Showing posts sorted by date for query CHILD LABOR. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CHILD LABOR. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Ratify the R-Word—Bruce, Minneapolis, Revolution, and Us

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

Twenty four years ago I wrote an essay titled “Resurrect the R Word.” To many people back then revolution meant chaos, violence, and death. Disagree? Me too. But should we resurrect the R-Word? My answer back then was that we should and I have the same answer now. But now we should Resurrect and also Ratify the R-Word. 

Talking about the U.S., where I live, a quarter century along history’s timeline Fascist thuggery, authoritarian, racist, and misogynist regimentation, war, and ecological dissolution threaten everything. Though the R-Word appears everywhere, what does it convey? Why should the R-Word re-enter our hearts and minds? Our Revolution? Not breakfast cereal revolution. Not cyber revolution. Our Political, Economic, Cultural and Social Revolution.

Seven and a half million people in the U.S. are unemployed. Forty million are poor. Forty seven million intermittently go hungry. Seven hundred and seventy five thousand have no material home. How many have no emotional, spiritual home? Even those who are not materially desperate largely lack personal say over their own lives. Trump is a disaster unfolding. But beneath Trump, indeed birthing and nourishing and elevating Trump, all manner of billionaire bosses rule here in what some like to call: USA, USA! 

Employees sell their ability to produce and as a reward about 8 out of 10 of them suffer abject subordination, lurid lies, vile chicanery, and massive manipulation. All of it backed by force. Dignity is denied. Ambulance-chasing is a professional pastime. And with whatever means available, from bare minimum poor to vapidly rich, to fetishize and accumulate whatever commodities you can grab is a socially respected way of life. 

To score high on the “I own” meter requires that you inherit or you accumulate and debauch without a care. However it is not capitalists’ genes, but the institutional byways that they traverse that exterminates their humane sentiments. The problem is not our genes. The problem is the institutions that channel our choices. 

In our economies garbage rises. To profit, owners become social garbage. We all know it’s true. The idea that capitalists will freely forsake economic violence is delusional. We know that too. Capitalism doesn’t sincerely gift us fine schools, excellent health care, equitable incomes, solidarity among workers, people before profit, empathy over greed, self management beyond democracy, and an environment suitable for human habitation. To the extent we get any of that it is due to struggles undertaken against capitalism. Capitalism, of its own accord, exploits and alienates those who it does not elevate. Its pliers warp even those who it does elevate. 

Humane pursuits and collective self-management require in place of capitalism collective ownership, equitable income and circumstances, balanced jobs that incorporate comparable access to information, responsibility, and skilled work for all, and decentralized participatory planning to replace rat race competition and top down coercion. Humane pursuits and collective self-management require classlessness.

It turns out that we endure economic violence but we want economic liberty. More, to go from economic violence to economic liberty is what economic revolution is all about. No old boss. No new boss. Instead new institutions. Ratify the R-Word. But is economics all we suffer? No, of course it isn’t. Consider what some call kinship.

Feminists teach that gender is social; women and men are each worthy; girls and boys, mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, daters and datees are not anatomic roles but historically contingent outcomes. We are what we do. But we can do other than what nuclear families, contemporary sex roles, courting and parenting roles demand, and what fashion, Hollywood, religion, and bosses celebrate.

A sexual assault occurs in the U.S. nearly every minute. Upward of one out of five women suffer rape or attempted rape at least once in a lifetime. Eighty percent of all women suffer sexual assault or harassment at some time. Women earn just under eighty percent for comparable work as men. On the other hand, women do get considerable pay for modeling, acting, homemaking in mansions, and street-walking in Manhattan. Women do more housework than men and shoulder most responsibility for child-rearing. Women hold up half the sky and much more. But still women still suffer. U.S.A., U.S.A. Chant it proud?

U.S. teenage pregnancy is highest in the developed world while the multi-billion-dollar U.S. pornography industry evidences and elicits mind-staggering manufactured sexist perversion. Child-rearing and education relegate to young women who aren’t being trafficked the freedom to be “feminine” and obey, and relegate to young men who aren’t trafficking the freedom to be “manly” and rule. Society’s preponderant roles distort all genders, albeit quite differently. Billion dollar diets mutilate millions of human psyches and hundreds of thousands of human bodies. Tens of millions of men and women suffer indignity, brutality, and even death for their homosexual or trans lives, while the elderly suffer isolated poverty even as productive tasks they could do go undone. 

Macho doesn’t presuppose male genes. It is not inscribed in DNA that men should objectify and batter women. Kinship violence stems not from genes gone bad, but from damaged families, from men fathering and women mothering, from pseudo-sexuality, reductive education, competitive courting, and sexist economics, politics, and culture.

To transcend gender violence we need sex-blind roles; support for single, coupled, and multi-parenting arrangements; plus easy access to high-quality daycare, flexible work hours, and parental-leave options. To produce gender peace we need freedom for children to develop views with their peers without excessive adult supervision. To produce gender liberation we need retirement guided by personal inclination and not age; liberated sexuality that respects all free choices and inclinations; and norms of courting, child-rearing, law, religion and work free from gender bias. In short, we need a transformation that replaces this country’s patriarchal misogyny with gender equality and sexual freedom. The R-Word needs ratification for kinship, too.

What about the ethnic, racial, and religious ways by which we understand ourselves and our place in society? Slavery, apartheid, separate but equal, racism, religious bigotry, ethnocentrism, and colonialism are all systems in which one community subordinates another or in which two communities wage endless conflict that deadens the cultural prospects, souls, and bodies of all concerned. 

In the U.S., median family income, infant mortality, criminal prosecution, allocation of educational resources, and distorted and distorting mass media images all track race to ensure that nonwhite communities settle beneath white ones. These dynamics subjugate whole peoples. These dynamics deny whole peoples’ cultures and whole peoples’ potentials for developing and fulfilling themselves. They pervert ruler and ruled alike.

As a result, the U.S. is far from being a compendium of diverse free communities, each enabled to develop in harmony with others, each respecting and learning from answers that others offer, and each protecting the rights of all. To collapse all cultures into the norms of a dominant few via “integration” is no solution. The needed transformative change is revolution. The R-Word applies again.

