What’s Next for Battlefield America?

Israel’s High-Tech Military Tactics Point the Way

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / June 5th, 2024

I did not know Israel was capturing or recording my face. [But Israel has] been watching us for years from the sky with their drones. They have been watching us gardening and going to schools and kissing our wives. I feel like I have been watched for so long.
— Mosab Abu Toha, Palestinian poet

If you want a glimpse of the next stage of America’s transformation into a police state, look no further than how Israel—a long-time recipient of hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid from the U.S.—uses its high-tech military tactics, surveillance and weaponry to advance its authoritarian agenda.

Military checkpoints. Wall-to-wall mass surveillance. Predictive policing. Aerial surveillance that tracks your movements wherever you go and whatever you do. AI-powered facial recognition and biometric programs carried out with the knowledge or consent of those targeted by it. Cyber-intelligence. Detention centers. Brutal interrogation tactics. Weaponized drones. Combat robots.

We’ve already seen many of these military tactics and technologies deployed on American soil and used against the populace, especially along the border regions, a testament to the heavy influence Israel’s military-industrial complex has had on U.S. policing.

Indeed, Israel has become one of the largest developers and exporters of military weapons and technologies of oppression worldwide.

Journalist Antony Loewenstein has warned that Pegasus, one of Israel’s most invasive pieces of spyware, which allows any government or military intelligence or police department to spy on someone’s phone and get all the information from that phone, has become a favorite tool of oppressive regimes around the world. The FBI and NYPD have also been recipients of the surveillance technology which promises to turn any “target’s smartphone into an intelligence gold mine.”

Yet it’s not just military weapons that Israel is exporting. They’re also helping to transform local police agencies into extensions of the military.

According to The Intercept, thousands of American law enforcement officers frequently travel for training to Israel, “one of the few countries where policing and militarism are even more deeply intertwined than they are here,” as part of an ongoing exchange program that largely flies under the radar of public scrutiny.

A 2018 investigative report concluded that imported military techniques by way of these exchange programs that allow police to study in Israel have changed American policing for the worse. “Upon their return, U.S. law enforcement delegates implement practices learned from Israel’s use of invasive surveillance, blatant racial profiling, and repressive force against dissent,” the report states. “Rather than promoting security for all, these programs facilitate an exchange of methods in state violence and control that endanger us all.”

“At the very least,” notes journalist Matthew Petti, “visits to Israel have helped American police justify more snooping on citizens and stricter secrecy. Critics also assert that Israeli training encourages excessive force.”

Petti documents how the NYPD set up a permanent liaison office in Israel in the wake of 9/11, eventually implementing “one of the first post-9/11 counterterrorism programs that explicitly followed the Israeli model. In 2002, the NYPD tasked a secret ‘Demographics Unit’ with spying on Muslim-American communities. Dedicated ‘mosque crawlers’ infiltrated local Muslim congregations and attempted to bait worshippers with talk of violent revolution.”

That was merely the start of American police forces being trained in martial law by foreign nations under the guise of national security theater. It has all been downhill from there.

As Alex Vitale, a sociology professor who has studied the rise of global policing, explains, “The focus of this training is on riot suppression, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism—all of which are essentially irrelevant or should be irrelevant to the vast majority of police departments. They shouldn’t be suppressing protest, they shouldn’t be engaging in counterinsurgency, and almost none of them face any real threat from terrorism.”

This ongoing transformation of the American homeland into a techno-battlefield tracks unnervingly with the dystopian cinematic visions of Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report and Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium, both of which are set 30 years from now, in the year 2054.

In Minority Report, police agencies harvest intelligence from widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and neighborhood and family snitch programs in order to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

While Blomkamp’s Elysium acts as a vehicle to raise concerns about immigration, access to healthcare, worker’s rights, and socioeconomic stratification, what was most striking was its eerie depiction of how the government will employ technologies such as drones, tasers and biometric scanners to track, target and control the populace, especially dissidents.

