Unity Above Else: The Only Road to the Liberation of Palestine

By Ramzy Baroud

December 14, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


A child runs holding the Palestinian flag as he passes graffiti on the controversial Israeli separation barrier during the Palestine Marathon, Bethlehem, March, 2018. (Photo from Daily Sabah)



A new kind of unity around Palestine is finally finding its way to the Palestine solidarity movement worldwide.

The reason behind this unity is obvious: Gaza.

The world’s first live-streamed genocide in the Gaza Strip, and the growing spontaneous compassion, thus solidarity, with the Palestinian victims, helped recenter priorities from the typical political and ideological conflicts back to where they should have always remained: the plight of the Palestinian people.

In other words, it is the sheer criminality of Israel, the steadfastness, resilience and dignity of the Palestinians, and the genuine love for Palestine by ordinary people that have imposed themselves on the rest of the world.

While many solidarity groups, despite their differences, have always found margins for unity around Palestine, many did not.

Instead of rallying in support of a Palestinian justice-based discourse, mainly focused on ending the Israeli occupation, dismantling apartheid, and obtaining full Palestinian rights, many groups have rallied around their own ideological, political, and often personal priorities.

This led to deep divisions and, ultimately, the unfortunate splintering of what was meant to be a single global movement.

Though many rightly claim that the movement has suffered the dire consequences of the Syrian war and other conflicts linked to the so-called Arab Spring, in truth, the movement has historically been prone to divisions, long before the recent Middle East upheavals.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, starting in 1990, has left permanent scars on all progressive movements across the world, where, in the words of Domenico Losurdo, ‘western Marxists’ retreated to their academic hubs, and ‘eastern Marxists’ were left alone fighting the scourges of the US-led ‘new world order’.

The balkanization of the socialist movement globally, but mainly in western countries, can still be seen in the view of many socialist groups regarding the events underway in Palestine, and of their proscribed ‘solutions’ to the Israeli occupation.

Whether these ‘solutions’ are pertinent or not, it is of very little value to the struggle of the Palestinians on the ground; after all, these magic formulas are often developed in western academic laboratories, with little or no connection, whatsoever, to the events underway in Jenin, Khan Yunis or Jabaliya.

Additionally, there is the problem of transnational solidarity. This type of solidarity is simply conditioned on the expected return of an equal amount of solidarity in the form of political reciprocity.

This notion is a misinformed application of the concept of intersectionality, as in various disaffected groups offering mutual solidarity to amplify their collective voice and advance their interests.

While intersectionality at a global level is hardly functional, let alone tested – interstate relations are usually governed by political strategy, national interests, and geopolitical formations – intersectionality within a national and local framework is very much possible.

For the latter to carry meaning, however, it requires an organic understanding of the struggles of each group, a degree of social immersion, and genuine love and compassion for one another.

In the case of Palestine, however, this noble idea is often conflated with negotiable and transactional solidarity, which might work at the political stage, especially during times of elections, but rarely helps cement long-term bonds between oppressed communities over time.

The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza has certainly helped many groups expand the margins of unity so that they may work together to bring the extermination of Gaza to an end, and to hold Israeli war criminals accountable in any way possible.

This positive sentiment, however, must continue long after the end of the genocide, until the Palestinian people are finally free from the yoke of Israeli settler colonialism.

The point here is that we already have numerous reasons to find and maintain unity around Palestine, without laboring to find ideological, political, or any other kind of common ground.

The settler-colonial Israeli project is but a manifestation of western colonialism and imperialism in their classical definitions. The genocide in Gaza is no different than the genocide of the Herero and Nama people of Namibia at the turn of the 20th century, and US-western interventionism in Palestine is no different than the destructive role played by Western countries in Vietnam and numerous other contested spaces all over the world.

Placing the Israeli occupation of Palestine in a colonial framework has helped many liberate themselves from confused notions about Israel’s ‘inherent’ rights over the Palestinians.

Indeed, there can be no justification for the existence of Israel as an exclusively ‘Jewish State’ in a land that belonged to the native Palestinian people.

By the same token, the much-touted Israeli ‘right to self-defense’, a notion that some ‘progressives’ continue to parrot, does not apply to military occupiers in an active state of aggression or those carrying out genocide.

Keeping the focus on Palestinian priorities also has other benefits, including that of moral clarity. Those who do not find the rights of the Palestinian people compelling enough to develop a united front were never intended to be part of the movement in the first place, thus their ‘solidarity’ is superficial, if at all genuine.

The road for Palestine liberation can only go through Palestine itself and, more specifically, the clarity of purpose of the Palestinian people who, more than any other nation in modern times, have paid and continue to pay the highest price for their freedom.


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



Ramzy Baroud is a US-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, an author, internationally-syndicated columnist, Editor of Palestine Chronicle (1999-present), former Managing Editor of London-based Middle East Eye, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times and former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera online. Baroud’s work has been published in hundreds of newspapers and journals worldwide, and is the author of six books and a contributor to many others. Baroud is also a regular guest on many television and radio programs including RT, Al Jazeera, CNN International, BBC, ABC Australia, National Public Radio, Press TV, TRT, and many other stations. Baroud was inducted as an Honorary Member into the Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor Society, NU OMEGA Chapter of Oakland University, Feb 18, 2020.

 

How We’re Rebuilding the Nation’s Largest Student Organization

For over seven decades, the U.S. Student Association represented millions of students, weathered challenges like CIA infiltration, and championed civil rights and free higher education. Learn how this organization was built in the 1940s and why a new generation is rebuilding it today.

