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

Thursday, May 08, 2025

 

The Extermination of the Palestinian People and Theft of Their Homeland





Why are the supposedly Christian governments of the West helping a glaringly evil regime such as Israel to do this?



Thought I’d share with you an attempt to hold my MP to account for Westminster’s shameful complicity in Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. The talking-points may help if you’re about to do the same with your MP or senator.

Israel: after 19 months of non-stop genocide where do you stand Mr Cooper?

ku.tnemailrap@pm.repooc.nhoj

Dear Mr Cooper,

In your communications to me in February and October last year some remarks were misleading and sounded as if penned by Israel’s propaganda scribblers in Tel Aviv. Given your journalistic background it was hoped you would sniff out and reject such disinformation. With the situation in Gaza now so horrific a more considered reply would be welcome, please, from our representative at Westminster.

  • You said: “Israel has suffered the worst terror attack in its history at the hands of Hamas.”

But you omitted the context. In the 23 years prior to October 7 Israel had been slaughtering Palestinians at the rate of 8:1 and children at the rate of 16:1. Why overlook this? 7,200 Palestinian hostages, including 88 women and 250 children, were held in Israeli jails on that fateful day. Over 1,200 were under ‘administrative detention’ without charge or trial and denied ‘due process’ (B’Tselem figures). October 7 was therefore a retaliation against extreme provocation. Or were we expecting the Palestinians to take all that lying down?

Evidence is now emerging that the IDF inflicted many of the casualties on their own people that day in order to provide a pretext for their long-planned genocidal assault.

Early in the genocide JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace), the largest progressive Jewish anti-Zionist organization in the world, described the situation leading up to October 7 rather well:

The Israeli government may have just declared war, but its war on Palestinians started over 75 years ago. Israeli apartheid and occupation — and United States complicity in that oppression — are the source of all this violence…. For the past year, the most racist, fundamentalist, far-right government in Israeli history has ruthlessly escalated its military occupation over Palestinians in the name of Jewish supremacy with violent expulsions and home demolitions, mass killings, military raids on refugee camps, unrelenting siege and daily humiliation….

For 16 years, the Israeli government has suffocated Palestinians in Gaza under a draconian air, sea and land military blockade, imprisoning and starving two million people and denying them medical aid. The Israeli government routinely massacres Palestinians in Gaza; ten-year-olds who live in Gaza have already been traumatized by seven major bombing campaigns in their short lives.

For 75 years, the Israeli government has maintained a military occupation over Palestinians, operating an apartheid regime. Palestinian children are dragged from their beds in pre-dawn raids by Israeli soldiers and held without charge in Israeli military prisons. Palestinians’ homes are torched by mobs of Israeli settlers, or destroyed by the Israeli army. Entire Palestinian villages are forced to flee, abandoning the homes orchards, and land that were in their family for generations.

The bloodshed of today and the past 75 years traces back directly to US complicity in the oppression and horror caused by Israel’s military occupation. The US government consistently enables Israeli violence and bears blame for this moment. The unchecked military funding, diplomatic cover, and billions of dollars of private money flowing from the US enables and empowers Israel’s apartheid regime.

  • You said: “I support Israel’s right to defend itself, in line with international humanitarian law.”

The UN itself has made it clear that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”, and many law experts have said the same.

On the other hand the Palestinians’ right to resist is confirmed in UN Resolution 3246 which calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subject to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, and to assist them in their struggle, and reaffirms the Palestinians’ right to use “all available means, including armed struggle” in their fight for freedom.

Furthermore UN Resolution 37/43 gives them an unquestionable right, in their struggle for liberation, to “eliminate the threat posed by Israel by all available means including armed struggle”. And as China reminded everyone at the ICJ, “armed resistance against occupation is enshrined in international law and is not terrorism”.

  • You said “There is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel.”

How right you are! Under international law Palestinians have an inalienable right to self-determination. They properly elected Hamas under international scrutiny in 2006, at the last permitted election. Hamas are the lawful and legitimate rulers in Gaza.

Israel is not the Western-style democracy it pretends to be. It is a deeply unpleasant ethnocracy with recently enacted discriminatory nation-state laws to emphasise its apartheid ‘bottom line’. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, an Israeli human rights organization, has documented entrenched discrimination and socioeconomic differences in “land, urban planning, housing, infrastructure, economic development, and education.”

  • You said: “Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza would be a permanent roadblock to a two-state solution…..A sustainable ceasefire must mean that Hamas is no longer there, able to threaten Israel.”

The US and UK have no right to attempt coercive regime change. Besides, Israel has been a fatal threat to Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) since well before Hamas was even founded.

Sections 16 and 20 of Hamas’s 2017 Charter are in tune with international law while the Israeli government pursues policies that definitely are not.

(s.16) “Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.

(s.20) “Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

The correct and lawful way to deal with the threat posed by Hamas is (and always has been) by requiring Israel to immediately end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, theft of Palestinian resources, and destruction of Palestinian heritage.

  • You said: “I support all steps to bring about a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders.”

Palestinians should not have to negotiate their freedom and self-determination. Under international law it’s their basic right and doesn’t depend on anyone else, such as Israel or the US, agreeing to it. The UK disrespects that, otherwise we would long ago have recognised Palestinian statehood along with the vast majority of nations that have already done so. And why is only Israel allowed to be “safe and secure”?

Britain’s refusal to recognise Palestine is disgraceful. We promised the Palestinian Arabs independence in 1915 in return for their help in defeating the Turks but reneged in 1917 (in favour of the shameful Balfour Declaration). We should have granted Palestine provisional independence in 1923 in accordance with our responsibilities under the League of Nations Mandate Agreement, but didn’t. In 1947 the UN Partition Plan allocated the Palestinians a measly portion of their own homeland and, without consulting them, handed the lion’s share to incomer Jews with no ancestral connection to it… thanks in large part to the Balfour betrayal.

The following year Britain walked away from its mandate responsibilities leaving Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s vicious plan for annexing the Holy Land by military force – “from the river to the sea” – which they’ve pursued relentlessly ever since in defiance of international and humanitarian law, bringing terror, misery, wholesale destruction and ruination to the Palestinians. And now genocide.

Today Britain still refuses to recognise Palestinian independence although 138 other UN member states do.