U.S. politics features media-reinforced apathy, financial bribes and scams, police repression, regressive taxation, choices between candidate clones, massive corruption, aid to dictators abroad and at home, and wars. And of late it also includes a drive toward Fascism, which is Trump’s version of political revolution. Real participatory democracy will instead need to feature collective self-management including plebiscites, honest plentiful information, informed public debate, popular assemblies, maximum respectful accountability, reconstructed adjudication, and no possibility for accruing excessive political power.

To transition from spectator ruler-versus-ruled politics to participatory politics will therefore require new political aims and institutional means to debate them, refine them, dispute them, fight for them, and enact them, as well as to deal with violations. We the people need both information and power. Popular resistance campaigns to redress grievances can ease immediate suffering and nowadays forestall a slide to dictatorship, but they will not alone create new institutions able to propel informed participation. New polity will need revolution. The R-Word needs ratification here too.

Nations fight nations. Torture and war ravage human potential. Hunger afflicts billions. Chemical wastes infect us. Air pollution congests us. The seed-base depletes us and temperatures keep climbing toward ecological debacle. Forests diminish. Wastelands spread. People, animals, and plants drown, starve, and burn. Neither the world as a social system nor the world as an ecosphere can withstand much more, more, more. Without international equity plus new means for care-taking the earth, all will go to hell in a turbo-cart. In a dirty world, the R-Word is not a dirty word. Ratify it.

To feel embarrassed or afraid on hearing the R-Word makes liberated human history seem impossible. To equate revolution with blood-lust accepts that struggle for change can yield only minimal gains or, if we get too ambitious, worse than what we already have. To debate the wisdom of revolution reflects timidity about truth. We must no longer debate the wisdom of fundamental change as if humanity may after all be able to flourish or even just survive within the permanent dictates of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, and authoritarianism. Fundamental change is not only possible, it is essential. But a host of related issues do warrant continued and expanded debate.

For example, what new institutions would desirable economic, kinship, cultural, political, international, and ecological revolution create? We need to at least broadly know because we won’t get where we want to wind up if we have no clarity about at least the defining features of where we want to wind up. Do we now have that? Ratify the R-Word.

And how do we win immediate reforms while we strengthen our ability to fight for long-run aims? We need reforms to reduce pain now but also so the fight for them teaches and propels relevant lessons and so that winning them expands our confidence and develops our means to win more. That is R-Word logic.

And what kind of organization, ideology, and tactics do we need to reach our full goals? Since priority attention to economics, gender, culture, politics, international relations, and ecology yields contrasting socialist, feminist, nationalist, anarchist, anti-imperialist, and green agendas, including different views within each, how can a new movement retain the integrity, wisdom and autonomy of each of these orientations, correct whatever faults they may have, and simultaneously realize solidarity among them all? That is the R-Word’s call to action.

Debating these and related strategic questions while we raise consciousness, demonstrate, and organize to expand and enrich resistance isn’t “utopian.” It is the only comprehensive approach that can win immediate social change and also keep winning more change on the path to fulfilling R-Word mandates. 

To win a new world, and even to significantly improve this one, we must know what we want. To journey from here to there we need to know where “there” is. What new institutions will establish real a participatory economy and in particular what steps can lead to those new institutions? What new institutions would establish a feminist kinship sphere, a culturally intercommunal community sphere, and a participatory political sphere? In each case, what steps can take us from what we have to what we need? 

As we endure current horrors, it does not evidence maturity, pragmatism, or wisdom to dismiss revolutionary desire as strange, to see it as off base, or call it impossible. To dismiss what is in fact essential and desirable instead evidences ignorance, defeatism, or even lack of humanity. Don’t whisper the R-Word. Loudly ratify it. 

But even as we do all that, we need to also remember that to win fulfilling freedom doesn’t require adopting arrogant postures that alienate potential allies. It doesn’t require dismissing that which isn’t yet where we are. Instead, to win fulfilling freedom requires sober yet comprehensive desire plus careful yet unrelenting forward movement. It requires that we listen, converse with, and respect people who disagree with us. 

Liberalism’s half-way programs and temperate rhetoric, when unaccompanied by revolutionary insights, tend to strengthen the two greatest obstacles to justice in the U.S.: The widespread belief that you can’t beat City Hall and that even if you do beat the bastards, it won’t mean overly much because new bosses will be as bad as old ones. Isn’t it obvious that the left won’t arouse hope and deserve commitment until its morality, tone, and spirit transcend band-aid bureaucratic fixes even as it necessarily struggles to win those limited gains on the way to winning fundamental change in the longer run? Isn’t it obvious that we ultimately have to get to the institutional heart of the matter? Ratify the R-Word.

We can’t win what we won’t even name. We can’t orient today’s reforms to further tomorrow’s victories if we refuse to define what we want tomorrow’s victories to include. Blind strategy is no strategy at all. Resistance is good, but to undo lethargy and cynicism and attain liberation, we ultimately need to ratify the R-Word in our speaking, writing, thought, and action. 

And so what does to ratify revolution mean right now, while ICE runs rampant, RFK Jr. sickens the country, Hegseth macho-man’s the media, and Trump twists the very fabric of reality to pursue his own maniacal brand of Fascism? 

Just a few days ago I logged on to a collective call about resistance in Minneapolis—which city is now central to Trump’s violence and thus also to the resistance’s prospects. The online gathering was inspiring and hopeful in many respects and especially in its call for no work, no consuming, and no school in Minneapolis this Friday January 23rd (with the call now expanded to the whole of Minnesota, I believe), plus lots of accompanying activism against ICE and its abettor corporations and politicians conducted all week and especially on the 23rd. But beyond even the Minneapolis movement’s exemplary courage, commitment, and competency, to bring the R-Word back means that the movement in Minneapolis should work to begin to challenge not just ICE, the only focus during the call, but also tariffs, imperial bullying, police repression, racism, misogyny, rising prices, booming income and wealth differences and authoritarian governance. Resistance events and struggles everywhere need to begin to go from great on one issue to great on all issues. They need to appeal to and empower not mainly one constituency but all those with an interest in immediate and ultimately also in fundamental change. That will start to ratify the R-Word for this moment and also for the long march toward winning fulfilling freedom for all.