By Sean Behl

December 14, 2024

Source: The Forge

A young Kwame Ture attempted to influence the organization but was stifled by the CIA. Credit: Leni Sinclair

Where We Were

For decades, the United States Student Association (USSA) served as the nation’s most powerful student voice. Born in 1978 from the merger of the National Student Association (NSA) and the National Student Lobby (NSL), the USSA was a force for equity and justice in higher education and led many movements to make higher education more affordable, accessible, and inclusive. 

The NSA’s roots trace back to the 1946 Prague Convention, where students from 36 nations—including the U.S.—gathered to form the International Union of Students. This global solidarity inspired the NSA’s founding at the University of Wisconsin the following year, where it famously adopted the Student Bill of Rights. The NSA’s history wasn’t without controversy; it faced significant financial challenges in the 1950s and was covertly funded by the CIA (unbeknownst to the vast majority of its membership and leaders) until the partnership dissolved in 1967. This period pushed the organization to refocus its efforts on domestic issues, such as racial inequality and opposition to the Vietnam War.

Tim Jenkins, an early Vice President of NSA, was also a founder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Credit: SNCC Legacy Project

In 1971, a group of Californians broke off from the NSA to form the National Student Lobby (NSL) as they wanted to focus on more legislative priorities. The NSL lobbied for increased funding for the Higher Education Act of 1972, best known for its creation of Title IX which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in institutions receiving federal funding. They also lobbied to increase minimum wage and for the abolition of the Vietnam War draft. Similarly, the NSA opposed the war and, controversially, their president visited North Vietnam in hopes of finding evidence of the U.S. violating international law. This infamously made the NSA a member of President Nixon’s enemy list, a culmination of his political opponents and enemies.

After this, the NSA became more focused on lobbying and legislation and collaborated with the NSL a few years later, thus forming the United States Student Association as an advocacy coalition of hundreds of thousands of students across the country. The USSA was an integral part in advocating against tuition increases and for allowing students to be eligible for credit cards. 

For years, the USSA was the largest student-run, student-led organization in the entire country. The USSA ran for nearly 39 years until its collapse in 2016 when it finally succumbed to the structural and financial hardships it had been facing for the better part of a decade. This fate was not unique to the USSA. Many statewide student associations and other student-led advocacy groups faced similar challenges that drastically reduced their operations or led to their collapse altogether. This has been seen in states such as Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Arizona where the ability to fund statewide student associations using student fees has been severely diminished or completely abolished.

USSA occupied the entrance of a student loan servicer, demanding debt forgiveness in 2012. Credit: Chris Hicks

Although the USSA collapsed in 2016, the organization’s legacy endures through the student leaders it empowered, many of whom continue to champion equity and justice across a wide range of fields. It’s some of these very same student leaders who have been invaluable in the current efforts to reform and revive the United States Student Association.

Where We Are

In April of 2024, a group of student leaders and alumni met in Washington D.C. to discuss the return of the USSA. This initial convening featured representatives from four of the strongest statewide student associations in the country, the Washington Student Association (WSA), the Oregon Student Association (OSA), the University of California Student Association (UCSA), and the Arizona Student Association (ASA). 

This initial convening was the first instance of student leaders coming together to amplify the student voice at the national level since the collapse of the USSA. Following this convening, these leaders among others have been holding biweekly student leadership calls in order to bring back the USSA.

Student leaders from Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Minnesota met frequently throughout the summer to discuss the revival of the USSA, learn from each others efforts in their respective states, and learn more about federal advocacy and student leadership from USSA alumni who are now leaders in their respective fields. These calls were and continue to be open to students nationwide irrespective of their leadership role on their campus. Our only requirement is that they must be a currently enrolled student in order to be involved with this work.

One notable example of the revival effort’s momentum was an alumni panel hosted during one of these calls, where former USSA leaders shared their insights on advocacy, leadership, and the importance of student mobilization. The panel, which included alumni who held previous leadership roles within the USSA and their respective statewide student associations, provided their perspectives and thoughts on navigating the challenges students face and the strategies that have worked in the past. These alumni emphasized the significance of collective action and the power of students uniting around common goals, offering advice on how current student leaders can organize effectively at both the state and federal levels.

On September 30th 2024, these student leaders voted on a formal plan to officially revive the association entitled Project Restart. This plan, spanning from September of 2024 to May of 2025, marks the steps that students are going to take to finally bring back the USSA. The plan includes building a national student network, training student leaders in advocacy, and culminates in hosting a national convening and student lobby day in Washington, D.C., in spring of 2025, where students will officially vote to reestablish the association by adopting new governing documents and electing new leadership.

As part of Project Restart, the USSA has formed three committees—Policy, Outreach, and Operations—which are charged with specific duties in preparation for the spring convening. These committees are actively seeking additional members and will hold regular meetings over the next several months. This structure ensures that the revival effort remains collaborative, transparent, and action-oriented.

Former USSA President Tiffany Dena Loftin working with current students in D.C.

This effort to revive the USSA, comes at a time when many of these student leaders have recognized that it has likely never been more difficult to be a student. The rising cost of education is only the beginning of the struggle—students are increasingly burdened with skyrocketing tuition, mounting student loan debt, a lack of affordable housing, and access to basic needs. The pressure to succeed academically, while managing these crises, is overwhelming. These issues affect not only the well-being of students but also their ability to succeed in higher education at all.