With Israel in the driver’s seat and Minority Report and Elysium on the horizon, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine how the American police state will use these emerging technologies to lock down the populace, root out dissidents, and ostensibly establish an “open-air prison” with disconcerting similarities to Israel’s technological occupation of present-day Palestine.

For those who insist that such things are celluloid fantasies with no connection to the present, we offer the following as a warning of the totalitarian future at our doorsteps.

Facial Recognition

Fiction: One of the most jarring scenes in Elysium occurs towards the beginning of the film, when the protagonist Max Da Costa waits to board a bus on his way to work. While standing in line, Max is approached by two large robotic police officers, who quickly scan Max’s biometrics, cross-check his data against government files, and identify him as a former convict in need of close inspection. They demand to search his bag, a request which Max resists, insisting that there is nothing for them to see. The robotic cops respond by manhandling Max, throwing him to the ground, and breaking his arm with a police baton. After determining that Max poses no threat, they leave him on the ground and continue their patrol. Likewise, in Minority Report, police use holographic data screens, city-wide surveillance cameras, dimensional maps and database feeds to monitor the movements of its citizens and preemptively target suspects for interrogation and containment.

Fact: We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed, corralled and controlled by technologies that answer to government and corporate rulers. This is exactly how Palestinian poet and New Yorker contributor Mosab Abu Toha found himself, within minutes of passing through an Israeli military checkpoint in Gaza with his wife and children in tow, asked to step out line, only to be blindfolded, handcuffed, interrogated, then imprisoned in an Israeli detention center for two days, beaten and further interrogated. Toha was finally released in what Israeli soldiers chalked up to a “mistake,” yet there was no mistaking the AI-powered facial recognition technology that was used to pull him out of line, identify him, and label him (erroneously) as a person of interest.

Drones

Fiction: In another Elysium scene, Max is hunted by four drones while attempting to elude the authorities. The drones, equipped with x-ray cameras, biometric readers, scanners and weapons, are able to scan whole neighborhoods, identify individuals from a distance—even through buildings, report their findings back to police handlers, pursue a suspect, and target them with tasers and an array of lethal weapons.

Fact: Drones, some deceptively small and yet powerful enough to capture the facial expressions of people hundreds of feet below them, have ushered in a new age of surveillance. Not even those indoors, in the privacy of their homes, will be safe from these aerial spies, which can be equipped with technology capable of peering through walls. In addition to their surveillance capabilities, drones can also be equipped with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tear gas, and tasers.

Biometric scanners and national IDs

Fiction: Throughout Elysium, citizens are identified, sorted and dealt with by way of various scanning devices that read their biometrics—irises, DNA, etc.—as well as their national ID numbers, imprinted by a laser into their skin. In this way, citizens are tracked, counted, and classified. Likewise, in Minority Report, tiny sensory-guided spider robots converge on a suspected would-be criminal, scan his biometric data and feed it into a central government database. The end result is that there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide to escape the government’s all-seeing eyes.

Fact: Given the vast troves of data that various world governments, including Israel and the U.S., is collecting on its citizens and non-citizens alike, we are not far from a future where there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. In fact, between the facial recognition technology being handed out to law enforcement, license plate readers being installed on police cruisers, local police creating DNA databases by extracting DNA from non-criminals, including the victims of crimes, and police collecting more and more biometric data such as iris scans, we are approaching the end of anonymity. It won’t be long before police officers will be able to pull up a full biography on any given person instantaneously, including their family and medical history, bank accounts, and personal peccadilloes. It’s already moving in that direction in more authoritarian regimes.

Predictive Policing

Fiction: In Minority Report, John Anderton, Chief of the Department of Pre-Crime, finds himself identified as the next would-be criminal and targeted for preemptive measures by the very technology that he relies on for his predictive policing. Consequently, Anderton finds himself not only attempting to prove his innocence but forced to take drastic measures in order to avoid capture in a surveillance state that uses biometric data and sophisticated computer networks to track its citizens.