  • You said: “Settler violence and the demolition of Palestinian homes is intolerable, and I expect to see Ministers firmly raising these issues with the Israeli Government, and taking robust action where necessary.”

The Israeli regime has long ignored representations on such issues, so where is the “robust action” you speak of?

According to B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, “The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence…. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.”

Law expert Ralph Wilde provides this opinion:

There is no right under international law to maintain the occupation pending a peace agreement, or for creating ‘facts on the ground’ that might give Israel advantages in relation to such an agreement, or as a means of coercing the Palestinian people into agreeing on a situation they would not accept otherwise.

Implanting settlers in the hope of eventually acquiring territory is a violation of occupation law by Israel and a war crime on the part of the individuals involved. And it is a violation of Israel’s legal obligation to respect the sovereignty of another state and a violation of Israel’s legal obligation to respect the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people; also a violation of Israel’s obligations in the international law on the use of force. Ending these violations involves immediate removal of the settlers and the settlements from occupied land and an immediate end to Israel’s exercise of control, including its use of military force….

  • You said: “The UK is doing everything it can to get more aid in and open more crossings, and we played a leading role in securing the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2720, which made clear the urgent demand for expanded humanitarian access.”

That went well, didn’t it? It’s sickening how Westminster still won’t accept the truth – that Israel is a depraved and repulsive regime, devoid of humanity, and we should not be supporting it in any way, shape or form.

For decades before October 7 Israel’s illegal control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza and military aggression, ethnic cleansing, restrictions on movement of goods and people, dispossession of prime lands, theft of Palestine’s key resources and destruction of its economy have bordered on slow-motion genocide.

And now the International Court of Justice has clarified that “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”.

The many means available to the British Government include sanctions – which it readily applies to other delinquent nations – and withdrawal of favoured-nation privileges, trade deals, scientific/security collaboration, and cessation of arms supplies. In Israel’s case the British Government, far from using its available deterrent means, has militarily assisted Israel in its genocide.

So let’s remind ourselves of the UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza of 26 October 2023 which arrived at the UK Government with important warnings regarding breaches of international law — for example:

⦁ The UK is duty-bound to “respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law as set out in the Four Geneva Conventions in all circumstances (1949 Geneva Conventions, Common Art 1). That means the UK must not itself assist violations by others.

⦁ The UK Government must immediately halt the export of weapons from the UK to Israel, given the clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law and in breach of the UK’s domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.

The Department for Business and Trade (whose committee I believe you now sit on) dismissed a petition calling for all licences for arms to Israel to be revoked. Their excuse was that “we rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against strict assessment criteria, the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (or SELC)…. The SELC provide a thorough risk assessment framework for export licence applications and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. We will not license the export of equipment where to do so would be inconsistent with the SELC.”

But they didn’t explain how Israel managed to satisfy those “strict assessment criteria” and survive such a “rigorous” process. Were we supposed to take it all on trust? There are 8 criteria and, on reading them, any reasonably informed person might conclude that Israel fails to satisfy at least 5.

  • You said: “In the longer term, I will continue to support the UK’s long held-position, that there should be a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security for both nations and the wider region.”

Why the longer term? Why not now? If Palestinian statehood had been recognised at the proper time (in 1923, or at least by 1948 when Israeli statehood was ‘accepted’) these unspeakable atrocities would never have happened.

QME and Plan Dalet

These are the never-mentioned driving forces behind the evil that poisons the Holy Land.

In 2008 Congress enacted legislation requiring that US arms sales to any country in the Middle East other than Israel must not adversely affect Israel’s “qualitative military edge” (QME). It ensures the apartheid regime always has the upper hand over it neighbours. This is central to US Middle East policy and guarantees the region is kept at or near boiling point and ripe for exploitation.

Sadly the UK has superglued itself to America’s cynical partnership with Israel for ‘security’ and other dubious reasons.

Plan D, or Plan Dalet, is the Zionist terror blueprint for their brutal takeover of the Palestinian homeland written 77 years ago. It was drawn up by the Jewish underground militia, the Haganah, at the behest of David Ben-Gurion, then boss of the Jewish Agency and later to become the first president of ‘New Israel’. .

Plan D was a carefully thought-out, step-by-step plot choreographed ahead of the British mandate government’s withdrawal and the Zionists’ declaration of Israeli statehood. It correctly assumed that the British authorities would no longer be there to prevent it. As Plan D shows, “expulsion and transfer” (i.e. ethnic cleansing) has always been a key part of the Zionists’ scheme, and Ben-Gurion reminded his military commanders that the prime aim of Plan D was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The Deir Yassin massacre signalled the beginning of a deliberate programme to depopulate Arab towns and villages – destroying churches and mosques – in order to make room for incoming Holocaust survivors and other Jews. In July 1948 Israeli terrorist troops seized Lydda, shot up the town and drove out the population. They massacred 426 men, women, and children. 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque. The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way. Of all the blood-baths they say this was the biggest. Israel’s great hero Moshe Dayan was responsible.

By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 percent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash we still see today. The knock-on effects have created around 6 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN plus an estimated 1 million others worldwide.

Israel Lobby

Considering Britain’s obligations towards the Holy Land since WW1, would you please let me know what you and your colleagues are now doing to stop this appalling extermination of the Palestinian people? And I do mean action not empty words. And would you please explain why Conservative Friends of Israel, which works to promote and support Israel in Parliament and at every level of the Party and claims 80% of Conservative MPs as signed-up members, are allowed to flourish at Westminster?.

MPs who put themselves under the influence of an aggressive foreign military power are surely in flagrant breach of the principles of public life (aka the Nolan Principles) which are written into MPs’ code of conduct and the ministerial code.

Being a Friend of Israel, of course, means embracing the terror on which the state of Israel was built, approving the dispossession of the innocent and the oppression of the powerless, and applauding the discriminatory laws against non-Jews who resisted being ejected and inconveniently remain in their homeland.

It means aligning oneself with the vile mindset that abducts civilians — including children — and imprisons and tortures them without trial, imposes hundreds of military checkpoints, severely restricts the movement of people and goods, and interferes with Palestinian life at every level.