But it’s not just the external pressures students face that are concerning, it’s also the deliberate erosion of their power to act collectively. Over the past decade or so, student leaders have witnessed an increasing trend of their influence being stripped away, both on campuses and within legislative arenas. From state-level budget cuts that weaken student governance structures to other policies designed to silence dissent and marginalize student voices, it’s clear that there is a concerted effort to suppress student movements. In Washington State, for instance, a broadly written law (RCW 28B.10.281) threatens to revoke financial aid for students who participate in demonstrations that disrupt the educational process at an institution. While there is no record of this law being enforced, it’s especially concerning given recent efforts from pro-Palestinian organizers who have seen their efforts be targeted by university administration, local authorities, and elected officials across the country. The mere existence of a policy such as this one disproportionately impacts low-income and first-generation students, who depend greatly on financial aid and may feel forced to choose between exercising their right to protest and preserving their ability to afford an education.

Across the country, student governments have been targeted with restrictions on their power to advocate for essential services, access to resources, and policy changes that benefit students. In some cases, student groups are being defunded or denied the ability to hold events that are critical for raising awareness and driving change. Legislative attacks on student advocacy groups and higher education funding reflect a broader trend aimed at stifling student-led movements that have historically pushed for systemic reforms and greater equity in education. These efforts are not only an affront to student voices, they are a direct attempt to dismantle the very foundation of student-led advocacy.

At a time when student activism is needed more than ever, the forces that seek to suppress student power only make the work of student leaders that much harder. As mentioned earlier, one of the groups present at the initial convening to discuss the revival of the USSA was the Oregon Student Association (OSA). Tragically, despite its long-standing history of advocacy and wins for students in Oregon, the OSA was forced to shut down in 2024. The organization faced mounting financial pressures and structural challenges that made its continuation unsustainable.

The death of the OSA is a sobering reminder of how fragile student-led organizations can be, even when they have a proven track record of success. It underscores the urgency of reviving a national student-led body that can advocate for policies protecting student organizations and empowering them to fight back against the forces working to suppress their voices. Without such a unified effort, the void left by organizations like the OSA will only grow, leaving students more vulnerable to systemic inequities and silencing.

The revival of the USSA is a response to this intentional marginalization and recent history of organizational decline, a reclaiming of the space that students have historically occupied as advocates for themselves and their peers. The challenges we face are immense, but so is the power we have when we stand united. Now, more than ever, it is critical that we restore the USSA to ensure that students once again have a powerful, coordinated voice in the fight for equity, justice, and a higher education system that serves all.

Where We’re Headed

What began as a conversation among a few student leaders in an NEA conference room has now grown into a national movement. Today, the revival of the USSA involves leaders from ten states and hundreds of campuses across America, collectively representing over four million students.

This effort is grounded in a fundamental truth about organizing and advocacy: those directly impacted by systemic issues must lead the fight for change. Students, as the primary stakeholders in higher education, are uniquely positioned to champion policies that address their needs. Whether it’s fighting for affordable tuition, expanding access to financial aid, or addressing systemic inequities, the lived experiences of these students are critical in shaping effective solutions.

The USSA’s revival is not just about rebuilding an organization, it’s about reigniting a movement. The challenges facing students today, from rising tuition costs to a mental health crisis, demand bold, collective action. By uniting students across the country, the USSA aims to restore higher education as a public good and a pathway to opportunity for all.

As the USSA prepares for its formal relaunch in spring 2025, it invites all students to join this historic effort. The association’s vision is clear: a unified, student-led movement that amplifies the voices of millions and transforms higher education for the better. 

The USSA’s legacy reminds us of what is possible when students organize and act collectively. Its revival shows that, even after years of dormancy, the spirit of student advocacy remains alive and well. Now more than ever, students must come together, share their stories, and lead the charge for a brighter future.

Corporate Fearmongering Over Fast Food Wage Hike Aged Like Cold French Fries

By Janine Jackson

December 14, 2024

Source: FAIR

Conor Smyth (FAIR.org, 1/19/24): “The history of debates over the minimum wage is filled with claims about the detrimental effect of raising the wage floor that have repeatedly flopped in the face of empirical evidence.”

In September 2023, California passed a law requiring fast food restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour, affecting more than 700,000 people working in the state’s fast food industry.

Readers will be unsurprised to hear that corporate media told us that this would devastate the industry. As Conor Smyth reported for FAIR (1/19/24) before the law went into effect, outlets like USA Today (12/26/23) and CBS (12/27/23) were telling us that, due to efforts to help those darn workers, going to McDonald’s or Chipotle was going to cost you more, and also force joblessness. This past April, Good Morning America (4/29/24) doubled down with a piece about the “stark realities” and “burdens” restaurants would now face due to the law.

Now we have actual data about the impact of California’s law. Assessing the impact, the Shift Project (10/9/24) did “not find evidence that employers turned to understaffing or reduced scheduled work hours to offset the increased labor costs.” Instead, “weekly work hours stayed about the same for California fast food workers, and levels of understaffing appeared to ease.” Further, there was “no evidence that wage increases were accompanied by a reduction in fringe benefits… such as health or dental insurance, paid sick time, or retirement benefits.”

Judd Legum (Popular Information, 12/3/24): “The restaurant industry provided a distorted picture of the impact of the fast food worker wage increase.”

In June 2024, the California Business and Industrial Alliance ran a full-page ad in USA Today claiming that the fast food industry cut about 9,500 jobs as a result of the $20 minimum wage. That’s just false, says Popular Information (12/3/24).

Among other things, the work relied on a report from the Hoover Institution, itself based on a Wall Street Journal article (3/25/24), from a period before the new wage went into effect, and that, oops, was not seasonally adjusted. (There’s an annual decline in employment at fast food restaurants from November through January, when people are traveling or cooking at home—which is why the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers seasonally adjusted data.)

