The Dangerous Anti-Democracy Coalition

American oligarchs are joining Trump and his faux working-class MAGA movement

By Robert Reich

May 28, 2024

Source: Substack





Elon Musk and entrepreneur and investor David Sacks reportedly held a secret billionaire dinner party in Hollywood last month. Its purpose: to defeat Joe Biden and reinstall Donald Trump in the White House. The guest list included Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken, Travis Kalanick, and Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s Treasury secretary.

Meanwhile, Musk is turning up the volume and frequency of his anti-Biden harangues on his X platform.



Since January, Musk has posted about Biden at least seven times a month, attacking the president for everything from his age to his policies on immigration and health. Last month, Musk posted on X that Biden “obviously barely knows what’s going on” and that “He is just a tragic front for a far left political machine.”

So far this year, Musk has posted more than 20 times in favor of Trump, arguing that he’s a victim of media and prosecutorial bias in the criminal cases that Trump faces.

This is no small matter. Musk has 184 million followers on X. And because he owns the platform, he’s able to manipulate the algorithm to maximize the number of people who see his posts.

No other leader of a social media firm has been as willing to tip the political scales toward authoritarian leaders around the world — not just toward Trump but also toward Javier Milei, the president of Argentina; Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil; and Narendra Modi of India.

Some of this helps Musk’s business interests. In India, he has secured lower import tariffs for Tesla vehicles. In Brazil, he has opened a major new market for Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service. In Argentina, he has solidified access to lithium, the mineral most crucial to Tesla’s batteries.

Musk has slammed Biden for his decisions on electric vehicle promotion and subsidies, most of which have favored unionized U.S. auto manufacturers. Musk and his Tesla are viciously anti-union.

But something deeper is going on. Musk, Thiel, Murdoch, and their cronies are backing a movement against democracy.

Peter Thiel, the billionaire tech financier, has written, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”



Hello? If freedom is not compatible with democracy, what is it compatible with?

Thiel donated $15 million to the successful Republican Ohio senatorial campaign of J.D. Vance, who alleged that the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden’s immigration policy meant “more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” (Vance is now high on the list of Trump vice presidential possibilities.)

Thiel also donated at least $10 million to the Arizona Republican primary race of Blake Masters, who also claimed Trump won the 2020 election and admires Lee Kuan Yew, the authoritarian founder of modern Singapore.

Billionaire money is now gushing into the 2024 election. Just 50 families have already injected more than $600 million into the 2024 election cycle, according to a new report from Americans for Tax Fairness. Most of it is going to the Trump Republican Party.

Stephen A. Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman and chief executive of the Blackstone Group — who had called the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol an “insurrection” and “an affront to the democratic values we hold dear” — is backing Trump because he believes “our economic, immigration and foreign policies are taking the country in the wrong direction.”

Trump recently solicited a group of top oil executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, promising that if elected he would “immediately” reverse dozens of environmental rules and green energy policies adopted by President Biden. According to The Washington Post, Trump said this would be a “deal” for them “because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him.”

Speaking from the World Economic Forum’s confab last January in Davos, Switzerland, Jamie Dimon — chair and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the largest and most profitable bank in the United States, and one of the most influential CEOs in the world — heaped praise on Trump’s policies while president. “Take a step back, be honest,” Dimon said. Trump “grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked.”

Rubbish. Under Trump the economy lost 2.9 million jobs. Even before the pandemic, job growth under Trump was slower than it’s been under Biden.

Most of the benefits of Trump’s tax cut went to big corporations like JPMorgan Chase and wealthy individuals like Dimon, while the costs blew a giant hole in the budget deficit. If not for those Trump tax cuts, along with the Bush tax cuts and their extensions, the ratio of the federal debt to the national economy would now be declining.

Clearly, some of the increasing flow of billionaire money to Trump and his Republican Party is motivated by the prospect of additional tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks under Trump.

But not all. A larger goal of these American oligarchs is to roll back democracy.

When asked if he was becoming more political, Musk admitted (in a podcast in November), “if you consider fighting the woke mind virus, which I consider to be a civilizational threat, to be political, then yes. Woke mind virus is communism rebranded.”

Communism rebranded?

A former generation of wealthy American conservatives backed candidates like Barry Goldwater because they wanted to conserve American institutions.

Musk, Thiel, Murdoch, and other billionaires now backing the anti-democracy movement don’t want to conserve much of anything — at least not anything that occurred after the 1920s, including Social Security, civil rights, and even women’s right to vote. As Thiel wrote:

“The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

If “capitalist democracy” is becoming an oxymoron, it’s not because of public assistance or because women got the right to vote. It’s because billionaire capitalists like Musk and Thiel are intent on killing democracy by supporting Trump and the neofascists surrounding him.

Not incidentally, the 1920s marked the last gasp of the Gilded Age, when America’s robber barons ripped off so much of the nation’s wealth that the rest of America had to go deep into debt both to maintain their standard of living and to maintain overall demand for the goods and services the nation produced.

When that debt bubble burst in 1929, we got the Great Depression. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler then emerged to create the worst threats to freedom and democracy the modern world had ever witnessed.

If America learned anything from the first Gilded Age and the fascism that grew like a cancer in the 1930s, it should have been that gross inequalities of income and wealth fuel gross inequalities of political power — as Musk, Thiel, and other billionaires are now putting on full display. Inequalities of power in turn generate strongmen who destroy both democracy and freedom.

Under fascist strongmen, no one is safe — not even oligarchs.

If we want to guard what’s left of our freedom, we must meet the anti-democracy movement head on with a bold pro-democracy movement that protects the institutions of self-government from oligarchs like Musk and Thiel and neofascists like Trump.




Robert Reich is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator. He worked in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and served as Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton. He was also a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board. Reich has been the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley since January 2006. He was formerly a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University.

