Saturday, October 26, 2024

The United Nations: Balancing high ideals and harsh realities

Published 
MastodonFacebookTwitterEmail
UN headquarters

The United Nations has always been criticised for failing to live up to the high standards set by its founders in the UN Charter — whether in terms of preserving peace and stability, global socio-economic development, protecting human rights or handling refugee crises. However, criticism of the UN has perhaps never been as harsh as it is today, with two major conflicts — the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East — exposing the organisation’s perceived inability to address them. Israel recently declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata. Following Guterres’ trip to the BRICS summit in Russia (22–24 October), the criticism intensified, with extreme suggestions in some circles to “outlaw” him globally, withdraw Western countries from the “useless” UN or even disband the organisation altogether.

Who is the United Nations?

When asked to visualise the UN, most people likely think of two iconic images: the 39-floor building on the East River and the UN Security Council Chamber, with its semi-circular meeting table. These two images, while simple, conceal a complex reality about the UN. Strictly speaking, the building on the East River does not house the entire UN; it primarily serves as the seat of the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat is a technical body that supports the functioning of various UN organs (many, but not all, of which are housed in the larger UN complex on the East River). These include the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council.

Many people outside the UN mistakenly imagine the Secretary-General as a “World President,” when, in fact, he is the head of the Secretariat. The Secretariat exists to implement the decisions taken by the UN’s decision-making bodies: the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council. Its raison d'être is to carry out the directives of these main bodies — the “proper” United Nations, so to speak. The UN’s second Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld, emphasised that the competencies and action space of the Secretariat are defined by the member nations: “The United Nations is what member nations make it, but within the limits set by government action and government cooperation, much depends on what the Secretariat makes it. It has creative capacity. It can introduce new ideas. It can, in proper forms, take initiatives. It can put before member governments findings which will influence their actions.”

In Hammarskjöld’s words, the UN is what its member nations make of it. But how do member nations “make” the UN? Through the decisions of the main bodies already mentioned. The power of these decisions, however, differs immensely. While the decisions (resolutions) of the General Assembly carry significant moral weight, they are non-binding. Enforcement mechanisms, such as sanctions or the deployment of UN forces, can only be decided by the UN Security Council, whose decisions are binding on all UN members. This leads us to the second popular image of the United Nations: the UN Security Council Chamber.

The power and controversy of the veto

Unlike the General Assembly, where decisions are made by a simple majority vote (even if less than half of the total members vote), the decision-making process of the Security Council is built on a system of checks and balances, represented by the veto power of the five permanent members: China, Russia, France, Britain and the United States. The veto power means that no decision can be passed if any permanent member votes against it.

Viewed by many critics as the most undemocratic aspect of the UN, the veto power was considered by its key founders as the bedrock of the organisation. It emerged from negotiations during the formation of the UN at Dumbarton Oaks (1944) and Yalta (1945). The five permanent members of the Security Council ultimately agreed on the scope of the veto power during the Yalta Conference. Known as the Yalta formula, this agreement was essential for securing the participation of the major powers, as they sought both cooperation and protection of their sovereign rights. A key goal of the UN’s founding was to secure the involvement of the major powers — a lesson learned from the failure of the League of Nations. At the San Francisco conference, the Big Five made it clear that without the veto power, there would be no UN. The US was a strong supporter of this mechanism. US President Harry S. Truman wrote: “All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate.”

Amid recent calls to strip Russia and China of their veto power at the UN, it is crucial to revisit the rationale behind this mechanism. It plays a crucial role in promoting compromise among the most powerful nations, preventing potentially destructive unilateral actions and encouraging dialogue. In the absence of the veto, it is argued that powerful states might resort to military means to resolve disputes rather than seeking peaceful or diplomatic solutions. The veto forces the permanent members of the Security Council to negotiate and find common ground, which, while imperfect, helps to de-escalate conflicts that might otherwise spiral into violence. This argument is often framed in terms of realpolitik, acknowledging that in a world of clashing national interests, the veto ensures no permanent member is compelled into decisions that threaten its core interests, thereby fostering cooperation.

An illustrative example of the UN Security Council veto preventing escalation between superpowers is the Korean War (1950–1953). During this conflict, the Soviet Union’s absence from the Security Council (protesting the exclusion of the People’s Republic of China) allowed the Council to pass a resolution authorising military intervention in Korea. Had the Soviet Union been present and exercised its veto, the UN might not have endorsed intervention, potentially averting or altering the course of the war. This absence underscored the deterrent value of the veto during the Cold War, as it highlighted the possibility of escalation without superpower agreement.

As I explored in a previous article, the veto can also be seen as a tool for cost minimisation. By using the veto, permanent members minimise the economic and political costs associated with military interventions or conflicts that could arise from being forced into unfavourable decisions. This cost-saving aspect is often overlooked in broader discussions of the veto’s role, but remains central to understanding its continued relevance in international diplomacy.

Moreover, the founders (who were all men) considered the veto mechanism a cementing factor, essential for the UN’s continued existence. They believed it would prevent the breakdown of the United Nations itself if binding action were imposed against any of the permanent members. Given the disproportionate influence these powers hold globally, any attempt to bypass their interests could lead to their withdrawal from the institution altogether, potentially weakening or even dissolving the UN’s authority.

The toughest job in the world

The UN has undeniably failed to stop the war in Ukraine or the conflict in the Middle East. But can this be blamed on the Secretary-General? Without consensus in the Security Council, the Secretary-General has limited options. Furthermore, he must maintain a delicate balance in his relationships with the permanent members, who effectively hold the power to appoint him. It is also not unknown for the permanent members to treat the Secretary-General harshly when they perceive that person as overstepping their bounds, as was the case with Kofi Annan, who was severely rebuked by the US for questioning the international legitimacy of NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999.

Contrary to popular belief that the toughest job in the world is that of the US President, the role of the UN Secretary-General is arguably even more challenging. He is under constant pressure to navigate and act upon many, often conflicting, interests. The Secretary-General’s responses to the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts underscore the difficult balance he must maintain as the UN’s top diplomat. While he has condemned the breach of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, he has refrained from explicitly criticising Russia, much as he has avoided directly censuring Israel in the Middle East conflict. His recent statement on the escalating violence in the Middle East illustrates this delicate position: “I condemn the broadening of the Middle East conflict, with escalation after escalation. This must stop. We absolutely need a ceasefire.” As the Secretary-General, his role is to encourage peace without alienating key actors on either side.

His restraint highlights the inherent limitations of his position; direct condemnation risks undermining his capacity as a neutral mediator, which is essential for maintaining diplomatic channels. The fact that he has now been declared persona non grata by Israel creates a cognitive dissonance for Western left liberals who support both Ukraine and Palestine: they are now in the impossible position of calling to ostracise someone for his stance on Ukraine, who has simultaneously been ostracised by Israel for his stance on Palestine — positions they otherwise support. Each statement he makes must consider the need to maintain open dialogue with all parties involved, weighing carefully the fine line between advocating for peace and risking accusations of bias from conflicting sides.

