in the momentary bedlam. Few know that union after union repeatedly poll their own membership to ascertain their political opinions. The goal being for the union “leaders” to safely support only those candidates and issues which a majority of their membership already supports. There is no political education associated with this process. There is no role here for authentic labor leadership. Most unions long ago abandoned internal trade union education, including political education, increasingly shrinking away from any discussion of difficult questions like political candidate choices and broad political positions.

This near-total abdication of the responsibility of union leaders to actually “lead” on the political front is one of the most disastrous crises now debilitating the labor movement. Real political debate and decision making are replaced with feelgood campaigns, inane pronouncements, mindless slogans, and polls commissioned by a leadership seeking “which way the wind is blowing” among their membership. O’Brien’s handling of this situation lacked any substantial discussion or facts, and his decision and methods both likely left all sides unhappy. This momentary heartburn for O’Brien of course masks the historically opportunistic basis for much of this union’s political strategy over the decades, a legacy that he is all-too eager to revisit.

Opportunism Replaces Education

This tail-the-members style of political action is all too common in the labor movement. It is on its face an absurd style of operation, given that the responsibility of the union leadership is to actually lead, and not merely trail behind the perceived opinions of the membership. In the case of the recent Teamster kerfuffle it also masks the political opportunism of much of that union’s leadership, who want only to endorse the winner of the presidential election in November. Hoping for favors of some kind from either Harris or Trump, whoever wins, this strategy has been revealed repeatedly as a monumental failure.

The 1980 endorsement by the Teamsters of anti-union bigot Ronald Reagan remains the pinnacle of rank opportunism on labor’s political front. Hoping only to curry favor with Reagan as a means to avoid a federal criminal investigation of the entire leadership of the union, the gifting of the union’s endorsement to Reagan ended in humiliation and debacle. Lesser versions of this political horse-trading by union “leaders” continue today. Ultimately, it is an embarrassment that any union would have to poll its own members to determine the thinking of the membership, and it likewise is dangerous to promote this herd mentality. Adherence to real trade union principles is not easy today as all outside forces act to draw the members into the employer way of thinking. Trade union leadership must confront and counteract this, and certainly must not encourage more of this failed political drift.

The unions have for many decades faced a dire need to once again engage the membership in real trade union education, grappling with controversial subjects a part of that. Labor history revealing to members the heroic foundation of their unions, their militant beginnings in many cases, recognition of the class struggle reality today, and a serious discussion of alternatives to both our political and economic systems are all in order. Recipients of labor’s votes, money, and logistical support must also be held to account, with the unions willing to walk away rather than endorse and fund barely worthwhile candidates. An end must be put to the frequent labor support issued to obviously unfit candidates, usually pro-business Democrats and those who seek labor’s support in return for nothing – or almost nothing. Ultimately, a sound regimen of support for an independent course of action is required so as to break free from the control of “DNC Incorporated”.

More and More Cash

Suffocating the entire political operation of the labor movement today is the question of financial contributions for the legions of mostly Democrats who chase after the unions as if they were ATM machines. These sums routinely now exceed more that one billion dollars in a national electoral cycle, and when the many hidden financial supports offered by the unions are taken in to account the amount is likely more than twice that much. Democrats today obtain the vast majority of these funds from the pockets of the rank-and-file membership – but with all decisions determining its distribution decided by union leaders based almost exclusively on their personal direction.

While political fundraising is certainly a necessary reality, the monies when collected are often secreted away by union leaderships who offer few if any reports to the membership about where the contributions and expenditures have been made. This scandalous situation must be ended, with all participants in union political fundraising provided with a full accounting of how much was raised, from which parts of the unions, and then followed with detailed and verified reports of just exactly which candidates were supported and what other spending was completed. These gigantic political funds are too easily converted to private slush funds in the sole control of union leaders. In such a situation the domination of the Democratic Party over the union officialdom allows for ample opportunities for union monies being applied to unproductive or even counterproductive purposes.