If young people stay home from school and consumers don’t consume and workers don’t work this Friday even just in Minneapolis much less throughout Minnesota it will be a huge step toward resurrecting and ratifying the R-Word there and toward inspiring other locales to do so elsewhere as well. Trump and Co. and their followers will hear that loud and clear. Our fear will decline. Their fear will rise.

Afterword: My last article, “Three Strategic Issues: What to Say or Write? What to Do? and Who to Do it With? Plus Taylor, Steph, and Caitlin…”, concluded with some entreaties to citizens with large audiences and ample media means to address them. It mentioned a number of such personalities by name and noted that while grass roots participants are the heart and soul of the now growing resistance, contributions from notable singers, actors, athletes, labor leaders, and more, and in high school and college classrooms from teachers and professors, can help create room for and inspire many more people to stand tall. And wouldn’t you know it, the man called The Boss with love and respect, not derision, last night previewed how to do it and today his words are all over. Look it up. At a New Jersey festival Bruce Springsteen introduced his song “The Promised Land” with these words:

“This next song is probably one of my greatest songs. And I don’t want to be out of water tonight, but I wrote this song as an ode to American possibility … both to the beautiful but flawed country that we are, and to the country that we could be. Now, right now, we are living through incredibly critical times. The United States, the ideals and the values for which it stood for the past 250 years, is being tested as it has never been in modern times. Those values and those ideals have never been as endangered as they are right now. So as we gather tonight in this beautiful display of love and care and thoughtfulness and community … if you believe in democracy, in liberty … if you believe that truth still matters, and that it’s worth speaking out, and it’s worth fighting for … if you believe in the power of the law and that no one stands above it … if you stand against heavily armed masked federal troops invading American cities, and using Gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens … if you believe you don’t deserve to be murdered for exercising your American right to protest … then send a message to this President. And as the Mayor of that city has said, ICE should get the fuck out of Minneapolis. So this one is for you, and the memory of the mother of three and American citizen Renee Good.”

Gestapo indeed. Ratify the R-Word.Email

avatar

Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork.

Friday, January 16, 2026

YO AMERIKA
Putting a Stop to Trump’s Gestapo Begins With You

Let’s be clear. The problem is not the protesters. It’s the armed thugs who are shooting and murdering them.



ICE agents confront an observer on January 13, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Trump administration has deployed over 2,400 Department of Homeland Security agents to the state of Minnesota in a push to apprehend undocumented immigrants.
(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Robert Reich
Jan 16, 2026
Inequality Media

Since Renee Good’s death, clashes between ICE and the residents of Minneapolis have escalated. On Wednesday night, an ICE agent shot and wounded someone who, ICE claimed, was fleeing arrest. (Sure, just like Good supposedly was trying to run them over when she turned her car away from them and said, moments before an agent fired three bullets into her chest and head, “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you.”)

I’ve always loved Minneapolis. Its people have midwestern common sense. They also have a deep sense of fairness and justice.

On Wednesday, Trump threatened that if Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota didn’t stop the protesters, whom he referred to as “insurrectionists,” he would “institute the INSURRECTION ACT… and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.”

Let’s be clear. The problem is not the protesters. It’s the armed thugs who are shooting and murdering them. (Trump seems capable of seeing a similar dynamic playing out in Iran and vows to protect the protesters there, but not in America.)

A friend who knows a lot more than I do about America’s armed forces recently wrote:
There are four kinds of people who join the armed forces: those from a traditional military family, true patriots who want to serve their country, those with no other prospects who need a job, and psychotics who just want to kill people.

The armed services do a pretty decent job of screening out the fourth group, but that group is now the prime recruitment pool for ICE. Racists, haters, gun nuts, and cage fighting fans who want to shoot anyone the least bit different from them. They are becoming America’s Gestapo. That is no exaggeration. We’re slipping into Nazi Germany.

He’s exactly right.

ICE is reportedly investing $100 million in what it calls “wartime recruitment” of 10,000 new agents, in addition to the 20,000 already employed.

It has lowered its recruitment standards to meet the deportation targets set by Stephen Miller (Trump’s deputy chief of staff for promoting bigotry and nativism), thereby increasing the numbers of untrained and dangerous agents on the streets.

ICE’s recruitment is aimed at gun and military enthusiasts and people who listen to right-wing radio, have gone to Ultimate Fighting Championship fights or shopped for guns and tactical gear, live near military bases, and attend NASCAR races.

It’s seeking recruits who are willing to perform their “sacred duty” and “defend the homeland” by repelling “foreign invaders.”

If I had my way, ICE would be abolished and Border Patrol agents sent back to the border. But this isn’t going to happen under Trump and his Republican lapdogs in Congress. Too many Democrats are almost as spineless when it comes to abolishing ICE.

But Congress can still take action to rein in ICE. At the very least, it must disarm ICE.

The Trump regime is allowing ICE officers to use lethal force in self-defense. But we’ve seen how readily ICE and Border Patrol agents claim self-defense when they’re shooting our compatriots.

How do we disarm ICE?

Congress is now considering the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding runs out at the end of January.

Please demand—call your members of Congress and tell them in no uncertain terms—that the DHS spending bill prohibit ICE and Border Patrol agents from carrying guns and that it unambiguously declare that agents do not have absolute immunity under the law if they harm civilians.

Do this as soon as you can.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee (and an old friend), said Tuesday that she’s seeking to put limits on ICE in the DHS spending bill. “I am looking for policy riders in the Homeland Security bill to [be] able to rein in ICE.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that Democrats will oppose the bill unless Republicans agree to new rules governing ICE officers. “ICE cannot conduct itself as if it’s above the law.”

There is no reason for ICE agents to be armed. If they are shot at—and there’s no record of this ever actually happening — they could readily summon state or local police to protect their safety.