INDIA
“We the People” Need a Government That is Creatively Unstable

Only such governments which remain warily unstable, in actual fact, produce the best results for the downtrodden.

By Badri Raina

May 28, 2024

Source: The Wire India


Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty via The Wire India

Let us pray that ‘we the people” have not voted for a brute majority to any party, followed by a ‘strong’ leader at the helm.

Governments born of such a combo, as we have seen repeatedly worldwide, and most of all in Bharat, work full-scale for entrenched vested interests and remain callously inured to public accountability, parliamentary and media scrutiny, hostile to criticism and salutary for the common weal.

‘Strong’ leaders who head such governments come to think of themselves as the sole fountainheads of what is right and proper. This invariably means catering to private ownership and monopoly behemoths, as well as their protection, against voices of opposition, using state-apparatus. It also means unleashing a fascist politics of othering sections of citizens as enemies, from whose so-called villainies the realm must be protected by hook or by crook.

That project, as we have seen, entails the worst forms of xenophobia and the suppression of every legitimate democratic right. This includes the constitutional prerogative of the populace to educate, organise and agitate for livelihood rights, an egalitarian economic order, equality before the law and a for a fourth estate that does not enslave itself to the corporate-driven executive of the day.

It was with these systemic dangers in mind that Kanshi Ram gave us one of the most intelligent and acute pieces of political-theoretical wisdom years ago. Namely, that only such governments which remain warily unstable, in actual fact, produce the best results for the downtrodden.

The instability of such dispensations obliges them to have always their ears creatively to the ground, since the internal democratic dynamic of such governments disallows their leaderships to disregard accountability to “we the people” and thereby their answerability to the constitutional institutions of the state.

Creatively unstable governments never have the luxury of fobbing off attention to the “common good’ by recourse to war-mongering, hate pogroms and religious chicanery.

Because the interstices between the conjoint political interests that constitute such governments allow for the intervention of public voices, their responsiveness to the electorates, per necessity, remains a living pre-condition of their continuance in office.

Looking back, it is not a fluke that the best results for the common good in our republic have, in the recent past, come not from strong leaders who head brute parliamentary majorities but coalition governments. All the way from the one led by the late V.P. Singh to the United Progressive Alliance dispensation, first and second, without – it is important to underline – any deleterious consequences for that fascist bugbear of “national security.”

Brute majority governments work for the upper classes; coalitions almost always work chiefly for the masses, although the nature of their class base may not suffer any revolutionary dent in the process.

The best result of the election, now coming to a close, would be one which brings together a conglomerate of parties around a progressive common programme of action – one that is designed to preserve, protect and defend the constitutional order, to orient economic policies to the good of those most exploited. It must be heavily against elements whose sole deflective agenda is to drown out the common need and the common good through calls to exclude and lynch.

How determined a fascistic politics of the entrenched can be to prevent such a circumstance has never been as rabidly in evidence as during the current electoral battle.

Shamefully, but not surprisingly, the so-lauded prime minister has led the way in bringing down public morality and political articulation into the sewer.

That his gross imaginings should have finally landed us into having to hear his raunchy reference to nautch girls – who, if only he knew some history, have had a unique place in our composite lives as carriers of deep cultural learning, poetic wisdom and enviable etiquette, often in excess of those who have had access to formal institutions of learning.

Let us therefore pray that India’s canny voters have seen through humbug of the most degrading and coercive kind, and opted to vote in a prospective coalition rich in creative instability.



Badri Raina is a well-known commentator on politics, culture and society. His columns on the Znet have a global following. Raina taught English literature at the University of Delhi for over four decades and is the author of the much acclaimed Dickens and the Dialectic of Growth. He has several collections of poems and translations. His writings have appeared in nearly all major English dailies and journals in India.

 

UAW Challenges Mercedes-Benz Union Vote, Demands New Election Over Alleged Unfair Practices

The United Auto Workers union is contesting a recent vote at Mercedes-Benz’s Alabama plant, citing numerous allegations of anti-union activities by the automaker.

By Alexandra Jacobo

May 28, 2024

Source: Nation of Change

Mercedes-Benz workers in Alabama | Photo: UAW

The United Auto Workers (UAW) union is challenging the results of last week’s unionization vote at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama, where workers voted against union representation. The UAW alleges that Mercedes-Benz engaged in illegal anti-union activities, including firing pro-union workers, forcing employees to attend anti-union meetings, and interfering with union advocacy efforts. These accusations have prompted the UAW to request a new election from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Background information

The UAW, a major union representing automotive workers, has a long history of advocating for workers’ rights and unionization in the auto industry. The Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama employs over 5,000 workers, making it a significant site for union organizing efforts. The NLRB, an independent federal agency, oversees union elections and investigates unfair labor practices to ensure fair labor relations.

Key allegations by UAW

The UAW has put forward a dozen claims against Mercedes-Benz, alleging several unfair labor practices. These include:

• The firing of four pro-union workers.
• Mandatory attendance at anti-union meetings.
• Interference with workers’ ability to discuss and advocate for the union.
• Surveillance of employees discussing unionization.
• Prohibiting the distribution of union materials and paraphernalia.
• Conducting unlawful captive audience meetings.
• Intimidation and coercion of employees.

These actions, the UAW claims, significantly impeded the workers’ ability to make a free and informed choice about union representation.

Election results and immediate reactions

The union vote at the Mercedes-Benz plant saw 56% of workers voting against union representation, with 45% voting in favor. Of the more than 5,000 eligible workers, over 90% participated in the election. Following the vote, UAW President Shawn Fain accused Mercedes-Benz of conducting an aggressive anti-union campaign. “All these workers ever wanted was a fair shot at having a voice on the job and a say in their working conditions,” Fain said. “And that’s what we’re asking for here.”