Another dilemma arose recently with his decision to attend the BRICS summit in Russia. Declining the invitation from President Vladimir Putin might have earned him praise from Ukraine and its allies, but at the cost of alienating a bloc of countries that represents roughly half of the world’s population and about 30% of global GDP. When choosing between BRICS and the G7, which accounts for 10% of the population and 43% of global GDP, what should he prioritise? Given how diverse and contradictory the UN’s membership is, it is nearly impossible for the Secretary-General to meet all expectations. The job demands not only diplomacy but also an ability to manage inevitable criticism from all sides.

I can personally attest to this challenge, having met three very different Secretaries-General — Annan, Ban Ki-moon and Guterres — each with distinct personalities, yet facing the same pressure and constraints. Their agency was severely curtailed by the Security Council, and their forays into issues lacking consensus consistently drew criticism from different, sometimes diametrically opposed, sides. Of course, those Secretaries-General who explored the limits of their freedom less often had quieter tenures.

UN failures and successes

There are many examples of the UN falling short of its members’ expectations, particularly in the Global South. One notable example is the structural adjustment programs implemented by the World Bank and IMF in developing countries during the 1980s–90s. It is now widely recognised that these programs did more harm than good and may well be responsible for the “ lost decade of growth” in Africa during the ’80s and turning it into a “ hopeless continent” in the ’90s. Indeed, the image of the UN building on the East River conceals another truth: the World Bank and IMF, both headquartered in Washington, DC, are specialised agencies under the UN Charter and part of the broader UN system.

Other prominent failures of the UN are also well-known: it failed to prevent the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 (despite desperate pleas from the Force Commander, Canadian General Roméo Dallaire), the massacre of civilians in Srebrenica in 1995, and the genocide in Darfur starting in 2003. Because of the immense suffering these failures caused, they are seared into public consciousness. Less known to the public, however, is the routine work done by various UN agencies, often behind the scenes, that saves countless lives by providing access to medical care, food, improved agricultural practices and initiatives that foster job creation and socio-economic equality.

A notable example is the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has provided a lifeline for over 70 years to thousands of Palestinians across the region. Though heavily criticised in Israel, UNRWA has made substantial contributions to healthcare, education, and job creation for Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. While the organisation has faced serious challenges, including instances where terrorists have managed to infiltrate it, this should not define its overall mission. Such incidents are tragic but do not mean that UNRWA itself is inherently aligned with terrorism, as is sometimes claimed by the Israeli government. Instead, its impact on the welfare and stability of Palestinian communities remains significant and invaluable.

The iconic UN building also obscures the vast and varied UN system, which consists of more than 30 affiliated organisations, programs, funds and specialised agencies, each with its own membership, leadership and budget processes. Many of these entities are globally recognised for their significant contributions to humanitarian and development efforts over the decades, such as the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UN Women and the UN Development Programme, among others. Several UN agencies, including the International Labour Organization (ILO), UNICEF and the World Food Programme, have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The UN Peacekeeping Forces, which have been deployed in various global hotspots since 1947, also received the prize, as did the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which was honoured twice, in 1954 and 1981.

The last bridge: Preserving dialogue in a divided world

Despite its flaws and criticisms, the United Nations remains the only organisation where every country in the world is represented. This gives the UN a unique status as a platform for discussion, collaboration, and compromise — not only among like-minded actors, as is often the case with organisations like the European Union or NATO, but also among adversaries and even open enemies. The UN serves as a space where nations with deep-seated conflicts, such as the United States and Iran, can engage under the same roof. The very existence of this forum offers an invaluable opportunity for dialogue and diplomacy, even when prospects for agreement seem remote. It provides an essential buffer that prevents the breakdown of communication between hostile states, reducing the risk of conflict escalation. This unique role, where adversaries can at least discuss their differences rather than resort to force, remains one of the UN’s most critical contributions to international peace and security.

In this context, I disagree with recent proposals, such as those by Dominique Lazanski, which argue for disbanding the UN as an outdated, top-down institution, and replacing it with a decentralised “system of federations,” as suggested by Friedrich Hayek. These proposals, aiming to create federations of countries or territories united by common interests such as trade or security, risk dangerously mirroring “friendshoring” and fostering geopolitical fragmentation. Such a system would create echo chambers — alliances that lack space for dissenting perspectives and promote division rather than global cooperation. This approach contrasts starkly with the UN’s core objective: fostering an inclusive platform where nations, despite their differences, work toward peaceful reconciliation and stability, rather than reinforcing opposing alliances.

Finally, when reflecting on the UN’s successes and failures, it is essential to return to its original mandate: to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” While the founders knew that preventing all future conflicts was unrealistic, their primary concern was to avert another world war on the scale of those they had experienced. By that measure, the UN has not yet failed — at least, not so far.

Israel’s Attacks on Clinics and Hospitals In Gaza Are War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
October 25, 2024
Source: Informed Comment

Image by Takver, Creative Commons 2.0

Earlier this month the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory issued a report demanding that Israel, in the words of Commission Chair Navi Pillar,

“Israel must immediately stop its unprecedented wanton destruction of healthcare facilities in Gaza. By targeting healthcare facilities, Israel is targeting the right to health itself with significant long-term detrimental effects on the civilian population. Children in particular have borne the brunt of these attacks, suffering both directly and indirectly from the collapse of the health system.”

The Commission did not say so, but Israeli justifications for attacking hospitals, that they are terrorism ‘command centers,’ have repeatedly been found to be unsubstantiated.

The authors say that the Israeli assault on medical facilities has led to a collapse of the health care system in Gaza. This collapse has left chronically ill patients such as diabetics and cancer victims without treatment and led to many deaths.

The report by the numbers for the first nine months of the Israeli war on Gaza:Israeli forces were responsible for the deaths of 500 medical personnel.
The Israelis attacked 113 ambulances and damaged at least 61.
Israel conducted 498 assaults on health-care establishments within the Gaza Strip.
These attacks resulted in the direct deaths of 747 individuals and injuries to 969 others.
They had a negative impact on 110 facilities.
As of mid-July, out of the 36 hospitals in Gaza, 20 were entirely out of service, and only 16 remained partially operational
These 16 were experiencing extreme congestion and had a total bed capacity of merely 1,490 (the capacity of one fair-sized hospital of New York; this is for 2.2 million persons suffering from Israeli attacks for a year now).
WHO documented that 78 percent of the Israeli assaults on medical facilities involved the use of military force.
35 percent involved the hindering of access.
9 percent included militarized search and detention activities. These attacks were extensive and systematic.

The authors of the report assert that the Israeli military conducted air raids on hospitals, inflicting significant damage on structures and their environs, and causing numerous casualties. They encircled and laid siege to hospital grounds, stormed hospitals and apprehended medical personnel and patients, restricted the delivery of goods and medical supplies, blocked the movement of civilians in and out, issued expulsion directives but hindered safe evacuations. Additionally, Israeli security forces repeatedly impeded the access of humanitarian organizations.The Israeli military killed 19 members of or volunteers for the Palestine Red Crescent Society and detained and attacked many more. Medical workers expressed their belief that they had been deliberately targeted by Israeli security forces.
Hundreds of healthcare workers, including three hospital directors and the head of an orthopedic department, as well as patients and journalists, were apprehended by Israeli security forces at Shifa’, Nasr, and Awdah hospitals during military operations. In at least two instances, senior medical staff reportedly died while in Israeli custody.
Israel was still holding 128 healthcare workers, including four Palestine Red Crescent Society staff members, as of last July.
Israeli officials approved the medical evacuation from Gaza through Rafah of only 5,857 of 13,872 patients who had applied for it.
Israeli officials approved only about half of requests to depart Gaza by cancer patients.
In July, Israel “delayed the evacuation of 150 children from the Gaza Strip in need of specialized medical treatment.”