The industry group ad starts with the Rubio’s fish taco chain, which they say was forced to close 48 California locations due to “increasing costs.” It leaves out that the entire company was forced to declare bankruptcy after it was purchased by a private equity firm on January 19, 2024 (LA Times, 6/12/24).

As Smyth reported, there is extensive academic research on the topic of wage floors that shows that minimum wage hikes tend to have little to no effect on employment, but can raise the wages of hundreds of thousands of workers (CBPP, 6/30/15; Quarterly Journal of Economics, 5/2/19). Media’s elevation of anecdotes about what individual companies have done, and say they plan to do, in response to the minimum wage hike overshadows more meaningful information about the net effect across all companies in the industry.

The Wall Street Journal (12/28/23) said last year that “it defies economics and common sense to think that businesses won’t adapt by laying off workers.” Since that hasn’t happened, does the Journal need better economists—or more sense?

And what about agency? The Wall Street Journal (12/28/23) contented that “it defies economics and common sense to think that businesses won’t adapt by laying off workers” in response to the new law. But why? Is there no question lurking in there about corporate priorities? About executive pay? About the fact that consumers and workers are the same people?

The question calls for thoughtfulness—will, for example, fast food companies cut corners by dumping formerly in-house delivery workers off on companies like DoorDash and Uber Eats, which are not subject to the same labor regulations? How will economic data measure that?

That would be a story for news media to engage, if they were interested in improving the lives of struggling workers. They could also broaden the minimum wage discussion to complementary policy changes—as Smyth suggested, “expanded unemployment insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a job guarantee, and universal basic income.”

The narrow focus on whether a Big Mac costs 15 cents more, and if it does, shouldn’t you yell at the people behind the counter, is a distortion, and a tired one, that should have been retired long ago.

The Collapse of the Assad Regime: An Interview on Syria with Gilbert Achcar

By Gilbert Achcar

December 14, 2024

Source: New Politics


U.S. soldiers at the Al-Tanf U.S. military base in Syria (Photo by Staff Sgt. William Howard, Public domain)

[Gilbert Achcar has been a major left commentator on international affairs for many years. He grew up in Lebanon and has lived and taught in Paris, Berlin, and London. He is just retiring as professor of Development Studies and International Relations at SOAS, University of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism (2013); The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013, 2022); Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016); and The New Cold War: The United States, Russia and China from Kosovo to Ukraine (2023). His new book on Gaza will be coming out from the University of California Press in the summer. He was interviewed Dec. 9 online by Stephen R. Shalom of the New Politics editorial board.]

Stephen R. Shalom: So, this has been quite an extraordinary week!

Gilbert Achcar: You could even say quite an extraordinary weekend.

SRS: Indeed.

Let me begin by asking about the role of Israel and the United States.

In the last few days, we’ve seen Israeli troops cross the border from the occupied Golan and seize further Syrian territory. This has led some analysts to say that this shows that Israel—and its main backer the United States—were the main driving forces in what’s happened in Syria in the last two weeks.

GA: That’s a very skewed interpretation of things, since if it shows anything, it is that Israel is very cautious about what is happening. If it is forcibly seizing the buffer zone which was created in 1974 as a result of the 1973 war, that’s to prevent those new forces that are now coming to the fore in Syria from getting closer to the border of the annexed Syrian territory, the part of the Golan Heights that was occupied by Israel in 1967. This territory was formally annexed by Israel in 1981, an annexation that Donald Trump, during his first term in office, recognized officially for the first time of any US president. So that’s what the Israelis are doing.

They’re also bombing the military capabilities of the old regime, some apparently related to the production of chemical weapons, to prevent the rebels from seizing them. By behaving in this way, Israel is actually creating conditions that are not conducive to good relations with any future government in Syria, if ever that possibility existed.

And as for the United States, Washington has been observing and monitoring developments with caution. They, like Israel, are happy that Iran has been dealt a severe blow, with the downfall of the Assad regime. But, like everyone, they have a big, big question mark about what will come next. They have worries about how the main rebel force, Hay’at Tahrir al Sham (HTS) will behave if it manages to control this big swath of territory that fell into its hands. And they are even worried that ISIS could seize the opportunity to launch a new offensive in the Northeast of Syria.

There are those who believe that any local actor is but the puppet of some external actor. Such people can’t acknowledge any agency for local actors. That’s, of course, a very poor way of perceiving the situation.

SRS: But surely the condition of Iran and Hezbollah and Russia—forces outside of Syria, external actors—did play a big role in the collapse of Assad.

GA: Of course. That’s beyond any doubt. And it is a powerful rebuttal to all those who claimed for so many years that Assad was a real popular leader, that the Syrian population was very supportive of the Assad family’s regime, and that that’s why this regime managed to survive. Well, now we have proof that the Assad regime fully owed its survival first to Iran’s intervention, which prevented its collapse in 2013—that was when Hezbollah entered Syria at the behest of Iran, sending thousands of fighters to prop up the regime. And even with Iran’s support, the regime was again on the brink of collapse two years later, which led Moscow to intervene in September 2015. Russia dramatically added to a key superiority that the regime already had, namely, the monopoly of the skies. It benefitted from this monopoly courtesy of the U.S. government, which under Barack Obama vetoed any delivery of anti-aircraft weapons to the Syrian opposition. This is why you never heard even of helicopters being shut down, let alone fighter jets. The opposition was unable even to counter helicopters. The regime extensively used its fleet of helicopters to drop barrel bombs—these were very barbaric, indiscriminate attacks on urban zones killing a huge number of people And the Syrian opposition fighters could do nothing. They didn’t have any anti-aircraft weapons; they didn’t have MANPADs, i.e. portable anti-aircraft weapons. The United States didn’t provide any and none of the countries neighboring Syria that were allied to the United States were allowed to send that kind of weapon. That includes Turkey, which actually produces these weapons. Recall the famous Stinger missiles that the United States provided to the Afghanistan Mujahideen when they were fighting the Soviet occupation? These are produced in Turkey under US license, but Turkey didn’t have the right to deliver a single one of them to the Syrian opposition.