Mercedes-Benz responded by stating that the company had adhered to NLRB guidelines and would continue to do so through the objection process. “We sincerely hoped the UAW would respect our team members’ decision,” the automaker said.

NLRB’s role and next steps

The NLRB’s regional director in Atlanta, Lisa Henderson, will review the UAW’s allegations. If she determines that the objections raise substantial and material issues, she will order a hearing. If the hearing finds that Mercedes-Benz’s conduct affected the election, the NLRB could mandate a new election. The NLRB is also investigating six separate unfair labor practice charges filed by the UAW against Mercedes-Benz since March.

Broader context and implications

This challenge follows a successful UAW organizing drive at a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee, where the union secured representation for 4,330 workers. The contrast between the two votes highlights the varying levels of opposition faced by unions in different states and industries. The Alabama vote underscores the difficulties unions encounter, particularly in the South, where anti-union sentiment and corporate resistance are often stronger.

Perspectives and quotes

Joao Campari, WWF’s global food practice leader, underscores the critical need to protect rangelands to achieve global biodiversity, climate, and food security goals. “We simply cannot afford to lose any more of our rangelands, grasslands, and savannahs,” he said. “Our planet suffers from their ongoing conversion, as do the pastoralists who depend on them for their livelihoods, and all those who rely on them for food, water, and other vital ecosystem services.”

Ibrahim Thiaw, the executive secretary of the UNCCD, highlights the lack of public awareness about rangeland degradation compared to deforestation. “When we cut down a forest, when we see a 100-year-old tree fall, it rightly evokes an emotional response in many of us. The conversion of ancient rangelands, on the other hand, happens in ‘silence’ and generates little public reaction,” he explained. “Sadly, these expansive landscapes and the pastoralists and livestock breeders who depend on them are usually underappreciated.”

Mongolia’s environment minister, H.E. Bat-Erdene Bat-Ulzii, reflects on the country’s traditional practices that have long emphasized the cautious use of rangelands. “Mongolian traditions are built on the appreciation of resource limits, which defined mobility as a strategy, established shared responsibilities over the land, and set limits in consumption,” he stated.

Historical and legal context

The UAW’s efforts at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama are part of a broader struggle for labor rights in the automotive industry. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ rights to organize and prohibits employers from interfering with union activities. Previous cases of union-busting have resulted in significant legal repercussions, reinforcing the importance of fair labor practices.

Case studies and lessons learned

The challenges faced by the UAW at the Mercedes-Benz plant are not unique. Similar unionization efforts have encountered strong opposition from employers, resulting in lengthy legal battles. However, successful cases demonstrate that persistent organizing and legal action can lead to positive outcomes for workers.

Policy recommendations and strategies

To ensure fair union elections, the UAW and labor advocates recommend several strategies:

• Strengthening protections against employer interference in union activities.
• Increasing penalties for violations of labor laws.
• Enhancing support for workers seeking to unionize.
• Promoting policies that encourage fair labor practices and corporate accountability.

Dave Kamper, senior state policy strategist at the Economic Policy Institute, stated: “While this result shows the power of corporations and state governments to smother worker efforts to unionize, even in defeat, the UAW helped Mercedes workers win substantial improvements in pay and benefits. The more workers band together to fight for better jobs, the more likely they and other workers will see the benefits.”

On Climate Change, Centrism Means a Slow Death

The GOP wants to accelerate climate change, while Democratic centrists are content with slowly embracing it. As hurricane season approaches, shouldn’t we be choosing life?

By Sonali Kolhatkar

May 29, 2024

Source: Independent Media Institute



The Miami Herald recently reported on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) latest forecast predicting a record-breaking hurricane season for the Atlantic Ocean. “Brace Yourself, Florida,” warned the paper, explaining that the “NOAA is predicting that 17 to 25 named storms could form this year,” which is “the highest ever forecast by the federal agency.”

The paper, to its credit, made clear links between such dire predictions and global warming, saying, “Climate change is making more powerful storms more likely, cranking up the dial on extreme rainfall and strong surge and making it more common that storms rapidly strengthen as they approach land.” Insurance companies are likely taking heed, and have rightly pointed out that it’s “no surprise that Florida has been hit by more hurricanes than any other state since… 1851.”

But there was no mention in the Herald story about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a series of bills aimed at limiting solutions to global warming and even removing mentions of the phrase “climate change” from state laws. DeSantis proudly proclaimed that his intention was to, “keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state.”

The Florida Republican seems unconcerned about NOAA’s prediction nor of the record high temperatures impacting his state, such as Key West’s heat index of 115 degrees Fahrenheit. He did not acknowledge that Florida, given its peninsula coastline and location in the Atlantic, remains one of the most vulnerable states to climate change in the nation.

Florida-based meteorologist and climate change reporter Steve MacLaughlin made all the links between the coming storms, climate change, and the governor’s policy. He cited the NOAA report and warned NBC 6 News audiences that the “entire world is looking to Florida to lead in climate change, and our government is saying that climate change is no longer the priority it once was.”

There was a time, not too long ago when journalists and media outlets avoided any mention of climate change, even as scientists and climate activists urged them to say the words. Today, although media outlets have significantly improved coverage of the science, they tend not to explicitly draw a line between climate disasters and policy failures on the part of elected officials like DeSantis.

The Florida governor, who is waging a battle against climate justice as part of his culture wars, isn’t even the biggest threat to curbing climate change. He controls legislation in only one state. If Donald Trump captures the White House, the entire nation will fall even further behind in tackling the climate. Far-right shills for oil and gas companies have an ambitious battle plan in place to begin undoing the modest climate progress that the federal government has made. It’s called Project 2025 and is a brazen call “to deconstruct the Administrative State” on Day 1 of a Republican—read Trump—Presidency.