It’s bad.


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.


Israel Has Taken Human Shields To A Whole New Criminal Level

The use of Palestinian civilians as ‘human baits’ in Gaza demonstrates how racism informs Israel’s warfare practices.


October 24, 2024
Source: Aljazeera


A screenshot from footage obtained by Al Jazeera shows a Palestinian man dressed in Israeli military forced to walk around in the rubble of a building in Gaza [Screenshot/Al Jazeera]

The use of human shields in war is not a new phenomenon. Militaries have forced civilians to serve as human shields for centuries. Yet, despite this long and dubious history, Israel has managed to introduce a new form of shielding in Gaza, one that appears unprecedented in the history of warfare.

The practice was initially revealed by Al Jazeera but, subsequently, Haaretz published an entire expose about how Israeli troops have abducted Palestinian civilians, dressed them in military uniforms, attached cameras to their bodies, and sent them into underground tunnels as well as buildings in order to shield Israeli troops.

“[I]t’s hard to recognise them. They’re usually wearing Israeli army uniforms, many of them are in their 20s, and they’re always with Israeli soldiers of various ranks,” the Haaretz article notes. But if you look more closely, “you see that most of them are wearing sneakers, not army boots. And their hands are cuffed behind their backs and their faces are full of fear.”

In the past, Israeli troops have used robots and trained dogs with cameras on their collars as well as Palestinian civilians to serve as shields. However, Palestinians who were used as shields always wore civilian clothes and thus could be identified as civilians. By dressing Palestinian civilians in military garb and sending them into the tunnels, the Israeli military has, in effect, altered the very logic of human shielding.

Indeed, human shielding has historically been predicated on recognising that the person shielding a military target is a vulnerable civilian (or prisoner of war). This recognition is meant to deter the opposing warring party from attacking the target because the vulnerability of the human shield ostensibly invokes moral restraints on the use of lethal violence. It is precisely the recognition of vulnerability that is key to the purported effectiveness of human shielding and for deterrence to have a chance of working.

The use of human shields in war is not a new phenomenon. Militaries have forced civilians to serve as human shields for centuries. Yet, despite this long and dubious history, Israel has managed to introduce a new form of shielding in Gaza, one that appears unprecedented in the history of warfare.

The practice was initially revealed by Al Jazeera but, subsequently, Haaretz published an entire expose about how Israeli troops have abducted Palestinian civilians, dressed them in military uniforms, attached cameras to their bodies, and sent them into underground tunnels as well as buildings in order to shield Israeli troops.

“[I]t’s hard to recognise them. They’re usually wearing Israeli army uniforms, many of them are in their 20s, and they’re always with Israeli soldiers of various ranks,” the Haaretz article notes. But if you look more closely, “you see that most of them are wearing sneakers, not army boots. And their hands are cuffed behind their backs and their faces are full of fear.”

In the past, Israeli troops have used robots and trained dogs with cameras on their collars as well as Palestinian civilians to serve as shields. However, Palestinians who were used as shields always wore civilian clothes and thus could be identified as civilians. By dressing Palestinian civilians in military garb and sending them into the tunnels, the Israeli military has, in effect, altered the very logic of human shielding.

Indeed, human shielding has historically been predicated on recognising that the person shielding a military target is a vulnerable civilian (or prisoner of war). This recognition is meant to deter the opposing warring party from attacking the target because the vulnerability of the human shield ostensibly invokes moral restraints on the use of lethal violence. It is precisely the recognition of vulnerability that is key to the purported effectiveness of human shielding and for deterrence to have a chance of working.

By dressing Palestinian civilians in Israeli military uniforms and casting them as combatants the Israeli military purposefully conceals their vulnerability. It deploys them as shields not to deter Palestinian fighters from striking Israeli soldiers, but rather to draw their fire and thus reveal their location, allowing the Israeli troops to launch a counterattack and kill the fighters. The moment these human shields, masked as soldiers, are sent into the tunnels, they are transformed from vulnerable civilians into fodder.

The Israeli army’s treatment of Palestinian civilians as expendable might not come as a surprise given the racialised form of colonial governance to which they have been subjected for decades. The deep-seated racism explains the ease with which Israeli President Isaac Herzog publicly claimed that there are “no innocent civilians” in the Gaza Strip as well as the prevailing indifference among Israel’s Jewish public to the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been killed.

Indeed, Israelis were not shocked when their political leaders repeatedly called to “erase” Gaza, “flatten” it, and turn it “into Dresden”. They have either supported or have been apathetic towards the damage and destruction of 60 percent of all civilian structures and sites in Gaza.

Within this context, dressing Palestinian civilians in military garb and sending them into tunnels is likely to be perceived in the eyes of most Israeli soldiers – and large sections within the Israeli public – as not much more than a detail.

Nonetheless, this new form of human shielding does shed important light on how racism plays out in the battlefield. It reveals that the military has taken to heart and operationalised Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s racist guidelines that “we are fighting human animals”, exposing how Israeli soldiers are relating to Palestinians as either bait or prey. Like hunters who use raw meat to lure animals they want to capture or kill, the Israeli troops use Palestinian civilians as if they were bare flesh whose function is to attract the hunter’s prey.

Racism also informs Israel’s disregard for international law. By randomly detaining Palestinian civilians – including youth and the elderly – and then dressing them in military garb before forcing them to walk in front of soldiers, the Israeli troops violate not only the legal provision against the use of human shields but also the provision that deals with perfidy and prohibits warring parties from making use of military “uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”. Two war crimes in a single action.

The horrifying truth, however, is that no matter how much evidence emerges around Israel’s use of this new human shielding practice or indeed any other breach of international law, the likelihood that it will change actions on the ground is small.

Hopes that international law will protect and bring justice to the Palestinian people have historically been misplaced because colonial racism – as critical legal scholars from Antony Anghie to Noura Erekat have pointed out – informs not merely Israel’s actions but also the international legal order, including the way the International Criminal Court (ICC) metes out justice. To get a glimpse of this racism, all one needs to do is browse the website of the International Criminal Court to see who it has been willing to indict.



Neve Gordon
During the first intifada Neve Gordon was the director of Physicians for Human Rights - Israel. He is the co-editor of Torture: Human Rights, Medical Ethics and the Case of Israel, the editor of From the Margins of Globalization: Critical Perspectives on Human Rights and the author of Israel's Occupation,








New Scientific Report Confirms World Leaders Failing to Meet Climate Goals

October 25, 2024
Source: Common Dreams

Image by Gillfoto, Creative Commons 4.0


The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its annual emissions gap report today. According to this latest analysis, global heat-trapping emissions have yet to peak, and the world is on track to endure global average temperatures that rise between 2.6 and 3.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels based on nations’ current emission reduction pledges, far exceeding the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

As with other recent scientific studies, this report raises alarm about the disconnect between the science-based goals of the Paris climate agreement and both the pledges countries have made to rein in heat-trapping emissions and the policies they have implemented thus far to achieve those commitments. Scientific agencies around the globe are already forecasting that 2024 will be deemed the hottest year on record, continuing a trend of rising global average temperatures.