Sobering Reality Today

The once deep wells of progressive and sometimes leftwing political principles, practices, and beliefs among layers of the union leadership and membership have largely dried up, or been deliberately drained. This spreading political desert covering the unions is largely ignored until election time, when Democrats come out of the woodwork looking for money, volunteers, and huge numbers of votes from the embattled union garrisons. The unions frequently deliver all this dutifully, receiving at best an uneven and sporadic “return” for their immense efforts and expense. Vast opportunities exist to mobilize the membership with authentic campaigns of worthwhile political education, but are instead supplanted by hollow, low calorie political sloganeering and mindless cheerleading for Democrats regardless of their quality.

Political Action or Playing Politics?

Legendary founding UE leader James Matles — UE, The Union for Everyone | Members Run This Union — commented in the late 1960’s to a UE Convention delegate who had asked him “What’s wrong with labor’s political action?” Matles calmly observed that when the UE was founded, in its early years, the general labor movement leadership viewed political action as a negotiation with the politicians, with exact commitments being won as the price of the unions support. The political goal was to win tangible gains for union members broadly, as well as for the working class as a whole. He said, “When we conducted our political work back then you could see air between the bellies of the union leaders and the politicians.” But later, as the union movement grew, became wealthy, became infected with reactionary employer principles, and eventually was split by corporate and business union forces, Matles observed that “Today there’s no air anymore. You can’t see through. Their bellies are touching, and they are no longer engaging in political action, they are playing politics. That’s what they are doing today, they are playing politics.” A return to principled left trade union political action is in order, and only such a return can arrest the political decline that has delivered our labor movement to the brink of ruin.

(In February of this year the author examined additional aspects of organized labor’s political action challenges. See: What’s Wrong with Labor’s Political Action? – MLToday )

Chris Townsend was most recently the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) International Union Organizing Director. Previously he was an International Representative and Political Action Director for the United Electrical Workers Union (UE). He has held local union positions in both the SEIU and UFCW. Townsend is active today in union organizing and training projects. He may be reached at: cwtownsend52@gmail.com Read other articles by Chris.

 

Western Distortions of the Palestinian Struggle

“This is Where the Problem Starts”

Western colonialism and imperialism are the roots of the Palestinian struggle. A common characteristic of western powers is their shared history of colonization and oppression of indigenous populations. This distinction is important because it is clear that there is heavy bias against Palestinians in both western political policy and western mainstream media. The United States and Israel share similar histories and politics as settler colonialist nations, each established through the violent dispossession of indigenous populations. Both countries utilized dehumanization of the indigenous populations they displaced to obtain the land they have settled upon. Native Americans were called “merciless Indian savages,” while Palestinians are called “animals” and “terrorists.” Examining relevant histories with a broader view will demonstrate how western interpretations of Palestine are biased. The prevailing western standard has been nonobjective and heavily promotes dishonest and biased narratives, omitting relevant histories and current event considerations. This biased narrative reads as a prejudiced tale meticulously designed to promote the interests of the more powerful side, an oppressive colonial regime and its imperial supporters.

Framing as a Tool of Erasure

The Palestinian struggle and foundations of Israel are a matter of modern-day colonialism achieved through atrocities. Israel is widely supported by the west over their imperialist interests and maintained by political and media propaganda. Criticism of a brutal occupying force is often harshly censored. The matter is frequently mischaracterized as a religious matter, labeled as complicated, or described as a conflict. Framing the Palestinian struggle as a “religious matter” generally encourages people to reduce politics to faith-based tensions. Dismissing something as “complicated” deters any type of engagement because the implicit message is that the issue is too difficult for most people to understand. Referring to the matter as a “conflict” implies symmetry, leaving no conceptual room for the disparity of power that defines a colonial struggle. It is none of those things. At its core, this is an ongoing process of colonization, resulting in the displacement of the Palestinian people and the violent military occupation of Palestinian land.