Like the hardliners who are openly articulating their doomsday plan, Trump has made no secret of where his allegiances lie, unabashedly demanding a billion dollars in campaign funding from oil and gas companies. At a now-infamous April 2024 Mar-a-Lago dinner, Trump directly solicited financial help from fossil fuel executives in exchange for more than $100 billion worth of tax breaks that President Joe Biden has proposed repealing.

The grift was so clearly a quid pro quo, so openly veering on extortion, that some Senators have now launched an inquiry into Trump’s statements. But they can’t keep up. A day before the Senate action, Trump made more such offers, saying to oil company executives at a fundraiser in Houston, Texas, that he would issue “immediate approvals for energy infrastructure” such as “pipelines, power plants” if he returned to the White House. Trump raised an easy $25 million at that event. If he regains power, he will engage in a new ethical infraction every other day, as he did the first time around.

To listen to Republicans, one might imagine that Democrats are Big Oil’s worst enemy, fighting to curb climate change on behalf of the good people of Florida and the rest of the nation. But much Democratic opposition exists in the form of incentives for green energy industries, for example, those built into the Inflation Reduction Act.

In terms of actually holding climate polluters accountable, other than Biden’s budgetary proposal to end tax breaks (which is, after all, only a proposal), and a pause on natural gas permits, Democratic challenges have come in the form of “homework assignments for companies, and requests for Justice Department investigations,” wrote Axios reporter Ben German.

Such tepid actions are not good enough, especially in the face of the overt Republican war on our climate, and by extension, our lives. The GOP may claim it wants to ban windmills on beaches, but its real agenda is handing our future over to oil and gas companies.

If the climate is to be a battleground for the GOP’s culture wars, and if Democrats are going to face the wrath of oil and gas companies for the most modest of limits on greenhouse gas emissions, why not go all in, and actually wage their own culture and policy war to save the climate?

Trying to capture voters who are at the center of the political spectrum has been a go-to Democratic strategy that has often ended in loss. Already centrist commentators are warning Biden to stop appealing to the left edge of his party ahead of November’s election.

But, growing numbers of Americans—and a majority of Democratic voters—are seeing past the media’s limited coverage and politicians’ doublespeak on the climate. They are deeply worried about climate change and are critical of Biden’s milquetoast approach to curbing it.

Labeling parts of the political spectrum is a helpful exercise. The left edge wants to move us forward, to progress, hence the adoption of the term “progressive.” The right flank wants to move society backward, and really ought to be dubbed “regressive.” Meanwhile, the center is happy with the current status quo and is best defined by the term “conservative.” Centrists want to conserve things just as they are.

On the issue of climate change, progressive policies mean a future for our children, stability for our homes and communities, and the preservation of human and other species. It literally means we have a good chance at life as a whole.

Regressive policies will lead to certain, accelerated death, broadly speaking, while conservative centrists appear to endorse a slow death. In other words, DeSantis, Trump, and their party are leading a death cult, while Biden and his party seem torn over the choice between life and death. To the rest of us, decisively choosing life is the only option.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.



Sonali Kolhatkarr is an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her most recent book is Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and the racial justice and civil liberties editor at Yes! Magazine. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization.

The ICC Takes on Israel and the US Congressional Mafia

by Medea Benjamin / May 29th, 2024

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant at a press conference in Tel Aviv on October 28, 2023. POOL / VIA REUTER

Senator Lindsay Graham was bursting with contempt for the International Criminal Court (ICC) when he grilled Secretary of State Blinken at a May 21 Congressional hearing. Wagging his finger, he warned that, if the ICC gets away with issuing arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, “we are next.”

The audience at the hearing, stacked with CODEPINK pro-Palestine supporters, burst out in applause at the notion of the US being hauled before the world’s highest court. “You can clap all you want,” an angry Graham retorted, “but they tried to come after our soldiers in Afghanistan.” Graham was thankful that in the Afghan case “reason prevailed” when the case was dropped, adding that the US must level sanctions against the ICC “not only to protect our friends in Israel but to protect ourselves.”

Graham was referring to the 2019 efforts of former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to hold both the Taliban and the US accountable for war crimes in Afghanistan. When Graham said that “reason prevailed,” he really meant that US thuggery prevailed because the Trump administration brazenly imposed sanctions against ICC officials, denying them visas to the US and freezing their assets in US banks. President Biden lifted the sanctions but did so with the tacit understanding that the court would not resume the probe of US crimes in Afghanistan. The message from both Democratic and Republican presidents was clear: Do not dare hold the US to the same standards you use for others.

The International Criminal Court was founded in 1998 as the result of a lifetime’s work by an American (and Jewish) international lawyer, Benjamin Ferencz, rooted in his experience as an investigator and chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunals after the Second World War. Ben passed away in 2023 at the age of 103, but the universal jurisdiction that the court is exercising in this case is the fruition of his life’s work to hold war criminals accountable under international law, no matter what country they are from or who their victims are.

Enter Israel. The ICC has been building a case against Israel for nearly a decade. A recent blockbuster investigation by the Guardian and two Israeli-based news outlets revealed a shocking almost decade-long secret campaign against the court by Israeli intelligence agencies, who surveilled, hacked, pressured, smeared and threatened ICC officials in an effort to derail the court’s inquiries.

Despite the pressure, on May 20, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan made his request for Israeli and Hamas arrest warrants. Among the charges against the Israeli officials are extermination, using starvation as a method of warfare, willfully causing great suffering, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population.

Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request has now gone to a panel of three judges who will determine in the coming weeks whether the request is granted. But pro-Israel forces in the US are trying their best to throw sand in the wheels of justice with threats of new sanctions.