ICE was designed to be mainly an investigative agency, not a militarized arm of the presidency. ICE agents are not adequately trained to use deadly force.

In addition, ICE agents prowling our streets in unmarked cars, wearing masks, clad in body armor and carrying long guns, are a clear provocation to violence—both by them and by otherwise law-abiding residents of our towns and cities who feel they must stop their brutality.

Trump, Vance, and Miller want to provoke violent confrontations so they can justify even more oppression — including invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow Trump to call in the regular military. “I’d be allowed to do that,” Trump said in October, referring to the act, “and the courts wouldn’t get involved, nobody would get involved, and I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, I can send anybody I wanted.”

Please: tell your members of Congress not to vote for the DHS spending bill unless it stipulates that ICE be disarmed.

Also tell them that the bill must restrict ICE and Border Patrol’s ability to conduct dragnet arrest operations and target people based on their race, language or accent. And the bill must clarify that ICE agents are liable under civil and criminal law if they harm civilians.

The Trump regime is telling agents they have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits if they kill or maim or otherwise hurt civilians. “That guy is protected by absolute immunity,” JD Vance said of the ICE agent who killed Renee Good. “He was doing his job.”

DHS went so far as to post a clip of Stephen Miller saying, “You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.”

Rubbish. There’s no such absolute immunity under the law. Regardless of what the FBI concludes, I hope and expect the state of Minnesota will open a criminal investigation of the agent who murdered Renee Good and, on the basis of the evidence uncovered, prosecute him for murder under state law.

It would be useful for Congress to make it crystal clear in the DHS spending bill now under consideration that ICE agents do not enjoy absolute legal immunity.

Please call your representative and senators today and tell them not to vote for the DHS spending bill unless it (1) disarms ICE agents, (2) prevents them from targeting people based on their race, language, or accent, and (3) stipulates that agents who harm civilians are liable under criminal and civil laws.

To reach your representative or senator, call the US Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Tell them the state and city where you live. They will connect you to any member’s office.

© 2025 Robert Reich


Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
Full Bio >



Mussolini Had His Blackshirts, Hitler Has the SS, and Trump Has ICE

The existence of this profoundly unaccountable, overtly fascist military apparatus poses a structural danger to our democracy. This is why “Abolish ICE” is an extremely moderate position.


ICE and other federal officers remove a woman from her vehicle near an area where ICE was operating in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 13, 2026.
(Photo by Octavio JONES / AFP via Getty Images)


Aaron Regunberg
Jan 16, 2026
Common Dreams

On Tuesday of this week, The Economist and YouGov released a poll finding, for the first time, that more Americans want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) than don’t.



According to the poll, 46 percent of people support getting rid of ICE, compared to 43 percent who oppose its abolition. This represents a major shift in public opinion—this same polling outfit found only 27 percent support for abolishing ICE as recently as July. Today’s survey also found that most Americans believe ICE is making them less, not more safe, by a margin of 47 percent to 34 percent.




‘Part of a Larger War’: Whistleblower Exposes ICE Effort to Spy on Immigrants—and Americans

In perfect form, this morning the centrist advocacy group Third Way released a memo warning Democrats not to call for dismantling ICE, arguing that “politically, it is lethal.” Their evidence includes a focus group they conducted in October, which…is dumb. ICE’s execution of Renee Nicole Good has broken through—69 percent of Americans report having seen video of the shooting. This has clearly impacted public opinion in a way that makes information from months ago significantly irrelevant.

We cannot let the Third Ways of the world—the centrist establishment muckety mucks whose version of the Democratic Party already lost to Trump, twice—win this debate. It’s simply too important.

There are lots of reasons to dismantle ICE. There’s a functional argument: We do not need ICE to enforce immigration laws; the U.S. handled this just fine for 227 years prior to the creation of this specific agency. There’s a fiscal argument: ICE is now larger than every other federal law enforcement agency combined. It’s larger than the militaries of all but 15 countries in the world! It’s annual budget, $37.5 billion, could pay for the health insurance of every needy child in the country!

But the core reason for abolishing ICE is that it poses a structural threat to American democracy. This is an unaccountable agency, by design. ICE is not subject to the rules governing local or state police departments; there are no laws barring ICE agents from wearing masks, driving in unmarked cars, and operating in plainclothes. ICE was designed after 9/11 to support the FBI’s domestic terrorism efforts, with almost nothing in the way of transparency or guardrails. So what happens when domestic terrorism gets defined as expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity,” and “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality,” as Trump’s NSPM-7 directive and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent memo to the FBI do?

Well, what happens is everything that we are seeing from ICE today—a federal agency operating quite explicitly as Trump’s personal militia. Mussolini had his Blackshirts, Hitler had his SS, and Trump has ICE—an army of ideologically motivated MAGA loyalist chuds whose new members owe their employment not to the state (being largely unqualified for positions in legitimate law enforcement agencies) but rather to Trump’s personal patronage.

The existence of this profoundly unaccountable, overtly fascist military apparatus poses a structural danger to our democracy. Structural dangers like this can’t be reformed—they need to be dismantled. “We shouldn’t have a Gestapo in this country” isn’t a radical position. It’s actually the only non-radical position you can take on the question. That’s long been true morally. And today’s polling shows it’s true politically, as well. In every way, abolishing ICE is now the moderate position.

So email your Democratic elected officials, call their offices, speak up at their town halls. Tell our Democratic representatives and senators that they need to use every tool at their disposal—including, in the near term, the Congressional appropriations process—to stand up to this rogue militia. And help our Democratic leaders understand—if we are so lucky, come 2028, to get a second chance at resetting our democracy—that getting rid of Trump’s SS is nonnegotiable.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Aaron Regunberg
Aaron Regunberg (he/him) is director of Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, where he leads Public Citizen’s efforts to hold Big Oil companies legally accountable for their climate crimes.
Full Bio >


‘No,’ Says Bernie Sanders, ‘The American People Do Not Want Trump’s Domestic Army’

Sanders’ likening of ICE to a “domestic army” comes as more footage out of Minneapolis shows federal immigration agents violently assaulting protesters and legal observers.