And it means giving the thumbs-up to Israeli gunboats shooting up Palestinian fishermen in their own territorial waters, the strangulation of the West Bank’s economy, the cruel 19-year blockade on Gaza and the bloodbaths inflicted on the tiny enclave’s packed population. Also the religious war that humiliates the Holy Land’s Muslims and Christians and prevents them visiting their holy places.

I prefer to think that you know all this but must be mindful that the Israel lobby have Conservative Central Office in their pocket.

Stuart Littlewood

8 May 2025


Stuart Littlewood, after working on jet fighters in the RAF, became an industrial marketeer in oil, electronics and manufacturing, and with innovation and product development consultancies. He also served as a Cambridgeshire county councillor and a member of the Police Authority. He is an Associate of the Royal Photographic Society and has produced two photo-documentary books including Radio Free Palestine (with foreword by Jeff Halper). Now retired, he campaigns on various issues, especially the Palestinians' struggle for freedom. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Starvation in Gaza is so bad even the BBC is covering it – and reporting it all wrong


The BBC’s role is not to keep viewers informed. It’s to persuade them a clear crime against humanity by Israel is, in fact, highly complicated geopolitics they cannot hope to understand

You can tell how bad levels of starvation now are in Gaza, as the population there begins the third month of a complete aid blockade by Israel, because last night the BBC finally dedicated a serious chunk of its main news programme, the News at Ten, to the issue.

But while upsetting footage of a skin-and-bones, five-month-old baby was shown, most of the segment was, of course, dedicated to confusing audiences by two-sidesing Israel’s genocidal programme of starving 2 million-plus Palestinian civilians.

Particularly shocking was the BBC’s failure in this extended report to mention even once the fact that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been a fugitive for months from the International Criminal Court, which wants him on trial for crimes against humanity. Why? For using starvation as a weapon of war against the civilian population.

I have yet to see the BBC, or any other major British media outlet, append the status “wanted war crimes suspect” when mentioning Netanyahu in stories. That is all the more unconscionable on this occasion, in a story directly related to the very issue – starving a civilian population – he is charged over.

Was mention of the arrest warrant against him avoided because it might signal a little too clearly that the highest legal authorities in the world attribute starvation in Gaza directly to Israel and its government, and do not see it – as the British establishment media apparently do – as some continuing, unfortunate “humanitarian” consequence of “war”.

Predictably misleading, too, was BBC Verify’s input. It provided a timeline of Israel’s intensified blockade that managed to pin the blame not on Israel, even though it is the one blocking all aid, but implicitly on Hamas.

Verify’s reporter asserted that in early March, Israel “blocked humanitarian aid, demanding that Hamas extend a ceasefire and release the remaining hostages”. He then jumped to 18 March, stating: “Israel resumes military operations.”

Viewers were left, presumably intentionally, with the impression that Hamas had rejected a continuation of the ceasefire and had refused to release the last of the hostages.

None of that is true. In fact, Israel never honoured the ceasefire, continuing to attack Gaza and kill civilians throughout. But worse, Israel’s supposed “extension” was actually its unilateral violation of the ceasefire by insisting on radical changes to the terms that had already been agreed, and which included Hamas releasing the hostages.

Israel broke the ceasefire precisely so it had the pretext it needed to return to starving Gaza’s civilians – and the hostages whose safety it proclaims to care about – as part of its efforts to make them so desperate they are prepared to risk their lives by forcing open the short border with neighbouring Sinai sealed by Egypt.

Yesterday, an Israeli government minister once again made clear what the game plan has been from the very start. “Gaza will be entirely destroyed,” Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister, said. Gaza’s population, he added, would be forced to “leave in great numbers to third countries”. In other words, Israel intends to carry out what the rest of us would call the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, as it has been doing continuously for eight decades.

Simply astonishing. We’ve had 19 months of Israeli government ministers and military commanders telling us they are destroying Gaza. They’ve destroyed Gaza. And yet, Western politicians and media still refuse to call it a genocide.

What is the point of the BBC’s Verify service—supposedly there to fact-check and ensure viewers get only the unvarnished truth—when its team is itself peddling gross distortions of the truth?

The BBC and its Verify service are not keeping viewers informed. They are propagandising them into believing a clear crime against humanity by Israel is, in fact, highly complicated geopolitics that audiences cannot hope to understand.

The establishment media’s aim is to so confuse audiences that they will throw up their hands and say: “To hell with Israel and the Palestinians! They are as bad as each other. Leave it to the politicians and diplomats to sort out.”

In any other circumstance, it would strike you as obvious that starving children en masse is morally abhorrent, and that anyone who does it, or excuses it, is a monster. The role of the BBC is to persuade you that what should be obvious to you is, in fact, more complicated than you can appreciate.

There may be skin-and-bones babies, but there are also hostages. There may be tens of thousands of children being slaughtered, but there is also a risk of antisemitism. Israeli officials may be calling for the eradication of the Palestinian people, but the Jewish state they run needs to be preserved at all costs.

If we could spend five minutes in Gaza without the constant, babbling distractions of these so-called journalists, the truth would be clear. It’s a genocide. It was always a genocide.

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

Expulsion and Occupation: Israel’s Proposed Gaza Plan


Killing civilians wholesale, starving them to convince those unaffected to change course, and shepherding whole populations like livestock into conditions of further misery would all qualify as heinous crimes in international law.  When it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, this approach is seen as necessary politics, unalloyed by the restraints of humanitarianism.  When confronted with these harsh realities on the ground, unequivocal denials follow: This is not happening in Gaza; no one is starving. And if that were the case, blame those misguided savages in Hamas.

As the conflict chugs along in pools of blood and bountiful gore, the confused shape of Israel’s intentions continues in all its glorious nebulousness.  Pretend moderation clouds murderous desire.  There is no sense that those unfortunate Israeli hostages captured by Hamas in its assault on October 7, 2023, matter anymore, being merely decorative for the imminent slaughter.  There is even less sense that Hamas will be cleansed and removed from the strip, however attractive this idea continues to be.

Such evident limits have not discouraged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, who have decided that more force, that old province of the unimaginative, is the answer.  According to the PM, the cabinet had agreed on a “forceful operation” to eliminate Hamas and salvage what is left of the hostage situation.