The strategic framing of Palestine has been used to support zionism for over 76 years. During a 1970 interview with renowned Palestinian activist and author Ghassan Kanafani, Australian media correspondent Richard Carleton referred to the matter of Palestine as a conflict. Kanafani countered that it is not a conflict, but a liberation movement fighting for justice, continuing, “This is where the problem starts. Because this is what makes you ask all your questions. This is exactly where the problem starts. This is a people who are discriminated against fighting for their rights. This is the story.” Fifty-four years later, these same issues about the framing language persist.

Foreign Policy and Domestic Repression

There are several elements to consider when examining the western distortion of the Palestinian struggle. First, we must look at United States foreign policy as it pertains to Middle Eastern, North African, and Muslim-majority nations. Interconnected to these foreign policies are United States domestic policies designed to target American citizens of MENA and/or Muslim backgrounds. These policies are rooted in the Palestinian struggle. Secondly, we must take a closer look at zionism, a western colonial project supported by the US in large part due to its imperialist goals and American interests in the MENA region. Interconnected to the matter of zionism is the strategy of intentional false conflation of antisemitism to criticism of zionism or Israel intended to suppress and silence criticism so that zionism can continue without accountability. These propagandist tactics are supported and reinforced by the United States over their imperialist goals in the MENA region. Third, we must look at the state of Israel more closely, the brutality in which it was created and maintains itself, and Israel’s influence on American politics and media. Interconnected to the matter of Israeli influence, we must look at lobby and special interest groups such as AIPAC and the ADL. These powerful groups use large sums of money to influence media organizations and exert influence and control over American elections and US policy both foreign and domestic.

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has always been in the absolute interest of western imperialism. This has continuously come at the cost of the suffering of MENA nations and their civilians for over a century. President Joe Biden, while serving as a United States Senator, gave a speech on the Senate floor on June 5, 1986, speaking to US foreign policy in the Middle East. He stated that the US should “operate and move in the naked self-interest of the United States of America.” Referring to Israel, he said, “It is the best three-billion-dollar investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region.”  His current position and statements regarding Israel and the Middle East remain unchanged thirty-eight years later. Biden has openly referred to himself as a zionist to the media on numerous occasions for several decades. He has made repeated statements of support for Israel, even as Israel has been accused of the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, and after several decades of its numerous violations of international law. In December of 2023, Biden stated, “I got in trouble many times for saying you don’t have to be a Jew to be a zionist, and I am a zionist. I make no apologies for that. That’s a reality.” The statements then-Senator Biden made on the Senate floor in 1986 speak volumes to the reasons behind the United States’ predisposition to show favorable bias towards Israel and, therefore, against Palestinians.

The matter of Palestine has always been at the core of United States antiterrorism laws. Palestinian liberation efforts continue to be a central target of both foreign policies and domestic laws oppressive to Arab Americans. The idea of the Arab or Muslim terrorist was introduced to the west by Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in 1979. Netanyahu used the term in Washington, DC, in 1984 at the “Second Conference on International Terrorism” he organized where he pushed this label and agenda into American politics. On December 22, 1987, he achieved his goal as the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formally declared a terrorist organization by the United States. This was the “first and only time” Congress designated a group as a terrorist organization. These series of events are directly related to escalations that led to the first intifada in 1987. It was also during these conditions that Hamas, a resistance organization, had formed. The region endured continuous turmoil, and heightened escalations continued until the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Journalism vs. Propaganda: A Brief History

While the media is a very influential source in shaping views on important matters, the United States mainstream media has long ago lost its journalistic integrity.  Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that uses exaggerated and sensationalist reporting often based on false accounts of events to boost sales and attract readers. The peak of early-stage yellow journalism began as a competition between the publications of two major newspaper publishers in the late 1800s, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. To drive public appeal, the two pushed out sensationalist newspapers, which prominently featured political coverage. In 1898, both Pulitzer and Hearst published misleading newspapers pushing a rumor that Cuba had sank a US battleship when, in fact, a coal fire aboard the ship led to an explosion. The US Maine sinking in the Havana Harbor contributed to the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. Propagandist publications have tainted American journalism to this day and continue to incite both conflicts and hate.