So, Russia’s intervention in 2015 was the second time the regime was rescued by a foreign actor—first Iran, then Russia. And it survived with the combined support of Russia and Iran. Russia’s contribution was mainly its air force, with also a few troops there. And Iran’s was mainly troops from Lebanon, from Iraq, from Iran itself even including Afghan troops based in Iran. And that’s how the regime survived. For a long time, one could joke about Bashar Assad that the only territory upon which he had some sovereignty was his presidential palace. Beyond his palace, the Syrian regime’s territory was either under Russian or Iranian dominance. What happened in the recent period is that Russia had to remove most of its air force from Syria. According to Israeli sources, there were only some 15 Russian planes left there.

So very little was available to support Assad, since Iran’s main force in support of the Syrian regime, which was Hezbollah, was dealt a very heavy blow in Lebanon. It was no longer really in a position to rescue the regime. And that’s when HTS decided to seize the opportunity. They were preparing for it. They saw a window of opportunity in light of the Russian withdrawal and the severe setback that Hezbollah was experiencing starting in September. They therefore began preparing themselves. And once the ceasefire was concluded in Lebanon, they attacked. Of course, they did not want to attack while the war was going on in Lebanon, because that would have appeared as if they were joining Israel in combat. So, they waited until it was over and then attacked. Having been deprived of foreign support, the regime collapsed just like the U.S. puppet regime in Afghanistan in 2021. It was exactly the same kind of collapse.

We are against both American imperialism and Russian imperialism as well as Iran’s reactionary intervention abroad. And the result of foreign domination is always similar. Whether the puppet master is Russia or the United States, puppet regimes are puppet regimes. And the Assad regime had become one for a very long time, except that it was a puppet with two competing masters, giving it a little bit of space. All this has collapsed and is over now.

SRS: Previously, it seemed like Israel and Russia had an understanding that despite Russia’s backing of Syria, it would allow Israel to attack certain targets in Syria, without deploying its anti-aircraft systems against the attacking Israeli planes.

GA: Yes, that has been going on for several years. Israel has been quite frequently bombing Syrian territory—more specifically, Iranian concentrations or pro-Iran concentrations, like Hezbollah forces, within Syrian territory—without Russia, of course, intercepting any of these planes or firing any of the anti-aircraft missiles that it has deployed over Syrian territory. There was obviously an agreement between the two countries, Israel and Russia. This also explains why Israel did not take a position on the Ukraine war. It did not come out in support of the Ukrainians, like the Western bloc. Israel adopted a sort of neutral attitude towards the war because of this deal that existed between Israel and Russia. Now, of course, this is over because Russia’s presence in Syria has been very much reduced. Moscow is no longer in a position to greenlight or not any action by Israel on Syrian territory. And I wouldn’t bet on Russia being able to keep its two bases—air and naval—in Syria for long. Or else that would be almost like Guantanamo, where you maintain a base in a country with which you don’t have any friendly relations. The Syrian opposition can’t have friendly relations with Moscow, who’s got a lot of Syrian blood on its hands. That would be quite awkward.

SRS: Does Russia still physically have anti-aircraft missiles in Syria?

GA: Yes, it has, of course, if only to protect its bases. Any of their forces that were deployed in other parts of the territory I presume have been redeployed or brought back to the bases that they have in the coastal area. I can’t see them keeping isolated forces anywhere else. And likewise, the Iranians completely withdrew their troops into Iraq and from Iraq back into Iran. Hezbollah fighters that were still in Syria went back to Lebanon. And that’s it. Lots of articles in the media have been explaining that this is a huge defeat for Iran and its so-called axis of resistance. Well, that’s an accurate description of what happened. No possible question about that.

SRS: In terms of the victorious forces in Syria, aside from HTS, can you describe some of the significant players?

GA: Syria today is a patchwork, a full political-military patchwork. First, you have several foreign forces. Iran withdrew its forces, but you still have Russian forces there. Then you have Turkish forces on the northern border occupying bits of Syrian territory. You have U.S. forces, deployed in the northeast to back the Kurdish forces, which are dominant in a big part of the country. It’s a quite sizable part—one quarter of the Syrian territory. You have an area in the south on the Jordanian border dominated by opposition forces that are linked to the United States. And you have a genuine popular uprising in the Druze area of the south, Suwayda—the province of Suwayda, around the city of Suwayda—that linked up with local forces in Daraa province.

And, of course, there was the region in the northwest that was under HTS control. HTS forces have now spread to other parts of the country where the regime collapsed. However, HTS’s army is not large enough to control all the territory that fell into its hands. What happened is that the regime collapsed, exactly like you had in Afghanistan, except that HTS does not have the same force that the Taliban had. It’s smaller, weaker than what the Taliban were. And it would be hard for them to impose themselves on the Kurds, just as it would be hard for them to really get rid of those Syrian opposition forces that are completely dominated by Turkey, which are in the north. Likewise, I can’t see them managing to really exert full control over Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama and all these cities. Nor over the coastal area where you still have Russian forces. HTS has not really spread everywhere, although the state has collapsed everywhere.