Below is a statement by Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and a lead economist in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). She has more than 20 years of experience working on international climate and energy issues and is a regular attendee of the annual U.N. climate talks. Dr. Cleetus will be attending this year’s negotiations, also called COP29, taking place next month in Baku, Azerbaijan, just after the U.S. presidential election.

“This report forcefully confirms that nations’ efforts to cut heat-trapping emissions have been grossly insufficient to date. Global heating records are being topped year after year, and people and ecosystems worldwide are suffering the devastation of unrelenting climate change disasters and increasingly irreversible impacts. To put it bluntly, decades of inadequate action have put the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal further out of reach and world leaders are failing their people. The consequences are profound—but the policy choices decided now are as crucial as ever to limit future harm.

“The best way forward is to implement sweeping changes to the global energy system by phasing out the destructive products fossil fuel companies are peddling and investing big in renewable energy solutions to sharply curtail heat-trapping emissions. Also urgent are scaled-up investments in climate resilience to cope with impacts already locked in. Rich, high-emitting nations—including the United States—are most responsible for these calamitous circumstances. Those living in climate-vulnerable, low-income countries that contributed very little to the fossil fuel pollution driving this crisis need more than hollow words; they need wealthy countries and other major emitters to live up to their responsibilities.

“At the upcoming U.N. climate talks, wealthy nations must significantly grow the amount of climate financing available to ensure all countries can slash their global warming emissions and prepare for the more frequent and severe climate impacts that are the punishing consequence of a warming world. And nations’ updated emission reduction commitments, which are due by February, must directly respond to the flashing red lights in this report and be followed through by robust policies to meet those commitments.”


Union Of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
Kashmir Votes to Challenge Modi’s Grip

KASHMIR IS INDIA'S GAZA

By Sajad Hameed, Qazi Shibli
October 25, 2024
Source: Jacobin

Image by Sajad Hameed, Jacobin

Previously arrested several times for “anti-India” activities, twenty-three-year-old Ikhlas Amin Bhat, a resident of Anantnag, campaigned for an independent candidate in Kashmir’s first legislative assembly election in ten years. “My family has always boycotted polls, but this time, we showed up, driven by the hope for real change in the region. We have pinned our faith on Indian democracy,” he said, sharing photos from the campaign trail.

He was among the many voters and campaigns that dealt a blow to Delhi through the election of a national assembly with a near majority for the center-left and regionalist Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC).

Ikhlas’s participation in these elections is symbolic of a broader shift in Kashmiri political engagement. The late 1980s witnessed the rise of an armed insurgency in Kashmir, with thousands of young Kashmiris taking up arms against Indian rule. This insurgency sparked decades of repression, during which human rights violations became the norm.

Things only got worse after the election of Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In 2019, the Indian government unilaterally abrogated constitutional safeguards for Jammu and Kashmir, revoking the region’s limited autonomy (Article 370 of India’s Constitution), provoking widespread outrage. This drastic action was followed by a severe crackdown: thousands of additional troops were deployed; hundreds of local politicians, lawyers, traders, and journalists were imprisoned; and the region was subjected to the longest internet blackout ever recorded, lasting over eighteen months.

Human Rights Watch, in reference to the post-abrogation situation in Jammu and Kashmir, stated that Indian authorities have been “restricting free expression, peaceful assembly, and other basic rights” following the revocation of the region’s special autonomous status. In a 2022 statement, the organization noted, “The government’s repressive policies and failure to investigate and prosecute alleged security force abuses have increased insecurity among Kashmiris.”
What’s Rightfully Ours

These human rights challenges have framed the backdrop of the 2024 elections, marking the first time in years that Kashmiris have had the opportunity to express their grievances and aspirations through the ballot.

The 2014 elections resulted in a coalition government that collapsed in June 2018 when the BJP withdrew its support. For the past five years, the region has been under direct federal rule, stripped of local representation. Following the directives of India’s Supreme Court, the 2024 assembly elections mark the first opportunity for the people to reclaim their voice and express their grievances since the abrogation of its special status.

“We voted with the hope of ushering in real change and a brighter future,” Ikhlas told Jacobin. “Despite a history of violence and boycotts due to distrust in the electoral process, this year’s elections saw a high voter turnout — exceeding 60 percent. Many residents, including those in Anantnag, a town once known for its boycotts and separatist protests, expressed a renewed belief in electoral politics.”

The substantial voter turnout exceeding 60 percent signifies not only a shift in political engagement but also a collective yearning for stability and local representation. Voter engagement in areas like Anantnag, which have historically boycotted elections, could either lead to reconciliation or further deepen existing divides.

Modi, India’s prime minister, hailed the voter turnout as a sign of progress, stating, “For the first time, voting was held without the fear of terrorism. The huge participation is proof of Naya [New] Kashmir.” The BJP credits this enthusiasm to improved security and its policies, while many Kashmiris simply see it as an opportunity to finally be heard.

For Vanessa Chishti, a professor at O. P. Jindal Global University in India, voter participation in the elections reflects a complex interplay of sociopolitical dynamics. “In the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370, the Modi government has implemented a series of policies aimed at consolidating control over the region, often stifling dissent and marginalizing local voices. The electoral process, therefore, represents a critical avenue through which the people of Kashmir seek to reclaim their agency and make their voices heard,” she remarked.

“This election holds particular significance for us because it symbolizes our fight to reclaim our special status and what we believe is rightfully ours,” said Khurshid, an unemployed postgraduate voter from north Kashmir’s Baramulla district, reflecting the sentiments of many Kashmiris who feel disenfranchised.
The Election Results

Shopian, one of the four districts down in the south of the Kashmir valley, formerly a hotbed of militancy, saw turnout increase 7 points, to 57 percent, compared to 2014. A significant number of people, primarily women, came out to express their concerns about the government’s reduced rice allotment, a policy change that has been in effect since January 2023.

“Rice is the staple food of Kashmir, and the government previously provided up to fifteen kilograms per person each month. However, under the Indian government, this allotment has been reduced to just five kilograms. We are suffering due to the scarce rice supply. The insufficient allotment forces locals to purchase rice at exorbitant prices. This has severely impacted us economically, with most of our earnings now going toward buying food,” said Zaina Begum, a local resident.

The austerity has been compounded by a poor underlying economy. A recent employment report tells much of the story: educated youth unemployment stood at 21.8 percent in 2005, while in 2022, the rate has grown to 34.8 percent.

It’s no surprise that for many Kashmiris economic struggles are a driving force behind their participation in the elections. While the issues that resonate with the public range from economic to young undertrials imprisoned for several years and fundamental governance concerns, the BJP centred its electoral campaign on the “peace” it claims to have restored in Kashmir since 2019. The party fielded nineteen candidates for the assembly segments in the valley; however, eighteen of them lost their deposits, receiving less than one-sixth of the total votes cast in their respective segments.

The JKNC, one of the most vocal regional opponents of the August 5, 2019, decision, has made a remarkable comeback by winning forty-two out of ninety seats — its best performance in nearly three decades. In its manifesto, the party not only criticized the abrogation of the region’s special status but also promised to advocate for its restoration and to call for the revocation of several draconian laws. The BJP failed to win any seats in the Kashmir division, while in the predominately Hindu Jammu region it won twenty-nine seats.