A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, Brigadier-General Effie Defrin, has explained on Israeli radio that the offensive will apparently ensure the return of the hostages.  What follows will be “the collapse of the Hamas regime, its defeat, its submission”.  Anywhere up to two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza will be herded into the ruins of the south.  Humanitarian aid will be arranged by the Israeli forces to be possibly distributed through approved contractors.

The IDF chief of staff, Lt. General Eyal Zamir, confirmed that the approved plan will involve “the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas.”

Within the Israeli cabinet, ethnocentric and religious fires burn with bright fanaticism.  The Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich remains a figure who ignores floral subtlety in favour of the blood-stained sledgehammer.  He remains that coherent link between cruel lawmaking and baffling violence.  “Within a few months,” he boasts, “we will be able to declare that we have won.  Gaza will be totally destroyed.”  With pompous certitude, he also claimed that the next six months would see Hamas cease to exist.

Such opinions, expressed at the “Settlements Conference” organised by the Makor Rishon newspaper in Ofra, a West Bank settlement, give a sense of the flavour.  Palestinians are to be “concentrated” on land located between the Egyptian border and the arbitrarily designated Morag Corridor.  As with any potential abuser keen to violate his vulnerable charges while justifying it, Smotrich tried to impress with the idea that this was a “humanitarian” zone that would be free of “Hamas and terrorism”.

The program here is clear in its chilling crudeness.  Expulsion, relocation, transfer.  These are the words famously used to move on populations of a sizeable number in history, often at enormous cost.  That this should involve lawmakers of the Jewish state adds a stunning, if perverse, poignancy to this.  They, the moved on in history, the expelled and the condemned wanderers, shall expel others and condemn them in turn.  Smotrich also points the finger at desperation and hopelessness, the biting incentives that propel migration.  The Palestinians will feel blessed in their banishment.  “They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”

Impossible to ignore in Smotrich’s steaming bile against the Palestinians is the broader view that no Palestinian state can arise, necessitating urgent, preventative poisoning.  In addition to the eventual depopulation of Gaza, plans to reconstitute the contours of the West Bank, ensuring that Israeli and Palestinian traffic are separated to enable building and construction for settlements as a prelude to annexation, are to be implemented.

The issue of twisting and mangling humanitarian aid in favour of Israel’s territorial lust has raised some tart commentary.  A statement from the Humanitarian Country Team of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a forum led by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), does not shy away from the realities on the ground.  All supplies, including those vital to survival, have been blocked for nine weeks.  Bakeries and community kitchens have closed, while warehouses are empty.  Hunger, notably among children, is rampant.  Israel’s plan, as presented, “will mean that large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies.”

The UN Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator have confirmed that they will not cooperate in the scheme, as it “does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality.”

The foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have made the same point.  Despite all being solid allies of Israel, they have warned that violations of international law are taking place.  “Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and a Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change”.

To date, a promise lingers that the offensive will only commence once US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar takes place.  But no ongoing savaging of Gaza with some crude effort at occupation will solve the historical vortex that continues to drag the Jewish state to risk and oblivion.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

How Israel Embroils Other Countries in its Crimes of Genocide against the Palestinians


Israel is very adept at drawing attention away from itself and onto other countries as it carries out its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. In a recent incident, when the ‘Conscience’, an aid boat attempting to reach the starving people of Gaza, was hit by drones (likely fired by Israel) a mile out of Maltese international waters, all attention descended upon the Maltese authorities.

The vessel was flying the flag of the Pacific Island of Palau; however, prior to the drone hit, Palau withdrew the registration, leaving the crew vulnerable to accusations of being without official papers. Israel had also made accusations of terrorism, claiming that the crew of activists were Hamas militants. There is no basis to the claim that the peaceful activists have any military connections or intentions. The crew are internationals of conscience, who had gathered together from various countries in an attempt to break the blockade of Gaza, carry essential supplies, and draw attention to the desperate plight of people in Gaza.

A nearby Maltese tug boat was the first to arrive at the boat’s aid, having been alerted by the authorities to the SOS distress call. The tug boat was equipped with a fire hose and managed to extinguish the fire totally. However, with holes in the boat from the drone attack and extensive damage to the generator, the boat has been slowly taking on water. When the authorities arrived shortly after, the captain of the ‘Conscience’ informed them that the crew would not abandon their vessel or let any of the authorities board it.

The fears of the crew of sabotage from an unknown person or persons boarding their boat are not unrealistic. Besides incidents of sabotage, activists from the earlier Freedom Flotilla Coalitions, in attempting to break the siege of Gaza, have experienced deaths, arrests, theft, and the destruction of vessels. In 2008 the ‘Dignity’, was rammed – with clear lethal intent by the Israeli military. The damage was so extensive that the boat took on water, leaving it unseaworthy. Although the authorities in Israel and Egypt ignored the call for help, the Lebanese responded and rescued the sixteen international activists on board. In 2010, ten activists were murdered by the Israeli military. In 2018, Dr. Swee Ang, a passenger on the ‘Al Awda’ freedom boat, describes how prior to reaching the Gaza coastline, they were boarded by the Israeli military, arrested, humiliated, and stripped naked. Their boat was confiscated.

The young, well-known environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, is already in Malta and, along with other internationals, hopes to join the ‘Conscience’ as early as possible. However, being well-known is no guarantee of survival or success, as orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin can testify from his experience on the ‘Dignity’. The Israelis have a documented history of committing crimes against anyone – Palestinian or international, if they are perceived to challenge their Zionist aspirations to turn all of Palestine and beyond, into a Jewish State.

The Maltese authorities agreed to allow the boat to come into Malta and to assist with repairs. However, they insisted that the boat go through the normal customs procedures of inspection. With concerns for Malta’s security and a responsibility for the security of those on the boat from further attack, the Maltese Navy blocked all vessels from approaching the ‘Conscience’. Included in those blocked, from the area around the boat, were activists connected with the freedom flotilla. This led to a standoff between the two groups as each tried to express their security concerns while also addressing the vessel’s evident need for assistance.

All eyes turned away from Israel’s war crime and toward Malta. Sandwiched between Zionist political pressure from Israel on one side and pressure from international humanitarian groups on the other side, the Maltese authorities were thrown into the spotlight as the potential villains. The Maltese people and the internationals were ready to protest in the capital city of Valletta in support of the humanitarian venture. However, the protest was called off after it appeared that the crew and supporters of the ‘Conscience’ were in genuine negotiations with the Maltese Government.