Federal agents keep protesters away from the area where an immigration enforcement agent shot and wounded a man in north Minneapolis on January 14, 2026.
(Photo by Jeff Wheeler/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Jan 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday called attention to the massive amount of money that Republicans have been shoveling toward federal immigration enforcement during a time when many US citizens are facing eye-popping increases in health insurance premiums and struggling to afford groceries.

In a social media post, Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year gave US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a $28 billion annual budget, which he said is “larger than the annual budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons COMBINED.”



Amid Fears of ‘Imminent’ Strike on Iran, Poll Shows US Public Opposes Trump Military Interventions


“No,” Sanders added. “The American people do not want Trump’s domestic army.”

Sanders’ likening of ICE to a “domestic army” comes as shocking footage out of Minneapolis shows ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents violently assaulting protesters and legal observers.

The Minnesota Star-Tribune on Thursday posted a video compilation of federal immigration agents threatening, shoving, and pepper spraying Minneapolis residents.


The video also featured testimonies from locals who had gotten into confrontations with ICE.

Ryan Ecklund, a real estate agent from the suburb of Woodbury, Minnesota, said that he was slammed to the ground by federal officers after they spotted him filming them from his car.

“Five ICE officers approached my vehicle, boxed me in with their vehicles, and all five of them forcibly removed me from my car,” he said. “They threw me to the ground, which is where I got some of the road rash on my face, and I was detained at the Whipple Detention Center for approximately 10 hours.”

Minneapolis resident Zoë Cantu described being shot with rubber bullets by federal agents.

“I came across an ICE agent, they were turning onto a major highway, and as they were turning, I had a walk signal and started crossing the street,” she said. “And when I wasn’t moving as quickly as they would like, both the driver and the passenger jumped out of the car and they pulled weapons on us—while they were driving, I might add, not even pulled over—and fired rubber bullets.”

A man name Shawn Jackson told local news station Fox 9 on Thursday that three of his children had to be hospitalized after ICE agents detonated a flash-bang grenade while he was driving with them in North Minneapolis.

“Officers threw flash bangs and tear gas in my car,” he explained. “My 6-month-old can’t even breathe... My car filled with tear gas, I’m trying to pull my kids from the car.”


Jackson’s wife, Destiny Jackson, told Fox 9 that she had to perform CPR on their six-month-old child, who was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment along with two other children.

The Jacksons also said that they weren’t even in the area to protest against ICE, but were instead trying to get out of the area to keep their children safe.

“My kids were innocent, I was innocent, my husband was innocent, this shouldn’t have happened,” Destiny Jackson said. “We were just trying to go home.”

Israel, From Genocide to Self-Destruction

Source: Jacobin

The genocide in Gaza radicalizes Zionism’s long-standing colonial project. But Israeli leaders’ open rejection of any future possibility of a Palestinian state have undercut their own international legitimacy.

It has been three months since the ceasefire was announced in Palestine, imposed as a consequence of Donald Trump’s so-called peace plan. In November, the United Nations Security Council ratified this “peace plan,” intended to govern the organization and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. While it states that there should be “a credible path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood,” it contains hardly any concrete political measures to guarantee this process.

Meanwhile, the destruction of Gaza continues: According to the BBC, Israeli forces have demolished thousands more buildings since the ceasefire began. Experts estimate that over 80 percent of buildings in Gaza are destroyed or at least severely damaged. Over 10 percent of the population is dead, injured, or missing.

Due to the brutality of Israel’s war conduct, the first observers raised the accusation of genocide as early as October 7, 2023, although this accusation was and remains controversial, especially in Germany. One of the first to speak openly of genocide was Avi Shlaim, an Israeli British historian of Iraqi Jewish origin. An emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University, he is one of Israel’s new generation of historians who advocate a historiography beyond the official Zionist national myth.

His latest bookGenocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine, received an especially controversial reception in Germany last fall, around the time of the ceasefire. In an interview originally conducted for the German-language edition of Jacobin, Shlaim explains how far the recent war and genocide in Gaza represented a continuation of Israel’s historical policy.


Bafta Sarbo

For your newly published book, you wrote a special foreword for the German edition. At the press conference in Berlin, your publisher Abi Melzer talked about how the title has caused quite a stir among some journalists in Germany. Could you explain why you chose this title?

Avi Shlaim

None of my previous books have been translated into German, so I was especially keen to reach a German audience. Westend Verlag were interested in publishing the German edition, but eventually they got cold feet, and they suggested adding a question mark, so the title would be “Genocide in Gaza?” I didn’t agree to add a question mark, because in my mind, there is no longer any question as to whether Israel is guilty of genocide. Abi Melzer, a German Jew and an anti-Zionist, then decided to publish it with the original title, without a question mark.

In the preface to the German edition, I said that it didn’t come easily for me to accuse Israel of genocide. It seemed almost perverse to accuse the Jewish state of committing genocide when the Jews were the main victims of the Nazi genocide in World War II. Moreover, a couple of years ago, I published an autobiography under the heading Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab Jew. I’m an Arab Jew because I was born in Baghdad, and I grew up in Israel. This book is a searing critique of Zionism and especially of its treatment of the Jews of the Arab lands. But I added that, for all its sins, Israel has never committed genocide.

That was my position before the outbreak of the war in Gaza. Even at the beginning of the war, it did not look to me as if Israel was committing genocide. The turning point for me was when Israel used starvation as a weapon of war on a massive scale. When Israel suspended all international aid to Gaza, deprived the people of Gaza of water and food and fuel and medical supplies, that convinced me that this is genocide.

Then, there is the legal definition of genocide. In 1948, the “Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” was concluded in order to prevent a repeat of what happened to the Jews under Nazi Germany. The message of the Holocaust was never again — never again for everybody, not just for Jews.

The convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent of destroying, in whole or in part, an ethnic, religious, or racial group. What Israel has been doing in Gaza is an attempt to destroy a whole ethnic group. The convention lists five criteria, five acts, that constitute genocide, and Israel is guilty of all of them.