There are areas where the state has collapsed and a vacuum was created. And this is related to the nature of the state. It’s of a kind of state akin to that of Libya or that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein which are states that are really family ruled, family owned—I call them, along with the monarchies in the region, patrimonial states. They function like monarchies, actually. The state apparatus is so much linked organically to the ruling family that when the regime collapses, it’s not only the regime, it’s the whole state. What we have witnessed in recent days in Syria is not a regime collapse. It’s a state collapse. The whole state collapsed, and any idea that there might be some smooth transition process is just an illusion.

It is just impossible, given the situation of the country and the number of occupation forces on its soil. The worst, of course, is the Israeli occupation. Israel is now in a very hegemonic position in the region after what they did starting from Gaza, then Lebanon, then Syria, and they are now planning to strike at Iran.

Let me be clear. I fully share the joy of the tens of thousands of people who got freed from jail, from the chains of the Assad regime. It is a huge relief that this carceral regime has ended, that so many people are able to go back to their cities, to their homes, that refugees can go back to their homeland. But this is not a revolution. This is the collapse of a regime that hasn’t been replaced by any form of popular democratic organization. And therefore, from a left-wing perspective, we should also be worried about the future.

At the very least, we must be very cautious and not fall into the kind of euphoria that led some people to characterize the events as the resumption of the Syrian revolution. The Syrian revolution, the one that started in 2011, has been dead for a long time unfortunately. The only possibility for a resumption of that uprising, was seen in 2020 in Suwayda, in this regime-controlled Druze area that I mentioned, where you now have some kind of popular power. There you had repeated popular uprisings against the regime since 2020, renewing the slogans of the 2011 popular uprising. They briefly spread to other parts of Syria, but there was no form of organization able to generalize this popular uprising to the whole country—or at least the whole Arab-majority territory of Syria because the Kurdish-majority part belongs to a different political category. So, unfortunately the Suwayda uprising did not spread, and the regime repressed it, quite harshly as usual. But now, with the collapse of the regime, they have revived their movement. But it is limited to only one part, one province of Syria.

There are progressives in other parts of the country who are trying to organize something at the level of civil society, from below, to fight for rights, democracy, and social demands. How far they will manage to do something is hampered by the fact that the regime has been such a terrible tyranny that little potential is left. Most of the opposition-minded people left the country. There has been a huge exodus from Syria over the years. One quarter of the population has left the country, if not more. Not to mention those that were internally displaced who represent close to one third.

There is little ground for optimism, I’m afraid. But there is still some ground for hope.



Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon. He is a Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London. His books include The New Cold War: Chronicle of a Confrontation Foretold. Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising; The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising; The Clash of Barbarisms; Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy; and The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. He is a member of Anti-Capitalist Resistance.

 

Why I Resigned As Chairman Of Amnesty Israel

Israeli human rights groups can’t advocate for Palestinians without Palestinians.

By Daniil Brodsky

December 14, 2024

Source: Forward

After Amnesty Internaional released a report last Thursday calling the war in Gaza a genocide, Amnesty’s Israeli branch quickly issued a statement saying most of its members don’t believe geocide has occurred. Some in Amnesty Israel alleged the report was biased, arguing for a forgone conclusion. Others went further, claiming that the international movement abandoned its commitment to equality in the first place.

But even before the report came out — one week before, to be exact — I resigned my position as chair of the board of Amnesty Israel. I didn’t step down because of the imminent controversy over the conclusions of Amnesty International’s report. I resigned because I could no longer chair a branch that did not treat Palestinians as equal partners, and I could not sign off on a critique of Amnesty International’s report that pretends to be an expert minority opinion, but is instead little more than the expression of an Israeli-Jewish worldview, to the exclusion of Palestinian voices.

Let’s start with the Amnesty International report itself. It was written by a diverse set of legal experts, and was revised multiple times to adhere to stricter standards of proof. It is far from the first report prepared by legal experts to reach the conclusion that genocide occurred, but it is by far the most in-depth legal analysis on the issue. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the report’s conclusions, the critique of it ought to be the kind that is commanded by serious scholarship.

Amnesty Israel’s position on the report was prepared by two Israeli Jewish staff members who are not legal scholars, with external assistance from Israeli legal experts. What Amnesty Israel was lacking in legal expertise it could have perhaps offered with an analysis that is instead rich in its diversity of perspective, having had Palestinian staff and board members working together with the Israeli Jewish ones to write something truly unique on this issue and contribute a perspective that would be difficult for outside experts to replicate. But instead, no Palestinians had any input on Amnesty Israel’s analysis of the genocide report.

This isn’t because there were no Palestinians present. Amnesty Israel had skilled Palestinian staff and board members ready to contribute. It wasn’t because the Palestinians in Amnesty Israel have no legal expertise — after all, the Israeli staff doesn’t either. It’s because, as Palestinian activists and scholars Haneen Maikey and Lana Tatour have pointed out, a common pattern in progressive Israeli spaces is that Palestinians can provide labor, translation, lived experience and trauma to feed the analysis of Israeli Jews, but cannot be equal partners who get to do the analysis side by side and set the agenda together.

Amnesty Israel finds itself in the awkward position of being neither a source of legal expertise, nor providing a diverse human rights perspective of Israelis and Palestians. It is just another place for Israeli Jews to express themselves.