This is a narrative that is still unfolding. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations between the activists and the Maltese Government, we must remind ourselves that the real villain here is not Malta, but Israel. If justice is ever to be achieved, the Israeli Government must be held accountable for its ongoing theft and coveting of Palestinian land. Only then will Palestinians be free of this hundred-year-plus catastrophe that has led to displacement, occupation, and genocide.

Heather Stroud, the author of The Ghost Locust and Abraham's Children, has been involved in human rights issues for a number of years. She lives in Ryedale where she is increasingly drawn into campaigns to keep the environment free from the industrialization and contamination of fracking. Read other articles by Heather.

Israel Defends Its Right to Commit Genocide

Protesters in Australia urge the government to back South Africa’s court case against Israel. (AAP Photo)

Israel maintains its deniability, but is there any doubt that it was behind the drone attack against a ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza on May 2, 2025 off the coast of Malta? Israel was delivering a statement to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and the defenders of human rights everywhere, that Israel will not be denied the territory of Gaza, emptied of the more than 2 million Palestinian inhabitants living there on October 8, 2023. The current plan clearly is to dispose of them through starvation, disease and exposure, which will make the tens of thousands killed directly by bombs, drones, bullets and other weapons pale by comparison.

The contents of the ship, if it had delivered its cargo, would have made only the smallest dent in Israel’s plan. But Israel stands on principle – namely that it has the right to slaughter as many Palestinians and other non-Jews as it wants in order to grab the territory it covets (and, not incidentally, the vast oil and gas fields off its coast), and to assure a demographically Jewish result in that territory. Never mind how many men, women and children are eradicated, or how horribly they die.

Of course, Israel has always expressed the willingness to have the Palestinians shipped elsewhere: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Somalia…who cares, but preferably away from Israel’s borders. But whatever country participates in such a plan will be forever stigmatized for collaborating in genocide. And what country or countries would welcome the forcible entry of such a population? That’s why there are no takers. In any case, Israel seems content to wipe them off the face of the earth, which is more permanent. Furthermore, the United States is a powerful partner in this project, with few if any apparent qualms.

Is there anything the international community can do to stop the crime of the century? Of course. But no amount of UN resolutions, ICJ injunctions or other legal actions will be obeyed. Neither will suspension of diplomatic or economic relations, as long as Israel’s big brother, the US, provides them with everything they need, especially the weaponry. The entire world can completely isolate Israel, as long as that isolation does not include the United States, and as long as the people of the United States do no more than demonstrate, write letters, make phone calls and vote in elections for two parties that compete with each other for how much support they can give to Israel.

What can be done to change the outcome? The aid ship is the right idea, but it would require a thousand aid ships or more. Another would be a national general strike in the US, but neither the consensus nor the organization exists for such an effort in a country that has never seen a national general strike. A vote boycott directed against the two major parties might have the desired effect, but that also is exceedingly unlikely, and in any case too slow. How about attacks against Israeli interests abroad, such as the ones against the Israeli arms manufacturer, Elbit, in the UK and the blocking of Israeli ships in Oakland, California? Perhaps, but it would have to be carried out worldwide and be nearly seamless, which is also difficult to imagine.

I do not have the answer, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that humanity seems doomed to place the worst among us into positions of leadership. How else do we explain that nearly the entire voting public in the US and most Western countries voted for candidates that supported the military and economic aid to Israel, even as it was conducting its genocide?

In the years to come, how will we answer the question “What did you do to stop the Gaza genocide, Grandma?”

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. Read other articles by Paul.
‘Outdated and unjust’: can we reform global capitalism?


President Trump’s tariffs have plunged the world economy into chaos. But history counsels against despair – and the left should seize on capitalism’s crisis of legitimacy


By John Cassidy
Thu 8  2025 
THE GUARDIAN

Since Donald Trump launched his chaotic trade war earlier this year, it has become a truism to say he has plunged the world economy into crisis. At last month’s spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, where policymakers and finance ministers from all over congregated, the attenders were “shellshocked”, the economist Eswar Prasad, a former senior IMF official who now teaches at Cornell, told me. “The sense is that the world has changed fundamentally in ways that cannot easily be put back together. Every country has to figure out its own place in this new world order and how to protect its own interests.”

Trump’s assault on the old global order is real. But in taking its measure, it’s necessary to look beyond the daily headlines and acknowledge that being in a state of crisis is nothing new to capitalism. It’s also important to note that, as Karl Marx wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.” Even would-be authoritarians who occupy the Oval Office have to operate in the social, economic and political environment that is bequeathed to them. In Trump’s case, the inheritance was one in which global capitalism was already suffering from a crisis of legitimacy.


Consider the decade before he was re-elected. In 2014, the global financial crisis and the Occupy Wall Street movement were fresh in the memory. The French economist Thomas Piketty appeared on bestseller lists around the world with his tome Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which highlighted income and wealth inequality. Bankers, billionaires and defenders of free market capitalism appeared to be on the defensive. “Nobody believes any more in a moral revival of capitalism,” wrote the German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck in the New Left Review. The “attempt to prevent it from being confounded with greed has finally failed, as it has more than ever become synonymous with corruption.”

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres in April. Photograph: Charly Triballeau/AFP/Getty Images

Move forward nine years to September 2023, and the 78th general assembly of the United Nations. “Our world is becoming unhinged,” António Guterres, the UN’s secretary general, declared. “Geopolitical tensions are rising. Global challenges are mounting. And we seem incapable of coming together to respond.” Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal, mentioned the war in Ukraine and military coups in the Sahel, but the core challenges he cited were more systemic: inequality, rising debt levels, authoritarianism, financial architecture that was “dysfunctional, outdated and unjust”, and “the most immediate threat to our future: our overheating planet”. If the world didn’t tackle these issues quickly, Guterres warned, it faced the prospect of “a great fracture in economic systems and financial systems and trade relations.”