One is killing members of the group. Israel has killed about 69,000 people in Gaza and injured nearly 200,000. Second is inflicting mental and physical suffering on the people. Third, creating conditions for the group that make it very difficult to sustain life. Israel has made Gaza unlivable. Fourth, preventing birth in the group. Israel has done that by attacking the entire health system, including maternity wards in hospitals. The fifth act is transferring children of the group to another group. Israel is not guilty of that. But what Israel has done is much, much worse. Israel has killed over 20,000 children in Gaza and made 40,000 children orphans. So, in a very real sense, this is a war on children.

I therefore conclude that Israel is indisputably guilty of genocide in Gaza. This is not just my opinion; many leading Israeli experts on the Holocaust, like Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, and Raz Segal, have concluded that this is a classic case of genocide.

Bafta Sarbo

Could you elaborate on how this genocide especially affects Palestinian children? You write hospitals in Gaza had to introduce a new acronym, WCNSF (wounded child, no surviving family). You also have drawings and pictures of wounded children in Gaza printed in your book.

Avi Shlaim

The attack on children is particularly distressing, and the attack on civilians is very deplorable, and Israel has done both. Killing civilians is wrong if it’s committed by Hamas or if it’s committed by Israel; it’s a terrorist act. I regard this war and the previous seven Israeli military assaults on Gaza as acts of state terrorism. The principal distinction made in international humanitarian law is between combatants and noncombatants. Israel has blurred this distinction. For example, Israel said that, if it gives civilians the order to evacuate and they refuse the order, they become legitimate military targets. Wrong. The forcible displacement of civilians is a war crime in itself, and Israel has been committing this war crime on an almost daily basis for the last two years.

Some civilians have been displaced ten times and even more. In many cases, when civilians obey the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) orders to evacuate, they then get bombed and killed from the air. So, there are no safe zones in Gaza. There is nowhere where civilians can feel safe.

Over 70 percent of the casualties in this war have been women and children. The deliberate assault on, the killing and maiming of children, is particularly deplorable because they are totally defenseless. President Isaac Herzog, at the beginning of the crisis, said there are no innocent people in Gaza. The 20,000 children who were murdered in Gaza are therefore not innocent by his definition. The attack on children was accompanied by genocidal statements by Israeli leaders saying, kill the snakes, because if children grow up, they will become terrorists. That is the perverse Israeli moral justification for killing children in Gaza.

Therefore, in my book, there is a particular emphasis on the war on children. And as you pointed out, there is a whole section of photographs about children during the war in Gaza and very distressing images of real cruelty, even sadism. But the photographs also convey the resilience and the courage of the children in Gaza.

Bafta Sarbo

For these war crimes, there has been an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu. In your book, you describe how Netanyahu’s actions throughout his whole political career have been aimed at preventing a Palestinian state. To what extent would you say the current course is the logical endgame to his whole political career?

Avi Shlaim

Benjamin Netanyahu grew up in a very nationalistic Zionist home, and he’s always been on the right wing of the Zionist movement. He personifies some of the most negative aspects of Zionism, like racism, militarism, and Jewish supremacy, but, above all, the territorial ambition of the Israeli right, which is Greater Israel. His political career has been dedicated to preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

But he is not alone: the Likud party has never accepted the case for a two-state solution. The policy guidelines of Netanyahu’s current government say that Jews have an exclusive right to sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel, which for nationalists includes the West Bank or, as they prefer to call it, Judea and Samaria. This is a stark denial of any Palestinian national rights anywhere in historic Palestine. This position of the Netanyahu government is more extreme than the July 2018 Jewish Nation-State law, which said the Jews have a unique right to self-determination in the State of Israel. This was a claim to exclusive Jewish rights to statehood within the pre-1967 borders of Israel, but it didn’t lay the claim to Jewish sovereignty over the West Bank.

Netanyahu, before the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, used to boast that Israel has won, that the Palestinians are defeated, and that without conceding anything to the Palestinians, Israel can have peace treaties with Arab states. He was referring to the Abraham Accords, the peace accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, which were brokered by Donald Trump in his first term as US president in 2020. For Netanyahu, this was a major diplomatic victory: peace with Sunni Arab states without making any concessions on the Palestinian issue.

There used to be a collective Arab position on peace with Israel embodied in the Arab Peace Initiative, which was adopted at the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002. It says Israel can have peace and normalization with all twenty-two members of the Arab League in return for an end of occupation and an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital city in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu has always rejected this offer and laid a claim to exclusive Jewish sovereignty over the entire area, from the river to the sea. The premise of this policy was that Hamas would be able to govern Gaza. Hamas would be contained within Gaza as an open-air prison without threatening Israel’s security.

But on October 7, Hamas launched the most devastating attack on Israelis since 1948, so Netanyahu’s position was undermined. The Hamas attack sent the powerful message that the Palestinians will not be sidelined; the Palestinian issue will remain on the international agenda; and resistance will continue to the Israeli occupation under the leadership of Hamas. Netanyahu then changed his tune and reversed his policy. Now he said that Hamas is completely unacceptable in any form. His new war aim was the total eradication of Hamas. But this is impossible because as long as there are people in Gaza, there will be resistance. The proof is that after two years of relentless bombardment, Hamas is still standing and still fighting.

Netanyahu’s other war aim is permanent Israeli military control over Gaza. The undeclared war aim is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Netanyahu has gone a long way toward achieving this aim by destroying over 80 percent of the housing and civilian infrastructure of Gaza; by destroying the health care system; by the systematic destruction of the educational system; and by drastically reducing the ability of the Gazans to grow their own food. So far, he has succeeded in preventing the birth of a Palestinian state.