Tanvir Sadiq, a senior leader of JKNC who won the elections in Srinagar’s Zadibal assembly seat, stated that their party’s victory, which campaigned on a manifesto denouncing the BJP’s actions, represents a clear rejection of the government’s narrative. “The people of Kashmir have realized that to speak their heart out through the ballot is much better. The last five years have been damaging and this vote is a vent out for Kashmiris who have felt unheard since the abrogation of Article 370,” said Sadiq.
A Pivotal Moment

Sadiq noted the enthusiastic participation of young voters, signaling a shift in Kashmir’s youth political engagement. As Sadiq articulates, the younger generation has come to understand that voicing opinions on social media alone is insufficient; real change demands tangible action.

This sentiment is echoed by Chishti. “People have pursued all other avenues, including militancy and protests,” she explains. “There is fatigue of decades, and there has been a lot of bloodshed and loss. Kashmir is now seeking a constructive avenue for change, and the electoral process represents that hope. From political rights to governance challenges, the public, through their vote, is calling for immediate redressal of a myriad of concerns that have long been neglected.”

One of the most significant developments in this electoral cycle was the active participation of various separatist leaders and factions, historically advocating for either independence from India or a merger with Pakistan. Notably, Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the most hard-line political groups in the valley that had previously called for a boycott of the polls, fielded several candidates.

The BJP has characterized the involvement of separatist leaders in the electoral process as a “remarkable” achievement. Senior BJP leader Ram Madhav commented, “The participation of the Jamaat, which has historically boycotted elections, alongside a significant number of independent candidates — many of whom are well-known leaders — demonstrates that the people of this troubled region are eager to break free from the confines of outdated political narratives.”

Chishti asserts that the BJP is poised to capitalize on the participation of separatist forces in the electoral process, leveraging this development for both domestic and international narratives. “Right-wing Hindu nationalist parties have historically exploited the Kashmir issue to further their agenda, framing it as a cornerstone of national identity since independence. The recent involvement of separatist groups marks a significant shift, and the BJP will undoubtedly portray it as a validation of its policies.”

She suggests that the 2024 assembly elections in Kashmir signal a pivotal moment for the region, marked by significant voter engagement and the unprecedented participation of separatist factions. As the people of Kashmir strive to reclaim their agency through the electoral process, the implications of this shift extend beyond the immediate political landscape.

The path forward is challenging, as a centrally appointed governor will retain significant power, with the police and several other departments remaining outside the control of the local government. “Most people, including I, voted in protest. If the newly elected representatives fail to address pressing concerns like unemployment and civil liberties, disillusionment could once again lead Kashmir toward unrest,” said Omana Muzaffar, twenty-one, while watching a victory procession for the National Conference.


Related Posts
Why the Far Right Rules Modi’s India
Achin Vanaik -- March 25, 2024
Electoral Setbacks for BJP Won’t Unseat Hindu Fascism in India
Azeezah Kanji -- June 07, 2024
India’s Dalits and Muslims Can Work Together Against Modi
Nicolas Jaoul -- July 29, 2024
The Economic Fallout of India under Modi and the BJP
Paramjit Singh -- June 03, 2024
Modi Could Squander an Unprecedented Chance at Normalizing India-Pakistan Ties
Salman Rafi Sheikh -- April 26, 2024


Sajad Hameed is an India-based visual journalist covering human rights, politics, and technology in South Asia.


ICYMI

Boeing Machinists Reject Proposal, Strike On
October 25, 2024
Source: The Stand


Image by The Stand

“It wasn’t enough for our members,” said Jon Holden, President of IAM District 751 announcing Wednesday evening that Machinists voted to reject the latest contract proposal and continue to strike Boeing. The workers rejected the contract by 64%, with the vote consistent across job sites, per the union.

After years of deep cuts to benefits, wage stagnation, and company disrespect, Machinists are sticking together for a stronger contract.

“There are consequences when a company mistreats its workers year after year,” said Holden and Brandon Bryant, President of IAM District W24 in a joint statement. “Workers across America know what it’s like for a company to take and take – and Boeing workers are saying they are fully and strongly committed to balancing that out by winning back more of what was taken from them by the company for more than a decade.”

Machinists have been on strike since September 13, when workers voted almost unanimously to reject a company offer and withhold their labor to fight for a better contract. As Holden spoke to media immediately following the vote, he noted some of the outstanding issues Machinists want to see addressed in a contract; a full 40% raise, more vacation and sick leave, and the return of the defined-benefit pension.

Boeing’s decision to strip workers of their pensions and refusal to return them remains at the heart of this strike for many. For others, their commitment to fighting for a pension is a testament to their solidarity with fellow Machinists who’ve been most harmed by losing it, said Holden.

When asked by a reporter if Machinists deserve a pension, Holden was unequivocal: “All workers deserve a defined-benefit pension. It’s one of the hallmarks of retirement security. It wasn’t right to take it away, and it is a righteous fight to try to win it back.”

Per the union, Boeing has so far refused to discuss a return of the pension and company and the workers remain far apart. That divide can only be bridged at the bargaining table, with meaningful engagement in negotiations. Boeing has already walked away from mediated discussion before, but the union is committed to bargaining and plans to reach out to the White House for more support from Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Julie Su, who was instrumental in bringing the two sides together for talks previously.

Pickets will continue at all locations as the union looks to get back to the table and continue negotiations.

“Ten years of holding workers back unfortunately cannot be undone quickly or easily,” said Holden and Bryant. “But we will continue to negotiate in good faith until we have made gains that workers feel adequately make up for what the company took from them in the past.”


The Stand
The Stand is a free service and accepts no advertising. Its Editor, David Groves, has been writing and publishing news and opinion in Washington state since joining the WSLC staff in 1992. Other progressive voices — both inside and outside the labor movement — contribute content to The Stand.

USPS
Fellow Letter Carriers, Stand Together and Vote No on Sellout Contract!
October 25, 2024
Source: Labor Notes


Image by NALC Branch 9, Minneapolis

City letter carriers finally got to see the headlines of the tentative agreement Letter Carriers (NALC) President Brian Renfroe has negotiated—after more than 500 days of working without a contract and being kept completely in the dark about the state of bargaining.

In that time, a groundswell of enthusiasm and organizing for “Open Bargaining”—the right to be informed about the real state of negotiations—has swept through the union and became the Build a Fighting NALC movement. More than 40 union branches and a few state associations passed resolutions calling for this democratic right.

In August at the national convention, we won passage of an open bargaining resolution—but only after much ballyhoo from union leaders about how transparency could only hurt negotiations. In their view, letter carriers should just sit back and wait for the “historic” contract that was about to be delivered to us from on high.

Now we see the results of their approach to bargaining. Renfroe has lied about many things, but with this contract he may have inadvertently told the truth for once. This is a historic contract—a historically bad contract.

A MASSIVE PAY CUT

The three-year deal would provide 1.3 percent yearly wage increases, two of which would be retroactive. Three steps at the beginning of the pay scale would be eliminated, compressing the time it takes to reach top pay by a few years while denying immediate pay raises to most steps on the pay table. Back pay is to be paid whenever the postal service deems “as soon as practicable.”