The New York Times’ publishing controversies began in the 1800s and include numerous instances pertaining to significant events from the Russian Revolution to the Iraq War. In more recent times, the New York Times has been cited for publishing articles based on misinformation leading to incitement. In 2003, the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that “the New York Times is more favorable toward the Israelis than the Palestinians, and the partiality has become more pronounced with time.” This trend continues today and is an ongoing ethical and moral problem. During the current genocide in Gaza that began in 2023, The New York Times has been cited multiple times for publishing false accounts of events, from false claims of rapes to disproven accounts of beheaded babies. In April of 2024, The Intercept obtained an internal New York Times memo that instructed journalists to avoid “use of the terms ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and to ‘avoid’ using the phrase ‘occupied territory’ when describing Palestinian land.” They were additionally instructed to avoid the use of “Palestine” or terms such as “refugee camps.” Numerous other mainstream media outlets have also been accused of both biased and inaccurate reporting on Palestine. This trend is commonplace and has persisted for over a century.

A Definitive Bias

The issue of Palestine is deeply intertwined with the rise of anti-Arab hate, contributing to the dehumanization and stereotyping of Arabs. The Middle East and North Africa have rich cultural variances and diverse ethnicities, but there is a strong cultural ignorance in the west about the geography and geopolitics of the MENA region. To many, “an Arab is an Arab” without any thought or attention to regional or political distinctions. The mainstream media promotes this cultural ignorance, flattening public understandings of MENA communities and struggles as a result. Media bias is not only harmful to the populations they target but is a catalyst driving discriminatory hate within their audience here in the United States as well. Media bias plays a role in contributing to harmful stereotypes toward people of Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African ethnic backgrounds, regardless of their religion. Media bias has also contributed to the western racialization of Muslim Americans and has played a destructive role by inciting Islamophobia, giving rise to hate crimes against individuals from these ethnic groups in the US. Natalie Khazaal, associate professor of Arabic and Arab Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology, published an article for The Conversation, an independent news organization, highlighting anti-Palestinian bias in US corporate media: “Reporting can prime audiences to see a Palestinian fighter in a mask as either an icon of terrorism or a hero resisting occupation, depending on how the news is presented.” This one sentence encapsulates the issue Palestinians face in the west. Media portrayals are often biased and tend to leave out crucial histories and background information of events they report on, often totally omitting decades of Palestinian suffering at the hands of an oppressive military colonial settler regime. A definitive bias controls the narrative and information available to the public, leading to a widespread impact and sway on public perception. The media bias infects public viewers and drives large-scale public prejudice against Palestinians.

The convenient western amnesia of Palestinians’ history of suffering must end. We cannot only look to condemn Palestinians, who are blamed for their own suffering. We are now over a year into Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Media disinformation has played a significant role in justifying Israel’s criminal actions. Media bias has grave consequences. The Palestinian fight for liberation will persist as long as Palestinians continue to be dehumanized by mainstream western media and imperialist political agendas. The ongoing Palestinian struggle for liberation remains in a state of great peril. There is no true peace process without taking a more critical look at histories and current event considerations through a more honest lens.

  • First published at Project Censored.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
  • Lamees Hijazi is a San Francisco State University senior majoring in history, with minors in Middle East and Islamic Studies, and Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas. Her interests include multiculturalism, social justice, anti-imperialism, internally displaced peoples, diasporic communities, Indigenous studies, global anti-colonial solidarity, and media literacy. In Summer 2024, she worked as a Project Censored intern, conducting research in support of Omar Zahzah’s forthcoming book, Terms of Servitude: Zionism, Silicon Valley, and Digital/Settler-Colonialism in the Palestinian Liberation StruggleRead other articles by Lamees.