You asked about whether this is the logical endgame of Netanyahu’s career. In a sense, it is, although he’s gone too far and engaged in genocide, which was never part of any previous Israeli plan. This is really damaging in the long run because he’s destroyed any claim by Israel to hold the moral high ground. This is encapsulated in the International Criminal Court arrest warrant for him, because now the prime minister of Israel is a war criminal, which means that Israel is a criminal state. He has inflicted permanent damage to Israel’s international reputation. He’s on trial for serious corruption charges inside Israel, and he’s also a fugitive from international justice. And he knows that if there is an election, his party would lose, he would lose his immunity, and he’ll probably end up in jail. The war in Gaza has been a strategic disaster for Israel, and a major reason for pursuing it was Netanyahu’s desire to stay out of jail.Now the prime minister of Israel is a war criminal, which means that Israel is a criminal state.

Bafta Sarbo

Could you elaborate on how, even before Netanyahu, there was never a path toward Palestinian statehood?

Avi Shlaim

There is a very broad international consensus behind the two-state solution. What that means in practical terms is an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with a capital city in East Jerusalem; a state alongside, not in place of Israel. In rhetoric, some [Israeli] Labor leaders accepted the two-state solution, but in reality they have done nothing to bring it about. And the proof is that under both Labor and Likud governments since 1967, there has been a steady expansion of settlements, which means that they’re not prepared to concede the whole of the West Bank to a Palestinian state.

It has become fashionable to say the two-state solution is dead. Israel killed it by building settlements, by annexing East Jerusalem back in June 1967, and by building the security barrier on the West Bank, which effectively annexes about 10 percent of the territory and separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. What is left is isolated Palestinian enclaves on the West Bank, surrounded by Israeli military bases and settlements. That’s not a basis for a viable, territorially contiguous Palestinian state.

I would argue that the two-state solution is not just dead. It was never born, because no Israeli government of any color since 1967 has offered a concrete formula for a two-state solution that is acceptable even to the most moderate Palestinian leaders. That’s [reason] number one. Number two is that no American administration has pushed Israel into a settlement, so the status quo persisted. Until now, all American presidents, except Trump, supported a two-state solution.

It’s convenient for Western politicians like Joe Biden and Sir Keir Starmer to say that they support a two-state solution. This sounds reasonable. But they have done nothing to realize it. I am tired of repeating that the two-state solution is dead. I have a German research assistant, a former graduate student, and I asked her, “How do you say it in German?” And she said, “Die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung ist tot.”

Bafta Sarbo

After Hamas won elections in Gaza in 2006, Israel, the United States, and the European Union responded not with recognition but with economic warfare against Gaza. Could you describe the aftermath of the 2006 election — how Gaza was systematically economically and politically underdeveloped?

Avi Shlaim

Israel and its friends maintain that the Hamas attack on October 7 was a bolt from the blue and that history begins on that day. But the conflict started at least as far back as June 1967. It’s not really a conflict but a colonial occupation of Palestinian land. The real issue is Israel’s military occupation. It’s the most prolonged and brutal military occupation of modern times. That’s the real background; the October 7 Hamas attack is an expression of Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation. People don’t know the history of this conflict between Israel and Hamas. The past is crucial for understanding how we got here. It’s my job as a historian to put Hamas’s behavior in its proper historical context.

I would like to single out a few key turning points in this conflict and to start with the Hamas victory in the all-Palestine elections in January 2006. It was a fair and free election throughout the occupied territories, and Hamas won it. Israel refused to recognize the democratically elected government and resorted to economic warfare. Israel collects taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and it can always withhold them in an arbitrary manner.

Israel did everything to make it impossible for the elected government to govern. The United States and the European Union, to their eternal discredit, sided with Israel in refusing to recognize this government. The Western powers say that their aim is to promote democracy in the Middle East. Here there was a shining example of democracy in action under the most difficult conditions of military occupation, but the Western powers completely disregarded the results of the election. What in effect they were saying is that democracy is a good idea in theory, but here the people voted for the wrong bunch of politicians so that we cannot accept them as a legitimate government.

They implemented a series of economic and political measures designed to undermine the Hamas government. In March 2007, Hamas formed a national unity government with Fatah and offered Israel negotiations on a long-term ceasefire of ten, twenty, or thirty years. Hamas’s aim previously had been a unitary Islamic state from the river to the sea, but once it was in power, it became more pragmatic, and it was prepared to settle for a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Israel refused to negotiate, and the national unity government collapsed in June 2007.

We now know from the Palestine Papers, a collection of 1,600 documents of the peace process that were leaked to Al Jazeera, that there was a plot against Hamas when it was in government. The participants in this plot were Fatah, Israel, the United States, and Egyptian intelligence. They formed a secret committee called the Gaza Committee. The aim was to isolate, weaken and ultimately drive Hamas out of power. Israel and America armed and encouraged Fatah to stage a coup against Hamas. In June 2007, Hamas preempted a Fatah coup by seizing power in Gaza.

Since then, Gaza and the West Bank were kept firmly separate by Israel to prevent a unified resistance movement. Once Hamas seized power, Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza. A blockade is an act of collective punishment that is proscribed by international law, and the blockade of Gaza had been in place since 2007. This history is very important for understanding the context for the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.

The leading expert on Gaza, Sara Roy, is a Jewish academic at Harvard. The first of her five books about Gaza was called The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development. Her thesis was that Israel since 1967 pursued a systematic policy of preventing Gaza from developing trade with the outside world, agriculture, and fishing industries. Gaza was exploited as a source of cheap labor and a market for Israeli goods. Gaza is not poor and underdeveloped because the people are lazy or incompetent. It’s poor and underdeveloped because of the systematic Israeli policy of de-development. And the last and most crucial stage in this consistent policy is the physical destruction of Gaza that has happened in the last two years.

Bafta Sarbo

Coming back to the systematic separation between the West Bank and Gaza: While the world’s eyes are obviously on Gaza, what is the situation like in the West Bank?

Avi Shlaim

The present government, headed by Netanyahu, has some extremist coalition partners, in particular Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of Religious Zionism, and Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of Jewish Power. These are overtly racist, far-right, extreme, messianic, religious Zionist parties. They are, above all, Jewish supremacist. The explicit agenda is the eventual and formal annexation of the West Bank as part of the Land of Israel, and they’ve been pursuing it since they came into power in 2022.