Health insurance premiums will go up for letter carriers. Time allotted to organize mail in the mornings, known as “fixed office time,” is reduced by 13 minutes, from 33 to 20. Management has always had an incentive to reduce time spent in the office, because it means more time spent delivering mail on the street. By committing to reducing office time, this tentative agreement sets the stage for speedup, which could translate into the loss of thousands of routes or jobs.

Full cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are preserved with the existing formula for those at top pay, while everyone else continues to get the “diet” variety.

It’s a good thing we have retained our COLAs. But already, the formula for how much we receive is not equal to the rate of inflation as calculated by the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) every six months, which would be a 100 percent COLA. Instead, the dollar amount of COLA is first determined at the top pay step. For every 0.4 percent increase of inflation, top step carriers get a 1 penny increase in their hourly wage. Every pay step except the top step gets only a percentage of this percentage, so those at the bottom end of the pay scale get a substantially smaller COLA. Contrary to what Renfroe and his supporters claim, this “diet” COLA does not fully protect us against inflation.

Pay is the most pressing issue for letter carriers. Inflation has eaten into our wages and made the job less attractive to new hires, exacerbating the staffing crisis throughout the Postal Service.

The only letter carriers who would get substantial wage increases right away would be the city carrier assistants (CCAs, the bottom tier), part-time flexibles (PTFs, a middle tier), and career carriers who are on the first three pay steps, AA, A, and B. Everyone else would get only the diet COLA and the three 1.3 percent increases over the life of the contract—except those already at top pay, who get an additional $1,000 dollars per year.

The overtime rules would be changed to allow letter carriers to surrender their absolute right to refuse work over 12 hours a day or 60 days in a week. If we can’t get a real raise, “let them eat overtime”! At the same time, “peak season”—the period leading up to Christmas during which letter carriers are only paid time a half, never double time, even if we work over 10 hours—is extended from four weeks to six.

Contrary to many members’ hopes, all the wage tiers introduced in the 2010s would be kept in place, deepening the wedge that cuts into our solidarity. CCAs, who make up the bulk of new hires, will receive… wait for it… an increase of 50 whole cents, to bring their starting pay up to just past $20 an hour.

Before the CCA classification was created, we had Transitional Employees (TEs), who were already making $20-an-hour starting pay back in 2011. Build a Fighting NALC calls for a $30-an-hour starting wage, which, adjusted for inflation, would return the purchasing power of starting pay back to where it was then.

Both tables 1 and 2 remain for career carriers. Usually a letter carrier is hired first as a CCA or PTF for up to two years, then “converted” to career status. Letter carriers converted after 2013 are converted to the table 2 pay schedule, which is much lower than the old table 1. Under the current contract, a new career carrier on table 2 starts at $22.13 an hour, compared to $29.85 on table 1.

WE CAN DO BETTER

However Renfroe and his cronies try to spin it, this contract boils down to a massive pay cut for city letter carriers.

Since February 2020, prices on goods and services are up more than 21 percent. Since 2013, postal workers have seen our wages increase 18 percent, while inflation increased 31 percent, translating to a net loss in purchasing power of 13 percent. We have experienced the lowest wage increases, relative to inflation, of any profession tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics!

We’ve been losing ground for 10 years, and now our national union president wants us to put it in black and white and wave a victory banner? Build a Fighting NALC says vote no! Our national leadership has failed us. We must organize a national vote-no campaign that can bring together letter carriers, station by station, and serve as a launch pad for a long overdue national contract campaign—even if we have to bring the union leadership along kicking and screaming.

This offer isn’t just bad; it’s insulting. All around us, we see other groups of organized workers taking big strides forward. Two weeks ago, dockworkers secured a 62 percent wage increase. Boeing workers just got an offer of a 35 percent wage increase. In their most recent contract negotiations, the Teamsters won a $2.75-an-hour increase across the board for drivers, and the United Auto Workers won a 25 percent wage increase and the elimination of wage tiers.

In all these unions, workers mobilized in contract campaign events like pickets, mass meetings, and media appearances geared towards the public. Three of them also went on strike. Build a Fighting NALC believes the right to strike is a fundamental democratic right. Along with open bargaining, it will be necessary to win the long-term fight to maintain a high-quality public postal service.

COMING TOGETHER TO VOTE NO

Right now we’re focused on doing everything in our power to organize a vote no campaign, along with the Concerned Letter Carriers, reform-minded union officers like Mike Caref, and letter carriers across the country. As bad as this tentative agreement is, we can’t assume that everyone else is voting no—union leaders are preparing their talking points to try and convince letter carriers that this is really the best we can get, and the best we deserve. We are planning interventions at all the regional rap sessions where the leadership will be arguing for a yes vote.

The key task right now is to get letter carriers together at every level to discuss this tentative agreement. Isolation breeds despair. We can’t simply vote no as individuals; we need to organize vote-no standups, pass local resolutions recommending a no vote, and organize vote-no meetings before work in the parking lot. In every station, everyone who commits to voting no should take a picture with a sign and share it on social media.

We can cut through despair by building solidarity on the workroom floor, addressing the legitimate concerns and questions our co-workers have about the tentative agreement, and pledging to vote no together and for each other. Many of our union sisters and brothers are wondering whether this, in fact, might be the best we can get, and looking for someone who can help point the way forward. Be that person in your station, and in your local membership meeting.

Our national Zoom call this Sunday, October 27, at 10 a.m. Pacific will kick off the Vote No campaign. Register here and join the fight!

Rob Darakjian is a letter carrier in NALC Branch 2902 and a member of Build a Fighting NALC. Check out the group’s new website www.fightingnalc.com for more information and Vote No campaign materials. Email questions, photos, and reports to buildafightingnalc@gmail.com.
Why Union Workers Support the Kamala Harris Health Care Plan

By David McCall
October 25, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image in public domain

Russell McCarthy takes two forms of insulin, along with various other medications, to help control the diabetes that’s plagued him for decades.

As he worked to lower his blood sugar levels, the prices of his prescriptions continued to rise, costing him thousands of dollars out of pocket every year.

But then President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took a step at once compassionate and sensible. They capped insulin at $35 a month for all Medicare recipients, annually saving retirees like McCarthy thousands of dollars that they’re able to use to pay other bills, spend on local businesses, or otherwise pour into the economy.

Even as McCarthy relishes this additional security, however, he knows that the future of accessible, affordable health care will be at risk in the November 5 election.

As vice president, Harris cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate two years ago to overcome Republican obstructionism and pass the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the legislation that curbed skyrocketing insulin costs and delivered other kinds of health care savings to millions of retirees.

Now, Harris wants to build on the IRA, improve the nation’s care system, and continue to cut patient costs.

Donald Trump wants to drag the nation backward. His supporters already circle like vultures, eager to conspire with him to roll back the IRA, restrict access to health services, and free drug companies to exploit seniors all over again.

“I am insulin-resistant. I use a lot of insulin,” explained McCarthy, a former steel mill worker and United Steelworkers (USW) activist in Mansfield, Massachusetts, who estimates the $35 cap saves him about $530 a month and nearly $6,400 a year. “The money comes in handy, for sure.”

McCarthy, 70, who’s had complications with his eyes, feet, and heart because of diabetes, left the mill and changed careers long before retirement. While he occasionally delayed picking up a prescription to stretch his money over the years, other retirees faced a much grimmer scenario before the IRA.