When I became chairman of Amnesty Israel in January 2024, there were no Palestinians on the board of managers or in managerial positions on staff. By way of comparison, this is a lower standard than the one found in Israeli public service and government-owned corporations, which are, according to the attorney general’s guidelines, at least obligated to have a proper representation of Arabs “in all ranks and professions, in every office and auxiliary unit,” including the board of directors.

I insisted on Palestinian representation in managerial roles, but nothing changed. Members of management and the board were reluctant to make the necessary structural adjustments. Staff told me that there was a rule that says a Palestinian staff member must be consulted on issues pertaining to Palestinians, something Amnesty Israel pointed out in their defense recently.

However, staff also informed me that frequent arguments resulted from this rule not being applied, and it was certainly not applied to Amnesty Israel’s analysis for its position on the genocide report. Ironically, this pattern of defending oneself by citing a rule that isn’t enforced mirrors the IDF’s approach, where it would promise “tightening of regulations” after a human rights violation, with little change following.

Two Palestinian board members joined during my tenure, and left shortly after one of them was told in a meeting that her opinions are evidence of a lack of experience and therefore she is unfit to be on the board. In addition, staff repeatedly ignored her pleas to include Palestinian voices in official decisions. A board member from before my time pointed out in a tweet that Amnesty Israel seems unable to retain Palestinians.

I must stress here that I do not intend to smear anyone, and I deeply respect and care for many of my colleagues in Amnesty Israel. But when injustice persists, whether through direct enforcement, indifference, or inertia, staying silent will simply keep it in place. Treating Palestinians, or any other group, as tokens, rubber stamps, or just labor instead of equal, agenda-setting partners is unacceptable, especially in a progressive space.

The desire among some Israelis to express positions on human rights that are unburdened by the analysis and worldview of those who actually experience those human rights violations replicates the outside Israeli system inside the world of human rights activists. If we are to win the fight for a peace that is based on human rights, justice, and equality, we must overcome this mindset. If you are advocating on behalf of Palestinians, but exclude them as equals at the table, find another cause.

Proposed USDA guidelines support beans, lentils for protein versus meat

By Robin Foster, 

HealthDay News
Dec. 13, 2024 / 

In a new report, experts suggest that beans, lentils and other protein-packed legumes are the perfect substitute for red or processed meat. Photo by Adobe Stock/HealthDay News

Beans, peas and lentils take center stage in newly proposed changes to dietary guidelines for Americans.

In a report released this week by an advisory committee to the Agriculture Department, experts suggest that the protein-packed legumes are the perfect substitute for red or processed meat. They came to that conclusion after analyzing scientific evidence on the topic.

If adopted, the new guidelines would emphasize plant-based proteins and also encourage people to eat more whole grains and less sugary drinks, salt and all processed foods.

"Compelling evidence was noted in the systematic reviews in which dietary patterns that had higher levels of beans, peas and lentils [often presented in the literature as "legumes"] were associated with beneficial health outcomes," the report stated.

Meanwhile, "systematic review evidence also consistently indicated that dietary patterns with higher intakes of red and processed meats were related to detrimental health consequences, whereas dietary patterns with higher intakes of fish and seafood were related to beneficial health outcomes."

Why the big push for legumes?

"There's strong evidence to suggest that a dietary pattern that is high in beans, peas and lentils is associated with lower chronic disease risk," Angela Odoms-Young, vice chair of the advisory committee and a professor of maternal and child nutrition at Cornell University, told NBC News.

How far did the committee go in endorsing beans, peas and lentils?

Under the existing dietary guidelines, the trio of vegetables are categorized as both vegetables and protein foods, but the committee recommended removing them from the vegetable group and putting them at the top of the list of protein-heavy foods. Why? To encourage people to eat more plant-based protein.

The updated guidelines take into account numerous published studies on long-term links between meat-based diets and chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and cutting back on meat and upping consumption of legumes could help counter that trend, Odoms-Young said.

"That's not saying that you can't eat animal protein, but how do you have a diet where you can increase the amount of plant-based protein in the diet," she said.

The report also recommends that people cut down on sweetened drinks and salt while increasing their whole grain intake to make up 50% of all grains eaten.

The report has been submitted to the Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human Services for review, and a 60-day public comment period is underway. If enacted, they would take effect next year and last until 2030.

"When we look at the evidence around how those things impact people's health, we see that the major diseases, chronic diseases, that are responsible for preventable deaths are linked to those excess consumptions [of unhealthy foods]," advisory committee member Cheryl Anderson, dean of the University of California, San Diego's Herbert Wertman School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, told NBC News.

In crafting the proposed changes, the committee members said they weighed how to factor in differences in both socioeconomic status and access to grocery stores.

"We are making these recommendations with the hope that no matter where people live, learn, work, play or pray, they would be able to follow the guidance," Anderson said.

More information

The USDA has more on healthy eating.

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.




Sponso

FAST FASCIST FIENDS

Italy grants citizenship to Argentine President Javier Milei

Italy has bestowed Italian citizenship on Argentine President Javier Milei. The procedure was reportedly initiated and fast-tracked by the government of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Rome faced criticism on Saturday after it awarded naturalization to the ultra-libertarian Argentine president Javier Milei on an official visit to the Italian capital.

Milei is eligible for citizenship because of his Italian ancestors, but the news sparked a furor among opposition politicians campaigning for the process to be eased for children born in Italy to migrant parents.
What we know about the move

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni received the Argentine president in Rome's Palazzo Chigi on Friday when the Italian news agency ANSA said he received news that the citizenship applications had been granted.