In the last two years, the war in Gaza attracted most international attention and diverted attention from the West Bank. This was exploited by the right-wingers in this government in order to expand settlements and to intensify the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank that has been going on steadily for years. In the last two years, we have seen a massive escalation of settler violence against the Palestinians. And this is done with the encouragement of the government and the protection of the army. You have to look at what Israel has been doing in Gaza and on the West Bank in parallel. In Gaza, it began with the aim of ethnic cleansing and degenerated into genocide, and on the West Bank there has been a massive intensification of violence against the population, with the aim of the ethnic cleansing of the whole of Palestine.

Bafta Sarbo

You finished writing your book in October 2024. But at the press conference in Berlin, you talked about your assessment of how Trump’s peace plan came about. Can you explain why this so-called peace plan came then and not earlier, when Israel attacked several sovereign states?

Avi Shlaim

America gives Israel $3.8 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic protection by wielding the veto in the Security Council to defeat any resolution that isn’t to Israel’s liking. The problem with American support for Israel is that it is not conditional on Israel respecting international law or Palestinian human rights. Joe Biden was a proponent of this policy of unconditional support for Israel. During the war in Gaza, his administration, America gave Israel $21.7 billion in military aid.

Trump continued this policy until Israel attacked Doha, the capital of Qatar. When Israel had attacked Iran, America eventually weighed in and also illegally attacked Iran. Iran is an enemy, but Qatar is a close ally of the United States. Qatar had been playing a constructive role in trying to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The Hamas political leaders were based in Doha, and Israel tried to assassinate the people who were negotiating a ceasefire. America’s biggest military base in the Middle East is in Qatar. This attack frightened not just the Qataris but all the Gulf rulers because America failed to protect them. Trump forced Netanyahu to call the Qatari prime minister and apologize for this attack and then gave assurances that this wouldn’t happen again.I cannot envisage that one day the Israeli public will wake up and come back to its senses and say we were wrong to use force.

It was only in the aftermath of this attack on Doha that Trump put effective pressure on Israel to have a ceasefire. But Trump’s so-called peace plan for the Middle East is not a peace plan.

I don’t want to belittle the importance of this development. It involved an end of fighting, the resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and an exchange of the Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, so three very positive developments came out of it. The plan is very thin on details, but the details that are there envisage an international board headed by Trump, and below it there would be an executive committee of “nonpolitical” Palestinians — in other words, not Hamas people, but handpicked people who are acceptable to Israel, and they would have to run Gaza. The Palestinians will have no agency and no say in running their own affairs. Nor is there any plan for elections. The obvious thing at the end of a war is to allow the people who live there to run their own affairs. But this is a colonial project, with America and Israel imposing it on the Palestinians. It doesn’t begin to deal with the underlying problem, which is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

There’s another dimension to this. Israel is completely devastated Gaza, and it will take years to just clear the rubble before you start reconstruction. Trump’s plan doesn’t require Israel to pay any reparations to the people of Gaza, nor does America plan to put any money into the reconstruction. The idea is to get the rich Gulf states to pay. And the question arises, why should any Arab government agree to put money into the rebuilding of Gaza when the next Israeli assault could happen any time, and we’ll be back to square one? So, there are many unanswered questions.

Bafta Sarbo

If this is not a viable peace plan, how could a lasting peace be reached? The far-right Israeli government is often criticized domestically. Still, the actions in Gaza enjoy broad support among the political opposition and the population in Israel. In fact, there’s a big demand for a much tougher approach to Gaza. Do you see any prospects for Israel to initiate positive changes from within?

Avi Shlaim

This is exactly the paradox today. Netanyahu is very unpopular in Israel, but the war in Gaza is not. One public opinion poll showed that more than 50 percent of Israelis think that the IDF did not use enough force, that it should use more force. There is an Israeli saying, “If force doesn’t work, use more force.” This is a completely idiotic notion, because force doesn’t touch the underlying political problem. The problem is colonial occupation by Israel. Israel has launched eight military assaults on Gaza, starting with Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. Israeli generals call these assaults “mowing the lawn.” Mowing the lawn is something that you do mechanically every now and again, but it doesn’t stop the grass from growing, so you just have to keep going back and inflicting more death and devastation on Gaza.

This government reflects the shift in Israeli society over the last twenty-five years, since the Second Intifada — a shift to the right. It represents the Israeli public and their views. So, I don’t see any prospect of reform from within. I cannot envisage that one day the Israeli public will wake up and come back to its senses and say we were wrong to use force. It doesn’t give us security. It only leads to more violence and bloodshed. If there is going to be any change in Israel’s position, it would have to be as a result of external pressure. And external pressure on Israel is building up; it’s reflected in the growing number of countries that recognize Palestine. Most significant were the British and French recognition. This means that today on the Security Council, four permanent members — Russia, China, and now Britain and France — have recognized Palestine. America is the odd one out, still offering Israel diplomatic protection. But this cannot last forever.

I believe that eventually Israel will go down the same way as South Africa. America and Israel were the last supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and America will be the last supporter of the Israeli apartheid regime. This is a long-term process, with Israel losing international support and losing legitimacy.

In the meantime, the question arises, what is the solution to this conflict? I used to support a two-state solution until Israel killed it with settlements. So, now I advocate one state from the river to the sea, with equal rights — with freedom, dignity, and equal rights for all the people who live in this space. You may say that this is pie in the sky — and I don’t care, because the real choice today is not between a two-state solution and a one-state solution. The real choice is between the status quo, colonialism, apartheid, Jewish supremacy, brute force, which is totally unacceptable to me — and another solution, which is the one-state solution, which is what I believe in. What matters to me is not whether it’s one state or two states but equality. You can’t have democracy if you have two classes of citizens. And from the river to the sea, the Palestinians, including the Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel, are second-class citizens.

Therefore, what I want to see is equal rights for all the people who live in this space. This involves the liberation not only of the occupied Palestinian territories but of pre-1967 Israel as well.

Avi Shlaim is an Israeli and British historian of Iraqi Jewish descent. He is one of Israel's "New Historians", a group of Israeli scholars who put forward critical interpretations of the history of Zionism and Israel.