One ultimatum already came from Senator Tom Cotton and 11 other Republican senators in a toxic April 24 letter. “Target Israel and we will target you,” the senators signaled to the ICC. “If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States.” The letter concluded with a hair-raising: “You have been warned.”

The Biden administration has responded to the ICC by flip flopping like a fish on dry land. On May 20, the White House put out a statement calling the ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders “outrageous”, adding “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas.  We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken called the request “shameful.” At a hearing on May 22, he told Senator Graham that he welcomed working with him on efforts to sanction the ICC.

But on May 28, National Security Council Communications Advisor John Kirby said at a White House press briefing, “We don’t believe that sanctions against the ICC is the right approach here.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who spoke after Kirby, reiterated that message. She said that legislation against the ICC “is not something the administration is going to support” and that “sanctions on the ICC are not an effective or appropriate tool to address U.S. concerns.”

This new position from the White House will make it easier for more Democrats to say no to the bills that will be introduced as soon as Congress returns from recess on June 3. Already, dueling statements are coming out from Congressional members. While Senate Majority Leader Schumer called the ICC appeal “reprehensible” and Democrat Joe Manchin joined with Republicans to call for visa bans for ICC officials and sanctions on the international body, Senator Bernie Sanders defended the court, saying, “The ICC is doing its job. It’s doing what it is supposed to do. We cannot only apply international law when it is convenient.”

On the House side, progressives voiced support for the ICC.  Rep. Cori Bush said, “Seeking arrest warrants for human rights abuses is an important step towards accountability. It’s shameful for U.S. officials to threaten the ICC while continuing to send weapons that enable war crimes.” Rep. Mark Pocan gave a gutsy response, saying, “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant.”

While most Republicans and pro-Israel hawks in the Democratic Party will likely join hands to hammer the international court, President Biden may ultimately feel pressured to adopt the position best articulated by Senator Van Hollen. “It is fine to express opposition to a possible judicial action, but it is absolutely wrong to interfere in a judicial matter by threatening judicial officers, their family members and their employees with retribution. This thuggery is something befitting the mafia, not U.S. senators.” It is also not befitting the White House, especially one that has been such a willing partner to Israel’s war crimes.

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of the peace group CODEPINK, is coauthor, with David Swanson, of the forthcoming NATO: What You Need to Know. Read other articles by Medea.

US Congress Warns: If ICC Tries Israeli Officials For War Crimes, ‘America Will Be Next’

The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, warned that if the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes Israeli officials, “we know that America will be next”. Congress threatens to sanction the Hague.

By Benjamin Norton

May 29, 2024

Source: Geopolitical Economy ReportT

The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, said Congress plans to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC).

He warned that, if the ICC prosecutes Israeli officials, “we know that America will be next”.

This came after ICC chief Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, plans to sanction the International Criminal Court (ICC).

He warned that, if the ICC prosecutes Israeli officials, "we know that America will be next".

Rejecting international law, he said the US and Israel "don't… pic.twitter.com/BYVhoYlxDP

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 28, 2024

Republican Representative Johnson, the most powerful person in the House, blasted the ICC in a press conference on May 23.

“America should punish the ICC and put Karim Khan back in his place”, he insisted.

“If the ICC is allowed to threaten Israel’s leaders, we know that America will be next”, Johnson cautioned.

The top Congressional official proceeded to reject the very basis of international law.

“There is a reason that we’ve never endorsed the International Criminal Court, because it is a direct affront to our own sovereignty”, Johnson said.

“We don’t put any international body above American sovereignty, and Israel doesn’t do that either”, he explained.

“Congress is reviewing all of our options right now”, Johnson continued. “We have some very aggressive legislation that we’re going to push as as quickly as possible. It will impose sanctions”.

“And if the ICC moves forward with its absurd warrant request, this is going to be an even bigger international problem”, threatened the senior US official.

Johnson is a staunch conservative and ally of Donald Trump, but top Democrats have also attacked the ICC.

President Joe Biden blasted the ICC’s accusations against top Israeli officials as “outrageous”.

Asked by a far-right Republican lawmaker if the Democratic administration would be willing to collaborate to impose sanctions on the Hague, Secretary of State Antony Blinken cheerily said in a Senate hearing, “We want to work with you on a bipartisan basis to find an appropriate response”.

Johnson’s GOP colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, also threatened the ICC, complaining that “if they’ll do this to Israel, we’re next!”

“What I hope to happen is that we level sanctions against the ICC for this outrage, to not only help our friends in Israel, but to protect ourself over time”, Graham insisted.

Revealed: Israeli Spy Chief ‘Threatened’ ICC Prosecutor Over War Crimes Inquiry

Mossad director Yossi Cohen personally involved in secret plot to pressure Fatou Bensouda to drop Palestine investigation, sources say

By Harry Davies

May 29, 2024

Source: The Guardian


Fatou Bensouda, former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, during a conference about international crimes in West Africa, which took place at Dakar (Senegal) in October 2021


The former head of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, allegedly threatened a chief prosecutor of the international criminal court in a series of secret meetings in which he tried to pressure her into abandoning a war crimes investigation, the Guardian can reveal.

Yossi Cohen’s covert contacts with the ICC’s then prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, took place in the years leading up to her decision to open a formal investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in occupied Palestinian territories.

That investigation, launched in 2021, culminated last week when Bensouda’s successor, Karim Khan, announced that he was seeking an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, over the country’s conduct in its war in Gaza.

The prosecutor’s decision to apply to the ICC’s pre-trial chamber for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, alongside three Hamas leaders, is an outcome Israel’s military and political establishment has long feared.

Cohen’s personal involvement in the operation against the ICC took place when he was the director of the Mossad. His activities were authorised at a high level and justified on the basis the court posed a threat of prosecutions against military personnel, according to a senior Israeli official.