“For some people, it was a matter of life and death,” McCarthy pointed out. “They had to make a choice: Insulin or food. Insulin or electricity.”

Research shows that he’s exactly right.

Within months of the Biden-Harris administration enacting the IRA, the number of insulin prescriptions filled by Medicare recipients increased significantly, according to a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

That means the cap quickly began working as intended, helping many more patients access their medication and safeguard their health, observed the lead researcher, Rebecca Myerson, assistant professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine and Public Health.

But the IRA went much further than that.

In addition to providing relief on insulin, it empowered Medicare to begin negotiating with drug companies to lower the prices of other hyper-expensive medications used by retirees.

The IRA also provides free access to vaccines and caps Medicare recipients’ overall out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 in 2025. And it continues to support millions of families who obtained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

While enabling Americans to take better care of themselves, these changes also contribute to a healthier economy, said McCarthy, a member of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR), noting consumers who save money on health care have the freedom to use it in other areas of their lives.

“They spend the money, which creates demand,” he said. “When you have demand, you need to make more things, which leads to hiring, which provides people with income and makes them taxpayers.”

Harris wants to replicate the IRA’s successes and take them to scale, by extending to Americans of all ages the $35 monthly insulin cap as well as the $2,000-a-year out-of-pocket maximum for drug costs.

She’d also negotiate lower prices for a wider range of drugs and expand Medicare to cover home health care, eye exams, and hearing aids.

And she’d provide the paid parental and family leave, along with other resources, needed to make work-life balance a universal right.

“Life throws so many curve balls at you. You just never know when you’re going to need time off,” said DeJonaé Shaw, an activist with USW Local 7600 and a licensed vocational nurse with Kaiser Permanente in Southern California.

California has a 20-year-old program providing partial pay to workers who need leave to bond with a child, care for an ill loved one, or respond to a family member’s military deployment. In addition, Local 7600 members can leverage expanded benefits that they bargained with their employer.

Other states and workplaces also offer a hodgepodge of programs, covering some workers but leaving others with nothing.

There’s no reason for any of this. It’s time for all Americans to have access to a single, comprehensive paid leave program that covers them regardless of where they live or work, stressed Shaw, noting most other industrialized countries long ago adopted these kinds of policies.

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, intend to implement paid leave along with new supports for child care and an expanded child tax credit, ensuring parents have the resources needed to raise families and continue working.

“I wish more people would take time to understand the policies Harris and Walz are talking about,” Shaw said. “They’re on the right track. They’re trying to create an environment where we’re not just existing but living.”

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

David McCall  is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW).
Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Progressive Democrats and Community Leaders Statement on Presidential Election
October 25, 2024
Source: Signed Statement

Image in public domain

As Democrats and leaders in the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and Progressive communities in Arizona, we the undersigned make the following statement, published on 10/24/2024:

Add your name HERE

This past year has been very difficult for all of us. With over 42,000 Palestinians killed by Israel using American-supplied weapons and no end in sight despite all our struggle for a ceasefire, we approach the presidential election heartbroken and outraged.

We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide. We understand this sentiment. Many of us have felt that way ourselves, even until very recently. Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones.

As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities. We know that some will strongly disagree. We only ask that you consider our case with an open mind and heart, respecting that we are doing what we believe is right in an awful situation where only flawed choices are available.

In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become President again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people. A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement. It would be an existential threat to our democracy and our whole planet.

When we think of Trump in power again, we recall that even a genocide can get much worse. Trump just said that Netanhahu must “go further” in Gaza while criticizing Biden for “trying to hold him back.” His biggest donor, Miriam Adelson, who demanded in 2016 that Trump move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected –– which he then did –– is now telling Trump to allow Israel to annex the entire West Bank. Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and the entire far right in Israel want Trump to win and grant Israel total free reign. We cannot give them what they want.

Trump must be defeated. The only way to defeat him is to elect Kamala Harris.

Add your name HERE

Voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement of her or of the policy decisions of the administration in which she served. It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear.

We are deeply frustrated that Harris has not yet met our movement’s demand that she break with Biden, defy the powerful extremists enforcing the status quo, stand with the majority of Americans, and pledge to uphold US law and international law and condition aid to Israel. Still we believe there are clear reasons to hope that we can win positive policy change with a Harris administration and a Democratic Congress.

Multiple media reports state that Harris’s national security advisors are open to re-evaluating policy and conditioning aid to Israel. On October 13th, the same day the administration threatened to re-evaluate military support if Israel did not improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza and reduce civilian casualties in the next 30 days, Harris tweeted: “Israel must urgently do more to facilitate the flow of aid to those in need. Civilians must be protected and have access to food, water, and medicine. International humanitarian law must be respected.” In Michigan the other day, Harris expressed clear empathy for the suffering of the people of Palestine and Lebanon and the impact of this devastation on Arab Americans. She pledged to do “everything in her power” as President to end the war in Gaza, end the suffering of Palestinians there, and achieve “a future of security and dignity for all people in the region.”

Beyond Harris’s statements, we know that her decisions as President will be shaped by the larger Democratic Party coalition that includes a growing force pushing for Palestinian human rights. Our Arizona Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in January. Every single member of Congress who has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza or for an arms embargo is a Democrat. The major national unions, civil rights groups, and progressive organizations that have called for a halt to military aid to Israel are all working to elect Harris.

On the other hand, the Republican Party coalition offers zero opposition to unconditional support for Israel and zero support for Palestinian human rights. Instead Republicans urge the US to join Israel in bombing Iran, call to “bounce the rubble in Gaza” and “kill ‘em all,” and would likely support the Israeli far right’s drive to annex Gaza and the West Bank.

What about a third party? Many in our communities believe this is our best option. Unfortunately, there is not a single third party member of Congress or even state legislator in America. In our electoral system, no third party candidate can win this election. But voting for them could make Trump president.

The polls show the presidential election is extremely close and that it will be decided by 7 swing states, including Arizona. While voting 3rd party may be strategic in non-swing states as a protest of the current US Israel/Palestine policy or as a step to qualifying the Green Party for public funding in future elections by winning at least 5% of the national vote, doing it in Arizona or other swing states in such a close election could bring disaster.

Add your name HERE

Some argue that if Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim voters and our allies vote for a 3rd party candidate and intentionally throw the election to Trump, taking credit for defeating Harris, it will prove our power to decide a close election and “punish Democrats” for complicity in genocide. Unfortunately, this is not how power, politics, or change works in our country. When Ralph Nader helped throw the election to Bush in 2000, he was rejected by millions for whom he was once a hero, banished ever since to the political margins. When Jill Stein helped throw the election to Trump in 2016, she remained relegated to the political fringe, becoming less powerful not more. If our communities ally with the Green Party to defeat Harris, we risk marginalizing ourselves as they did by alienating the tens of millions of voters who support the cause of Palestinian freedom and are fighting to defeat Trump by electing her.

Instead, by helping to elect Kamala Harris, we can say, “Despite it all, we gave you another chance and helped put you in office to defend democracy and uphold our highest American values. Now uphold them: end the genocide and secure Palestinian self-determination. We will fight every day to hold you to it.” If Harris and Democrats win, we will wage that fight with more allies among the American people, Congress, and the White House than ever before. If they don’t deliver, we will have a mandate and mass support to hold them accountable through every nonviolent tool of democracy, including protests, resignations, civil disobedience, primary election challenges, and even potential mass noncooperation. It’s a difficult path, but the one that offers the most hope.