Declarations that global capitalism is in crisis are nothing new, of course. Ever since Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, which appeared in 1848, critics have been predicting the system’s demise. In the 1940s, two of capitalism’s biggest champions – the Austrian free market economists Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter – also argued that it was doomed. (To them, the fatal threats were socialism and bureaucracy.) During the post-second world war decades, many western countries moved in the direction of Keynesian social democracy, which was based on a social bargain between labour and capital, with restraints on the movement of financial capital. In the 1970s, this form of managed capitalism succumbed to what’s known as stagflation, the combination of high inflation and stagnant economic growth. This was replaced with the neoliberal experiment in unrestricted financialisation and globalisation that met its nemesis in the global financial crisis of 2008-09.

Since then, we have been in an interregnum characterised by the dominance of big tech, an intensifying climate crisis, a global pandemic and efforts across the political spectrum to imagine a new economic paradigm.

Even in the United States, where the mythology of private enterprise runs deep and movements hostile to capitalism have long struggled to attract mass support, public attitudes have been changed. A 2023 opinion poll found that “almost half of Americans, regardless of generation and race, say that capitalism is headed on the wrong path”. In the same year, American Compass, a new conservative thinktank based in Washington DC, published a long report entitled Rebuilding American Capitalism: A Handbook for Conservative Policymakers.

“What has happened to capitalism in America?” Oren Cass, a Republican policy analyst who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, wrote in the introduction. “Businesses still pursue profit, yes, but not in ways that advance the public interest … Globalisation crushed domestic industry and employment, leaving collapsed communities in its wake. Financialisation shifted the economy’s centre of gravity from Main Street to Wall Street, fuelling an explosion in corporate profits alongside stagnating wages and declining investment.”

Also in 2023, a report from another conservative American thinktank, the Edmund Burke Foundation, said that “transnational corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits”.

In some ways, these conservative criticisms echoed what leftists had been saying for generations. In others, they evoked the writings of the 19th-century arch-conservative Thomas Carlyle, who lamented the social degradations of industrial capitalism and described the pursuit of profit at any cost as: “One of the shabbiest gospels ever preached on earth.”

Jeff Bezos’s superyacht, Flying Fox, off the coast of Turkey in 2021. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Conservatives were also having difficulty justifying the emergence of a new plutocracy whose conspicuous consumption evoked the Gilded Age “captains of industry”. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took possession of a custom-built 417ft-long superyacht that came with a helipad-equipped support vessel and was rumoured to have cost $500m. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg was building a 560-hectare compound in Hawaii that reportedly included a blast-proof underground bunker. It didn’t take great observational powers to realise that Bezos, Zuckerberg and other tech barons were milking vast monopolies that were largely oblivious to competition, and, in the US at least, government oversight.

The Covid shutdowns dealt another blow to champions of globalised capitalism by highlighting the dangers of relying on the profit motive to organise the production of vital goods. When the global supply chain froze up, many western countries were left short of items like respiratory masks, diagnostic testing kits, computer chips and baby formula. “The industries at the centre of the supply chain – from shipping and rail to meat processing – had liberated themselves from rules imposed to limit their dominance,” wrote the New York Times journalist Peter S Goodman in his illuminating 2024 book How the World Ran Out of Everything. “They had reprised the era of the robber barons in achieving monopoly status. This had delivered stupendous profits to shareholders while yielding danger and dysfunction for society at large.”

Before the start of the pandemic, Trump had spent three years in office sounding off against the “globalists”. Although the trade restrictions he introduced during his first term were small beer compared with what he has unleashed in 2025, the difference can largely be ascribed to the fact that he was less sure of himself back then, and he took more notice of his advisers. But his political brand was built on a rejection of globalisation and free trade, and the institutions that underpinned them. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he labelled Nafta and the World Trade Organization a “disaster” and pledged to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that the Obama administration had negotiated with 11 Pacific Rim countries.

This message resonated with voters who lived in manufacturing areas that had been exposed to cheap foreign competition, particularly from China. In a paper published after the 2016 election, the economists David H Autor, David Dorn, Gordon H Hanson and Kaveh Majlesi said they had identified a link between trade shocks and voting patterns in presidential elections going back to 2000. In areas of the US where there had been rising competition from imports, the Republican candidate gained more votes.
China president Xi Jinping with Joe Biden at the G20 summit in Bali, 2022. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

The suggestion that trade and globalisation may have cost the Democrats the 2016 election was hotly disputed. Other studies found that race, religion and other cultural factors played a bigger role than economics in Trump’s victory. But many Democrats interpreted his success as a rebuke of the pro-free trade policies that the party had adopted since the 1990s. When Joe Biden entered the White House in 2021, he left some of Trump’s tariffs in place and introduced an ambitious industrial policy designed to boost US manufacturing and “onshore” production that had moved abroad. In 2024, before he left office, Biden raised some tariffs on Chinese goods to a rate of 100%. Biden’s levies were much more targeted than the blanket tariffs Trump has introduced in recent months. But they demonstrated that, at least as far as relations with China went, Washington’s abandonment of the open-trade model of global capitalism reflected a bipartisan consensus.

Trump 2.0 represents a melange of populist economic nationalism, Silicon Valley accelerationism and feed-the-rich tax policies that can be traced back to Ronald Reagan. Each of these elements is supported by different interests with different goals, so it was predictable that the administration would be characterised by policy clashes and cognitive dissonance. Still, Trump himself has some clear goals. One of them, obviously, is enriching himself and his family, as evidenced by his embrace of crypto. (According to a recent report by a watchdog group that tracks Trump’s activities, the family’s net worth has risen by $2.9bn during the past six months based on the market value of its various crypto investments.) On a broader horizon, he is intent on reshaping global capitalism into a system of national or regional blocs, each protected by largely closed borders and high tariff walls.

Efforts on the left to construct a new economic model are still very much a work in progress. To some environmentalist activists, climate breakdown demands that we abandon a central tenet of capitalism: the notion that it can keep growing for ever. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you,” Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish activist, said at a UN climate change summit in 2019.

Thunberg has associated herself with degrowth, an international movement whose intellectual origins lie in the Limits to Growth debate of the 1970s. The modern degrowth movement encompasses some different viewpoints, but they all reject maximising GDP growth as the primary goal of economic policy. “The faster we produce and consume goods, the more we damage the environment,” Giorgos Kallis, an ecological economist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, wrote in his 2018 book Degrowth. “If humanity is not to destroy the planet’s life support systems, the global economy should slow down.”