Another Israeli source briefed on the operation against Bensouda said the Mossad’s objective was to compromise the prosecutor or enlist her as someone who would cooperate with Israel’s demands.

A third source familiar with the operation said Cohen was acting as Netanyahu’s “unofficial messenger”.

Cohen, who was one of Netanyahu’s closest allies at the time and is emerging as a political force in his own right in Israel, personally led the Mossad’s involvement in an almost decade-long campaign by the country to undermine the court.

Four sources confirmed that Bensouda had briefed a small group of senior ICC officials about Cohen’s attempts to sway her, amid concerns about the increasingly persistent and threatening nature of his behaviour.

Three of those sources were familiar with Bensouda’s formal disclosures to the ICC about the matter. They said she revealed Cohen had put pressure on her on several occasions not to proceed with a criminal investigation in the ICC’s Palestine case.

According to accounts shared with ICC officials, he is alleged to have told her: “You should help us and let us take care of you. You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family.”

One individual briefed on Cohen’s activities said he had used “despicable tactics” against Bensouda as part of an ultimately unsuccessful effort to intimidate and influence her. They likened his behaviour to “stalking”.

The Mossad also took a keen interest in Bensouda’s family members and obtained transcripts of secret recordings of her husband, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation. Israeli officials then attempted to use the material to discredit the prosecutor.

The revelations about Cohen’s operation form part of a forthcoming investigation by the Guardian, the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, revealing how multiple Israel intelligence agencies ran a covert “war” against the ICC for almost a decade.

Contacted by the Guardian, a spokesperson for Israel’s prime minister’s office said: “The questions forwarded to us are replete with many false and unfounded allegations meant to hurt the state of Israel.” Cohen did not respond to a request for comment. Bensouda declined to comment.

In the Mossad’s efforts to influence Bensouda, Israel received support from an unlikely ally: Joseph Kabila, the former president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who played a supporting role in the plot.

Revelations about the Mossad’s efforts to influence Bensouda come as the current chief prosecutor, Khan, warned in recent days that he would not hesitate to prosecute “attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence” ICC officials.

According to legal experts and former ICC officials, efforts by the Mossad to threaten or put pressure on Bensouda could amount to offences against the administration of justice under article 70 of the Rome statute, the treaty that established the court.

A spokesperson for the ICC would not say whether Khan had reviewed his predecessor’s disclosures about her contacts with Cohen, but said Khan had never met or spoken to the head of the Mossad.

While the spokesperson declined to comment on specific allegations, they said Khan’s office had been subjected to “several forms of threats and communications that could be viewed as attempts to unduly influence its activities”.
Bensouda sparks ire of Israel

Khan’s decision to seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant last week marked the first time the court had taken action against leaders of a country closely allied with the US and Europe. Their alleged crimes – which include directing attacks on civilians and using starvation as a method of warfare – relate to the eight-month war in Gaza.

The ICC case, however, dates back to 2015, when Bensouda decided to open a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine. Short of a full investigation, her inquiry was tasked with making an initial assessment of allegations of crimes by individuals in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Bensouda’s decision sparked the ire of Israel, which feared its citizens could be prosecuted for their involvement in operations in Palestinian territories. Israel had long been open about its opposition to the ICC, refusing to recognise its authority. Israeli ministers intensified their attacks on the court and even vowed to try to dismantle it.

Soon after commencing the preliminary examination, Bensouda and her senior prosecutors began to receive warnings that Israeli intelligence was taking a close interest in their work.

According to two sources, there were even suspicions among senior ICC officials that Israel had cultivated sources within the court’s prosecution division, known as the office of the prosecutor. Another later recalled that although the Mossad “didn’t leave its signature”, it was an assumption the agency was behind some of the activity officials had been made aware of.

Only a small group of senior figures at the ICC, however, were informed that the director of the Mossad had personally approached the chief prosecutor.

A career spy, Cohen enjoys a reputation in Israel’s intelligence community as an effective recruiter of foreign agents. He was a loyal and powerful ally of the prime minister at the time, having been appointed as director of the Mossad by Netanyahu in 2016 after working for several years at his side as his national security adviser.

As the head of the national security council between 2013 and 2016, Cohen oversaw the body that, according to multiple sources, began to coordinate a multiagency effort against the ICC once Bensouda opened the preliminary inquiry in 2015.

Cohen’s first interaction with Bensouda appears to have taken place at the Munich security conference in 2017, when the Mossad director introduced himself to the prosecutor in a brief exchange. After this encounter, Cohen subsequently “ambushed” Bensouda in a bizarre episode in a Manhattan hotel suite, according to multiple sources familiar with the incident.

Bensouda was in New York in 2018 on an official visit, and was meeting Kabila, then the president of the DRC, at his hotel. The pair had met several times before in relation to the ICC’s ongoing investigation into alleged crimes committed in his country.

The meeting, however, appears to have been a setup. At a certain point, after Bensouda’s staff were asked to leave the room, Cohen entered, according to three sources familiar with the meeting. The surprise appearance, they said, caused alarm to Bensouda and a group of ICC officials travelling with her.

Why Kabila helped Cohen is unclear, but ties between the two men were revealed in 2022 by the Israeli publication TheMarker, which reported on a series of secretive trips the Mossad director made to the DRC throughout 2019.

According to the publication, Cohen’s trips, during which he sought Kabila’s advice “on an issue of interest to Israel”, and which were almost certainly approved by Netanyahu, were highly unusual and had astonished senior figures within the intelligence community.

Reporting on the DRC meetings in 2022, the Israeli broadcaster Kan 11 said Cohen’s trips related to an “extremely controversial plan” and cited official sources who described it as “one of Israel’s most sensitive secrets”.