Milei, with his trademark disheveled hair, was in Rome to meet Meloni and take part in a festival on Saturday organized by her far-right Brothers of Italy party.

The two have established a close relationship, with Milei last month giving Meloni a statuette of himself brandishing a chainsaw — a reference to his political campaign rally posturing on public spending cuts.

Milei's Italian grandparents emigrated to Argentina in the early 20th century, and a few months ago, Milei stated that he was "75% Italian."

ANSA said the applications had been initiated by the Italian government in recent weeks with an exclusive fast-track procedure.

The agency said Milei's sister Karina, who was designated General Secretary of the Argentine Presidency by her brother, had also received Italian citizenship too.

Meloni slammed over 'discrimination'

A lawmaker from the +Europa opposition party, Riccardo Magi, said the granting of citizenship to Milei was an "insult" and an act of "intolerable discrimination against so many young people who will only get it after many years."

To apply for citizenship by naturalization, foreigners currently need to live in Italy for 10 years. Children who are born to foreigners in Italy are not eligible to apply for citizenship until they turn 18.

Opposition parties and pro-migrant NGOs are campaigning to cut the period to five years, but Meloni's governing coalition is against any relaxation of the rules.

In a video posted on social media, Magi said that for "millions of Italians without citizenship who were born in Italy, who grew up in our country, who studied here, who work here, who pay taxes in our country — unlike President Milei — having Italian citizenship will remain an ordeal."

rc/zc (AFP, dpa)

Mozambique violence fuelled by historical grievances and civil war politics

Ongoing protests in Mozambique have highlighted deep-rooted political discontent following October's controversial elections and a long history of grievances since the country gained independence in 1975.


Issued on: 10/12/2024 - RFI

A protester throws a stone towards an armoured vehicle as protesters clash with Mozambican riot police in Maputo on 27 November, 2024. 

© ALFREDO ZUNIGA / AFP

Mozambique is currently embroiled in a wave of violence that has resulted in upto 90 deaths and thousands more injured during protests that have sewpt across the nation.

The riots erupted in major cities – such as Maputo, Nampula, and Zambezia – amid allegations of electoral fraud after the 9 October presidential election, in which the ruling Frelimo party's candidate, Daniel Chapo, was declared the winner.

Frustration boiled over into street violence, reportedly incited by opposition Renamo leader Venancio Mondlane, who was defeated in the elections and is now calling for the continued mobilisation of national protests until at least Wednesday 11 December.

In the Matola suburb of the capital Maputo, protests intensified after a 13-year-old boy was shot dead by a plainclothes police officer, further escalating the violence.

According to police spokesperson Orlando Mudumane, the unrest reached new heights when demonstrators – armed with stones, knives, and machetes – clashed violently with law enforcement officers.

"The violent and tumultuous demonstrations have contributed to the vandalising of 22 secondary schools, arson at five police stations ... Unfortunately, five people died and three were seriously injured," Mudumane explained in a report from RFI's Portuguese language service.

Election fraud allegations

The latest incidents of violence mark some of the most severe demonstrations since Mozambique adopted multiparty democracy in 1990.

The protests are rooted in deep-seated political discontent within the country.

The October elections, which saw the Frelimo party – who have been in government since independence from Portugal in 1975 – claim a sweeping victory with 70 percent of the vote, have been widely criticised.

A recent report from the minority opposition Optimistic Party for the Development of Mozambique, maintains that the recent electoral process was rife with irregularities.

Civil society groups reported significant instances of voter intimidation, ballot-box stuffing and fraudulent vote counts, which sparked outrage and led to widespread protests demanding accountability from the government.Mozambique forces face UN scrutiny after military vehicle strikes protester

History of civil conflict

The current crisis in Mozambique did not occur in a vacuum but is intertwined with historical grievances stemming from the country’s violent past.

Since gaining independence following a decade-long revolutionary war, Mozambique has struggled with instability.

Initially, it became a one-party Marxist-Leninist state under the Frelimo government, which then faced an insurgent civil war from the Renamo party beginning in 1977.

The brutal conflict lasted 15 years, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and extensive destruction until a peace accord was reached in 1992, leading to the country's first multiparty elections in 1994.

Despite an apparent transition towards democracy, the political landscape in Mozambique has remained fraught with tension and oppression.

Frelimo – while publicly adopting democratic ideals – has maintained tight control over state institutions.

The party diverged from its Marxist roots in 1989 but continued operating within a “hybrid governance model” that has seen regular elections often marred by accusations of fraud and corruption.Mozambique's ruling party hangs on to power in contested election

Power and corruption

Over the years, Frelimo's grip on power, coupled with rampant corruption –most notably illustrated by the 2016 “tuna bond scandal” – has deepened public dissatisfaction with the government.

Despite the country's mineral wealth and natural resources, significant portions of the population live in poverty, and infrastructure remains drastically underdeveloped.

This, in turn, has exacerbated frustration among many Mozambicans, particularly the youth who have increasingly sought to bring about change by mobilising though social media.

Amid the rising violence, Mozambique also faces significant challenges, including an ongoing insurgency in the northern province of Cabo Delgado linked to the Islamic State.

The government's inability to effectively confront the islamists has led to further public discontent and underscores a demand for political accountability.

As the Mozambican government's approach to curtailing unrest and addressing public grievances comes under the spotlight, protests are expected to continue, driven by calls for reform from Mondlane and other opposition leaders.

The recent, deadly protests are not merely a response to electoral irregularities in October but a culmination of historical grievances and systemic issues that have persisted for almost 50 years.