The first step –– and our best choice in this horrible situation –– is defeating Trump by electing Harris. We urge you to join us.

SIGNERS

* affiliations listed for identification purposes only

Maher Arekat, Founder, Palestine Community Center of Arizona

Usama Shami, President, Islamic Community Center of Phoenix

Fadi Zanayed, Vice President, American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine – Arizona

Shams AbdusSamad, Secretary, Maricopa County Dem Party; ADP Exec Cmte Mmbr – At Large & SCM

Samir Mufarreh, Palestinian American Christian Community Leader

Maissa Khatib, Palestinian American Professor

Jordan Harb, Lebanese American Youth Leader

Stephen Mufarreh, Attorney, Palestinian American Christian Community Leader

Misaal Irfan, Pakistani American Community Leader

Samara Hamideh, Palestinian Youth Organizer

Mohamed El-Sharkawy, Palestinian American and a Muslim leader

Ala Rumah, Syrian American Activist

Dina Hamideh, Coordinator, Arizona Palestine Film Festival

Salauddin Choudhury, Bangladeshi Community Leader; DNC Delegate CD 5; LD 14 SCM

Hani Hani, President, American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine – Arizona

Dr. Navid Khan, Pakistani American Community Leader

Deena Mufarreh, Chair, American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine – Arizona

Syed Nasir Raza, Progressive Pakistani-American Community Leader; AZ Progressives

Ashraf Elgamal, President, Arab American Organization

Salina Imam, Charity Program Leader

Sawsan Tannous, Chair, American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine – Arizona

Saher Afzal, Pakistani American, Arizona Education Association member, and Exec board AEA local

Nathan Mufara, Chair, American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine – Arizona

Dr. Jaffrey Khazi, Community Leader

Hashim Hamid , Palestinian American Community Elder and Retired Businessman

​​Ameena Arekat, Palestinian American Health Care Worker

Mo Al Hwan Bahu, Palestinian American Christian

Deanna Dabbah, Former President, Arab American Anti-Discrimination Cmte, Fountain Hills, AZ

Dr. Hazem Jabr, Palestinian American Dentist

Jack Saba, Syrian American Entertainer & Democratic Voter

Ramzi Arikat, Palestinian American Business Owner in Phoenix

Shaikh F Shams, LD13 PC & State Cmte Member, Bangladeshi American Community Leader

Hussein Jabr, Palestinian American Doctor

Md Ibrahim Faisal, Bangladeshi American Progressive Democrats

Dean Dabbah, Community Activist, Fountain Hills, AZ

Mazen Arekat, Palestinian American Business Owner

Sujat Jamil, Bangladeshi American Progressive Democrats

Rocky Francis, Iraqi American Businessman

Hazem Arekat, Palestinian American Businessman

Arif Mahmud, Volunteer

Qumrul Ahsan, Precinct committee member LD13

Shahriar Anwar, LD13

Menassa Abinader, Lebanese American; Owner, Mejana Restaurant

Charlotte Hosseini, Sedona Resident ; Concerned citizen and voter

Tan Jakwani, Muslim Community Leader

William Havel, Iraqi Refugee

Jennifer Loewenstein, Jewish Voice for Peace – Tucson ; Arizona Palestine Network (AZ PAL)

Jessica Burke, Jewish Community Member & Progressive Activist

Bob Lord, Former Arizona Congressional Candidate, Jewish Community Member

Rachel Port, Jewish Voice for Peace – Tucson

Laurie Melrood, Jewish Voice for Peace – Tucson; LD 20

Rep. Mariana Sandoval, LD 23

Rep. Quantá Crews, LD 26 ; State and Precinct Committee Person

Martín J. Quezada, Former State Senator

Kai Newkirk, Co-Chair, Arizona Democratic Party Progressive Council

Erika Andiola, Immigrant Rights Leader & Bernie 2016 Latino Outreach Press Secretary

Mikkel Jordahl, Attorney

Belén Sisa, Former Latino Press Secretary for Bernie 2020 and DACA Recipient

Salil Deshpande, LD18 State Committee Member; DNC Standing Committee Member

Dan O’Neal, Progressive Democrats of America – Arizona State Coordinator

Armonee D. Jackson, President, Young Democrats of Arizona

Eva Putzova, Former City of Flagstaff Councilmember

Emily Kirkland, PC LD 8; Former Executive Director, Progress Arizona

Melissa Galarza, Chair, LD12 Democrats

Cameron Bautista, Youth Organizer & School Board Coordinator, KeepAZBlue Student Coalition

Nick Collins, LD 12 State Cmte Member, Progressive Council Interim Steering Committee

Ken Kenegos, LD 18 PC, member Progressive Democrats of America

Michael Bradley, Arizona Palestine Network, LD 4 PC

David Higgins, Co-Founder, Arizona Palestine Network (AZ PAL)

Natacha Chavez, Precinct committee person LD 22

Sarah León, Community organizer

Elizabeth Hourican, CODEPINK Phoenix

Emily Verdugo, Community Leader

Kyle Nitschke, LD 6 State Committee Member

Barbara J. Taft, Leadership Team, WILPF US Middle East Peace and Justice Action Committee

Nicole Gutiérrez Miller, State and Precinct Committee Person, LD 12

Dianne Post, International Human Rights Attorney

Lindsay Love, Owner & therapist at TherapyLuv, PLLC ; former CUSD school board member

Joan Etude Arrow, Founder, Arizona Progressive Action Community (AZPAC)

Elizabeth Ogren, LD5 PC and State Committee Member

Jenise Porter, PC and State Committeeperson AZ LD18

Dave Wells, United Campus Workers of AZ, PC LD9

Andreas Clayton La Grow, Community Organizer

Robert Flamida, Palestine Community Center of Arizona, Member

Dr. Marannagan, Autistics for Peace

Bonnie L Lynn, State Committee Member

Frederic Artus, LD 5

Isabel O’Neal, State Committee, PC LD 14, CD 5 Immigration Advocate

Deborah Arekat, Democratic Voter

Asfandyar Khalid, Na

Kathy F. Yontz, PC LD12

Pardis Baradar, LD 12 PC

Grace Wagner Democrat LD8

Laiken Jordahl, Community organizer/advocate

Kathryn Soderquist, Constituent, AZ LD 9

Jana Rose Ochs, Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive Activist

Victoria Eloisa Ramos, Community Leader

Aaron J Essif, LD17 PC & SCM, PDA, Indivisibles

Judith Hilton Coburn, Member, CodePink Phoenix, PDA, Phoenix Anti War Coalition

Peggy Thomas, Progressive Democrats of America activist

Anne Khoury, Concerned citizen and voter

Emily Williams, Democrat LD 12

 

May Golan, Israeli Minister, Calls for a Nakba on Israeli News


FacebookTwitterReddit
Dissident Voice Communications (DVC) is a non-profit meta-company in the public interest (well, depends on which public), we aim to challenge the hegemony of Big Media by communicating... all sorts of stuff. Read other articles by Dissident Voice Communications.