Multiple sources have confirmed to the Guardian the trips were partly related to the ICC operation, and Kabila, who left office in January 2019, played an important supporting role in the Mossad’s plot against Bensouda. Kabila did not respond to a request for comment.
‘Threats and manipulation’

After the surprise meeting with Kabila and Bensouda in New York, Cohen repeatedly phoned the chief prosecutor and sought meetings with her, three sources recalled. According to two people familiar with the situation, at one stage Bensouda asked Cohen how he had obtained her phone number, to which he replied: “Did you forget what I do for a living?”

Initially, the sources explained, the intelligence chief “tried to build a relationship” with the prosecutor and played “good cop” in an attempt to charm her. The initial objective, they said, appeared to have been to enlist Bensouda into cooperating with Israel.

Over time, however, the tone of Cohen’s contact changed and he began to use a range of tactics, including “threats and manipulation”, an individual briefed on the meetings said. This prompted Bensouda to inform a small group of senior ICC officials about his behaviour.

In December 2019, the prosecutor announced that she had grounds to open a full criminal investigation into allegations of war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, she held off launching it, deciding first to request a ruling from the ICC’s pre-trial chamber to confirm the court did indeed have jurisdiction over Palestine.

Multiple sources said it was at this stage, as the judges considered the case, that Cohen escalated his attempts to persuade Bensouda not to pursue a full investigation in the event the judges gave her the green light.

Between late 2019 and early 2021, the sources said, there were at least three encounters between Cohen and Bensouda, all initiated by the spy chief. His behaviour is said to have become increasingly concerning to ICC officials.

A source familiar with Bensouda’s accounts of the final two meetings with Cohen said he had raised questions about her security, and that of her family, in a manner that led her to believe he was threatening her.

On one occasion, Cohen is said to have shown Bensouda copies of photographs of her husband, which were taken covertly when the couple were visiting London. On another, according to sources, Cohen suggested to the prosecutor that a decision to open a full investigation would be detrimental to her career.

Four sources familiar with the situation said it was around the same time that Bensouda and other ICC officials discovered that information was circulating among diplomatic channels relating to her husband, who worked as an international affairs consultant.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Mossad had been actively seeking compromising information on the prosecutor and took an interest in her family members.

The spy agency obtained a cache of material, including transcripts of an apparent sting operation against her husband.

It is unclear who conducted the operation, or precisely what he is alleged to have said in the recordings. One possibility is that he had been targeted by the intelligence agency or by private actors of another country that wanted leverage over the ICC. Another possibility is the information was fabricated.

Once in the possession of Israel, however, the material was used by its diplomats in an unsuccessful attempt to undermine the chief prosecutor. But according to multiple sources, Israel failed to convince its allies of the significance of the material.

Three sources briefed on the information shared by Israel at a diplomatic level described the efforts as part of an unsuccessful “smear campaign” against Bensouda. “They went after Fatou,” one source said, but it had “no impact” on the prosecutor’s work.

The diplomatic efforts were part of a coordinated effort by the governments of Netanyahu and Donald Trump in the US to place public and private pressure on the prosecutor and her staff.

Between 2019 and 2020, in an unprecedented decision, the Trump administration imposed visa restrictions and sanctions on the chief prosecutor. The move was in retaliation to Bensouda’s pursuit of a separate investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, allegedly committed by the Taliban and both Afghan and US military personnel.

However, Mike Pompeo, then US secretary of state, linked the sanctions package to the Palestine case. “It’s clear the ICC is only putting Israel in [its] crosshairs for nakedly political purposes,” he said.

Months later, he accused Bensouda, without citing any evidence, of having “engaged in corrupt acts for her personal benefit”.

The US sanctions were rescinded after President Joe Biden entered the White House.

In February 2021, the ICC’s pre-trial chamber issued a ruling confirming the ICC had jurisdiction in occupied Palestinian territories. The following month, Bensouda announced the opening of the criminal investigation.


“In the end, our central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides,” she said at the time.

Bensouda completed her nine-year term at the ICC three months later, leaving it to her successor, Khan, to take up the investigation. It was only after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October and the ensuing war on Gaza that the ICC’s investigation gained renewed urgency, culminating in last week’s request for arrest warrants.

It was the conclusion Israel’s political, military and intelligence establishment had feared. “The fact they chose the head of Mossad to be the prime minister’s unofficial messenger to [Bensouda] was to intimidate, by definition,” said a source briefed on Cohen’s operation. “It failed.”

UK

Over 100 Parliamentarians call on the Foreign Secretary to Defend the Independence of the ICC

29th May 2024Leave a Commenton Over 100 Parliamentarians call on the Foreign Secretary to Defend the Independence of the ICC

“Any attempt to hinder their work would not only undermine accountability for atrocity crimes committed in Gaza but would weaken the rule of law and international justice as a whole.”

Letter to Foreign Secretary David Cameron, signed by 105 Parliamentarians

By Labour Outlook

Following the announcement that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karin Khan, was seeking arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas last week, a cross-party Group of MPs and Lords have written to the Foreign Secretary calling on “the UK Government to do all it can to support the International Criminal Court.”

The letter, organised by Labour MPs Richard Burgon and Imran Hussain and signed by 105 MPs from 11 different political parties, follows the “important decision of the ICC Chief Prosecutor to issue applications for arrest warrants for a number of Israeli and Hamas leaders.”

The Parliamentarians also call on the Foreign Secretary “to condemn any threats and attempts to undermine the independence and impartiality of the International Criminal Court in its investigations into crimes in Gaza” after threatswere issued to the Court in recent weeks including from US senators who warned against there would be sanctions if the ICC issued arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.

The letter also states that “there is mounting evidence that Israel has committed clear and obvious violations of international law in Gaza and strongly believe that those responsible must be held to account.” 