President Trump unveiling showcasing his reciprocal tariffs at the White House, 2 April. Photograph: Carlos Barría/Reuters

Some western governments, and the World Bank, have endorsed “green growth” – the idea that the development of renewable energy sources and the spread of electronic vehicles, heat pumps and other clean technologies will allow rising GDP to “decouple” from higher emissions. Some green growth enthusiasts point to the United Kingdom, which cut its carbon emissions in half between 1990 and 2022, even as its inflation-adjusted GDP rose by about 80%. This reduction was achieved largely by eliminating coal-fired power stations and replacing them with a combination of renewable energy sources and natural gas. In April 2024, 59% of Britain’s electricity came from renewables.

Sceptics of green growth point out that most rich countries haven’t matched the UK’s performance and that the developed world, taken as a whole, had failed abjectly to meet the commitments it made in the 2015 Paris agreement, which were designed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5C above preindustrial levels. “At the achieved mitigation rates, these countries would on average take more than 220 years to reduce their emissions by 95%, emitting 27 times their remaining 1.5C fair-shares in the process,” Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Jefim Vogel, a PhD student at the University of Leeds, wrote in a study published in The Lancet Planetary Health in 2023.

The degrowth movement isn’t just about tackling the climate crisis. It draws on an intellectual tradition of scepticism towards industrial capitalism and mass production that dates back to Carlyle, John Ruskin, the Indian economist JC Kumarappa, who advised Gandhi, and EF Schumacher, the author of the 1973 book, Small is Beautiful. In his 2017 book Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson, an ecological economist at the University of Surrey, called on advanced countries to shift their economies towards local services, such as nursing and teaching, and the development of more rewarding and less resource intensive professions like handicrafts. “People can flourish without endlessly accumulating more stuff,” Jackson wrote. “Another world is possible.”

Yet proposals to abandon economic growth have also been met with scepticism. As the Oxford economist Wilfred Beckerman pointed out in the 1970s, strong growth during the postwar era helped raise wages and keep distributional conflicts in check: the subsequent slowdown coincided with rising political polarisation. At the global level, the key issue is whether degrowth would impose intolerable burdens on the world’s poorest countries, which would love to follow the growth paths that China and India have trodden in recent decades. And it isn’t just the poorest countries that want to grow faster. On a global basis, according to the World Bank, the median household income in 2022 was just $7.75 a day.

In a 2021 blogpost, Branko Milanović, an economist specialising in inequality, explored two options for keeping global GDP constant, which is the most literal definition of degrowth. The first involved freezing world income distribution, so that everybody kept their current incomes. In this scenario, Milanović pointed out, about half the world’s population would be forced to live permanently on seven dollars a day or less, which surely wouldn’t be acceptable. The second option involved reducing the living standards of people with incomes above the global average and raising the living standards of those below the average. According to Milanović’s calculations, this policy would affect anyone living on more than 16 dollars a day. In western countries that’s about 86% of the population. The degrowthers “cannot condemn to perpetual poverty people in developing countries who are just seeing the glimpses of a better life, nor can they reasonably argue that incomes of 9 out of 10 westerners ought to be reduced,” Milanović wrote. “The way out of the impasse is to engage in semi-magical and then outright magical thinking.”

Degrowthers contest this, of course. But on much of the left the focus is on making growth greener rather than abandoning it, and on trying to address other enduring problems, including poverty, stagnant wages, monopoly power and tax avoidance by the rich. In a 2019 essay, Economics After Neoliberalism, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, Columbia’s Suresh Naidu and Berkeley’s Gabriel Zucman presented an extensive list of policy ideas, including establishing wage boards in low-wage industries to rein in employers’ market power; expanding early childhood education programmes as a means of raising the lifetime incomes of children from poor families; tackling tax avoidance by taxing multinational corporations where they make their sales; reforming the patent system to reduce the monopoly power of big pharma and other intellectual property holders; beefing up international financial regulation; and including labour standards in trade agreements.

The assumption underlying this expansive agenda is that there is no quick fix for 21st-century capitalism: the entire system needs a makeover. Referring to the work of Karl Polanyi, the Austro-Hungarian economic historian who regarded the “free market” as a utopian pipe dream, Rodrik, Naidu and Zucman wrote: “These proposals take Polanyi’s words to heart. To work well, crucial markets (including markets for labour, land and capital) must be embedded in nonmarket institutions, and the ‘rules of the game’ must be supplied by government.”

The mention of Polanyi was a reminder of what is at stake in these policy debates. In containing capitalism within a new set of rules and social norms, postwar Keynesian social democracy seemingly refuted Polanyi’s argument, which he made during the 1930s, that socialism or fascism was the logical end point of the system. Keynesianism established a middle ground. But when neoliberalism supplanted it, capitalism again broke free of its bounds, with disastrous results.

John Maynard Keynes in 1940. Photograph: Tim Gidal/Getty Images

The challenge now facing the centre-left is to construct a new managed capitalism for a globalised, tech-dominated and finance-driven world in which the labour movement is nowhere near as powerful as it was in the middle of the 20th century. In a paper published in 2021, the economists Samuel Bowles, of the Santa Fe Institute, and Wendy Carlin, of University College London, argued that efforts to build a new economic paradigm should be organised around “shrinking capitalism” to a “diminished space” where it could do less damage, and its strengths, such as its capacity to spur innovation, would serve the community. Political and economic forces were aligning with this new paradigm, the two economists argued. Concerns about the climate emergency and inequality were undermining support for capitalism in general terms, while the rise of AI and robotics was undermining the traditional hierarchical capitalist firm, in which workers carried out routine, preassigned tasks for a set wage or salary. More flexible forms of economic organisation were emerging, such as open-source collaborations and the gig economy, in which many workers were nominally self-employed.

Bowles and Carlin weren’t endorsing the practices of platform companies, like Uber and Lyft, that rely on gig workers. They were arguing that technology-driven capitalism was, to some extent, eating itself, and that this cannibalisation was creating space for alternative economic models, including some that have long existed but could in the future have broader appeal, such as not-for-profits, worker-owned cooperatives and community-organised public commons. “This is a confluence that could propel a new paradigm in political economy to dominance,” the article concluded.