The signatories have called on the Government “to take a clear stance against any attempts to intimidate an independent and impartial international court” and shown support for the independence of the court, demanding that “the Court, its Prosecutor, and all its staff must be free to pursue justice without fear or favour. Any attempt to hinder their work would not only undermine accountability for atrocity crimes committed in Gaza but would weaken the rule of law and international justice as a whole.”

Richard Burgon MP, a former Shadow Justice Secretary said:

“While our Government has rightly condemned the war crimes committed by Hamas on 7 October, it has repeatedly refused to condemn the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. At every stage, our Government has failed to fulfil its moral duty to do everything it can to help save lives and prevent suffering in Gaza. It must not fail again. It must back the ICC in ensuring that there is no impunity for war crimes and it must stand up to those seeking to impede justice.”

Imran Hussain MP said:

“The International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s decision to pursue arrest warrants for war crimes carried out since October 7th is a vital step towards securing justice for the victims. Our Government must do the right thing, defend the court’s integrity and condemn any attempts to undermine its work. It is clear that Israel is carrying out war crimes and our Government must take a stance for the rules-based order and insist on accountability for those perpetrating war crimes. That is not only key to securing justice but also in helping prevent more crimes.”

You can read a full text of the letter and see the full list of signatories below.

---

Dear Foreign Secretary,  

We write following the important decision of the ICC Chief Prosecutor to issue applications for arrest warrants for a number of Israeli and Hamas leaders. 

We urge you to condemn any threats and attempts to undermine the independence and impartiality of the International Criminal Court in its investigations into crimes in Gaza. We also call on the UK Government to do all it can to support the Court in ensuring accountability and justice for the victims of these crimes. 

As you know, the International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, was established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC has the mandate to investigate and prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

This mandate includes the Situation in Palestine and, since 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor has been investigating crimes alleged to have been committed there by all actors over the past decade. 

This investigation includes alleged crimes being carried out in Israel’s current war in Gaza. We believe that there is mounting evidence that Israel has committed clear and obvious violations of international law in Gaza and strongly believe that those responsible must be held to account. 

So we are deeply alarmed that earlier this month, the Office of the Prosecutor felt compelled to issue a statement calling for “all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence its officials cease immediately.” While the Prosecutor’s Office did not explicitly refer to threats made following press reports about the potential issuing of arrest warrants for crimes committed in Gaza, the context was clear.

It is vital that the Government takes a clear stance against any attempts to intimidate an independent and impartial international court. Not only could such actions be a crime under Article 70 of the Rome Statute, but they would be a blatant attempt to prevent accountability and to impede justice. 

The Court, its Prosecutor, and all its staff must be free to pursue justice without fear or favour. We hope you agree that any attempt to hinder their work would not only undermine accountability for atrocity crimes committed in Gaza but would weaken the rule of law and international justice as a whole. It is therefore essential that the Government works to prevent this. 

Yours sincerely, 

Richard Burgon MP and Imran Hussain MP

Diane Abbott MP
Debbie Abrahams MP
Tahir Ali MP
Rosena Allin-Khan MP
Hannah Bardell MP
Paula Barker MP
Órfhlaith Begley MP
Apsana Begum MP
Olivia Blake MP
Baroness Christine Blower
Steven Bonnar MP
Mickey Brady MP
Deidre Brock MP
Alan Brown MP
Baroness Pauline Bryan
Dawn Butler MP
Ian Byrne MP
Liam Byrne MP
Stuart C McDonald MP
Amy Callaghan MP
Baroness Shami Chakrabarti
Douglas Chapman MP
Joanna Cherry KC MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Ronnie Cowan MP
Baroness Caroline Cox
Lord Bryn Davies
Martyn Day MP
Marsha De Cordova MP
Dave Doogan MP
Allan Dorans MP
Lord Alf Dubs
Lord Hugh Dykes
Colum Eastwood MP
Stephen Farry MP
Marion Fellows MP
John Finucane MP
George Galloway MP
Barry Gardiner MP
Patricia Gibson MP
Michelle Gildernew MP
Patrick Grady MP
Peter Grant MP
Claire Hanna MP
Chris Hazzard MP
Drew Hendry MP
Lord John Hendy
Kate Hollern MP
Rachel Hopkins MP
Rupa Huq MP
Lord Qurban Hussain
Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece
Kim Johnson MP
Mary Kelly Foy MP
Afzal Khan MP
Ian Lavery MP
Chris Law MP
Clive Lewis MP
Baroness Ruth Lister
Mark Logan MP
Rebecca Long Bailey MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Kenny MacAskill MP
Rachael Maskell MP
Paul Maskey MP
Andy McDonald MP
John McDonnell MP
Anne McLaughlin MP
Ian Mearns MP
Baroness Nosheena Mobarik
Francie Molloy MP
Carol Monaghan MP
Grahame Morris MP
Gavin Newlands MP
Brendan O’Hara MP
Kate Osamor MP
Kate Osborne MP
Sarah Owen MP
Jess Phillips MP
Anum Qaisar MP
Yasmin Qureshi MP
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP
Marie Rimmer MP
Baroness Margaret Ritchie
Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP
Liz Saville Roberts MP
Naz Shah MP
Tommy Sheppard MP
Lord Prem Sikka
Lord Indarjit Singh
Chris Stephens MP
Zarah Sultana MP
Sam Tarry MP
Alison Thewliss MP
Owen Thompson MP
Richard Thomson MP
Jon Trickett MP
Baroness Manzila Uddin
Claudia Webbe MP
Philippa Whitford MP
Mick Whitley MP
Nadia Whittome MP
Beth Winter MP
Lord Tony Woodley
Mohammad Yasin MP

---

• Richard Burgon is the MP for Leeds East, the Secretary of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs and a regular contributor to Labour Outlook. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.