Perhaps a new economic paradigm will emerge, but Trump’s re-election and the rising support for rightwing populism in other western countries, including Britain, raises the question of what sort of paradigm it will be. When the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci was languishing in Mussolini’s prisons during the 1920s and 30s, he thought deeply about the relationship between broad economic forces and economic ideologies. In the prison notebooks he kept, he remarked how in certain circumstances the forces and ideologies come together in a “historical bloc” that can exercise political power through consent rather than force, a phenomenon he referred to as “hegemony”.

The managed capitalism of the postwar era was based on a bloc that combined blue-collar workers and their liberal-minded allies from the professional classes, domestically focused businesses, long-term capital and Keynesian/social democratic policy ideas. The globalised hypercapitalism of the post-cold war era was based on internationally minded businesses, educated workers whose jobs couldn’t be displaced by low-wage foreign competition, footloose capital and free market ideology. As we enter the second quarter of the 21st century, the question is what sort of bloc can exercise power in a world shrunken by digital technology but splintered by nationalism.

Chinese state capitalism arguably represents one candidate, but its undemocratic nature has blunted its appeal to other countries. So has the slowdown in the Chinese economy since Xi Jinping took over in 2012. Trumpian economic nationalism is another contender. His return to the White House on a platform of tariffs and mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, which appeals to nativist voters and domestically oriented businesses, demonstrated that his victory in 2016 wasn’t a fluke.

To be sure, the presence in Trump’s circle of Elon Musk and various Wall Street tycoons who have benefited enormously from globalisation and financialisation highlights the glaring contradictions in the Maga movement, as does Trump’s commitment to preserving the regressive tax cuts that Congress passed during his first term. But none of this has prevented him and his allies from positioning themselves as outsiders attacking a corrupt establishment. This political confidence trick is embodied in the figure of JD Vance, Trump’s vice-president, who once worked for a venture capital firm and defended globalisation but now positions himself as an ersatz philosopher of the new right. At the 2024 Republican National Convention, Vance stated blithely, “We’re done … catering to Wall Street. We’ll commit to the working man.”

Silvia Federici and Judy Ramirez of Wages for Housework campaign in London, 1975. Photograph: Keystone/Getty Images

On the far left, replacing capitalism remains the ultimate goal. But with the exception of a few places, such as depressed parts of East Germany, there is little popular enthusiasm for reviving the communist model of state ownership and central planning. Many leftists are more interested in creating new institutions and communities that operate independently of the monolithic capitalist economy and the state, such as protest encampments, bartering and recycling networks, communal farms, and small-scale artisanal enterprises. Even though early 19th century figures like Robert Owen, William Thompson and Charles Fourier no longer figure prominently on the left, the goal of creating communities and subeconomies that operate beyond the cash nexus goes back to their efforts to create new cooperative communities. Two centuries on, their descendants have yet to demonstrate how they would overcome the practical problems that plagued their predecessors, especially if their ideas were applied at the national or global level. But the lure of what Silvia Federici, the co-creator of the Wages for Housework movement, has described as a “new commons” is a timeless one. “For what the commons in essence stands for,” Federici wrote, “is the recognition that life in a Hobbesian world, where one competes against all and prosperity is gained at the expense of others, is not worth living and is a sure recipe for defeat.”

The idea of shrinking capitalism seems like one that a broad range of people on the left and centre-left could unite around, from Federici to Bowles and Carlin to Joseph Stiglitz, the American liberal economist. In his 2024 book The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society, Stiglitz called for a “decentralised economy with a rich ecology of institutions.” Noting the many encroachments that capitalism had made in recent decades, he wrote, “There must be large parts of the economy that are not and cannot be driven by profits. These include much of the health, education and care sectors, in which the narrow pursuit of profits often leads to perverse results.”

Stiglitz also called for restrictions on the activities of platform monopolies, particularly social media companies, arguing that their algorithms had “enabled the incitement of violence and the spread of hate speech and induced antisocial behaviour”.

Some of Stiglitz’s criticisms chimed with those of Federici, others with elements of the Edmund Burke Foundation’s report. This was a hopeful sign for efforts to create a broad coalition to rein in hypercapitalism. But no one should underestimate the opposition that such a project would face from big businesses that, in the US especially, can spend unlimited sums of money to influence the political system, and from longstanding defenders of the free market. In July 2023, dozens of the latter – including Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, and representatives of the Mont Pelerin Society, the American Enterprise Institute and the Capitalist League – issued a statement of principles proclaiming: “The free enterprise system is the foundation of prosperity.”

During the 1930s, American conservatives issued similar arguments in opposing FDR’s New Deal. In the early 1940s, Hayek issued his warning that the shift toward collectivism could lead to serfdom. More recently, many American conservatives have criticised the government response to the Covid 19 pandemic, which included large stimulus programmes. It wasn’t perfect, but it headed off a lengthy slump, and, in some of its particulars, it was highly illuminating. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 converted an existing programme of tax credits for low-paid workers with children into a monthly universal cash benefit of $300 per child. In the year after this policy was introduced, the rate of child poverty, as measured by the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Policy Measure, fell from 9.7% to 5.2%. In 2022, when the expanded tax credits were eliminated, the child poverty rate shot back up to 12.4% – the biggest one-year increase on record.


The planet’s economist: has Kate Raworth found a model for sustainable living?


The lesson was clear: it is perfectly possible to reduce child poverty, just as it was possible in the 20th century to reduce old-age poverty by introducing state pensions. Capitalism can be reformed: the challenge is to summon the will and the means to do it. With the rise of rightwing populism, AI, and a tech/finance oligarchy that is openly exerting its political influence, the task can seem more formidable than ever.

But history counsels against despair. For more than 200 years, industrial capitalism has evolved in waves and counterwaves, some of which are driven by its inner conflicts, some by technological developments and others by political mobilisation. At any moment, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to tell how long the current configuration will survive, or what will succeed it. But the capitalist system isn’t handed down from the heavens and it cannot rest. This has been true throughout its existence. It will remain true until the critics who predict capitalism’s demise are eventually proved right.

Adapted from Capitalism and Its Critics: A Battle of Ideas in the Modern World by John Cassidy, which will be published by Allen Lane on 13 May.