Fact: Precrime, which aims to prevent crimes before they happen, has justified the use of widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and snitch programs. As political science professor Anwar Mhajne documents, Israel has used all of these tools in its military engagements with Palestine: deploying AI surveillance and predictive policing systems in Palestinian territories; utilizing facial recognition technology to monitor and regulate the movement of Palestinians; subjecting Palestinians to facial recognition scans at checkpoints, with a color-coded mechanism to dictate who should be allowed to proceed, subjected to further questioning, or detained.

Making the Leap from Fiction to Reality

When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931, he was convinced that there was “still plenty of time” before his dystopian vision became a nightmare reality. It wasn’t long, however, before he realized that his prophecies were coming true far sooner than he had imagined.

Israel’s military influence on the United States, its advances in technological weaponry, and its rigid demand for compliance are pushing us towards a world in chains.

Through its oppressive use of surveillance technology, Israel has erected the world’s first open-air prison, and in the process, has made itself a model for the United States.

What we cannot afford to overlook, however, is the extent to which the American Police State is taking its cues from Israel.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we may not be an occupied territory, but that does not make the electronic concentration camp being erected around us any less of a prison.Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

Has India’s first family finally lost its grip on power?

Namita Singh
Sun, June 2, 2024 
INDEPENDENT UK

Left to right: Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi at an election campaign rally in Rae Bareli (Reuters)


A ripple of excitement spreads through the crowd waiting outside in the 40C midday heat in this corner of Uttar Pradesh, northern India – an island in a sea of constituencies supporting Narendra Modi’s BJP.

“Rahul-ji’s helicopter has come!”, announces an audience member, not long before campaign songs start to blare from speakers and Rahul Gandhi, India’s second-most recognisable politician, steps onto the stage.

This was the scene just a couple of weeks ago in one of the last bastions of fervent support for the Gandhi-Nehru family, one of the world’s great political dynasties whose members include three Indian prime ministers. Among them is Rahul Gandhi’s great-grandfather, the first and longest-serving leader of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru.

Yet India has changed dramatically since the time when Nehru led the Congress party, with Saturday’s exit polls indicating that Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist alliance will take more than 350 parliamentary seats when the full results of the country’s general election are announced on Tuesday.

Congress and its allies are forecast to win barely a third of that number, making it a third election in a row where India’s grand old party has desperately underperformed. They say the BJP’s widespread abuse of government investigative agencies to harass opposition leaders and parties, including a total freeze on Congress’s bank accounts, mean this election has been neither free nor fair.

But it is also significant that cracks were already starting to show even in Rae Bareli and Amethi, two neighbouring constituencies in Uttar Pradesh that were once the safest of seats for Congress, when The Independent visited last month. For years the Rae Bareli seat was represented by Sonia Gandhi, former Congress president and wife of the assassinated former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. She has stepped aside for a seat in India’s upper house of parliament, leaving her son Rahul to take over the constituency, and poor exit poll numbers aside, he is still expected to win here.

Rahul Gandhi waves to supporters during an election campaign public meeting in Rae Bareli (AFP)

While support for the Gandhis still seemed strong in Rae Bareli, voters in Amethi told The Independent they were questioning what Congress has to offer them given its weakened status across the country, and whether five years with a Congress MP would really make for positive change in a relatively rural and impoverished region. It gets to the heart of a question that will be picked over in the weeks to come – did Congress run an effective and positive campaign, or focus too much energy on trying to paint Modi as India’s bogeyman? And what does yet another election loss say about the future of a family that has ruled India for more than half of the last 77 years?

When Mr Gandhi does take to the stage, he is quick to go on the attack. “This election is the strangest one in the history of independent India,” he begins. “Because the BJP and [its ideological parent organisation] RSS are fighting the elections to obliterate the constitution. Their leaders have clearly said they will change the constitution of India once voted to power.”

Mr Gandhi is referencing concerns that Mr Modi, emboldened in a third term, will try to remove references from the constitution to India being a secular nation, and instead declare it a country for Hindus. Mr Modi has said he has no plans to do this, but it’s a talking point for many die-hard BJP supporters and such fears have hardly been assuaged by an aggressive election campaign full of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Congress party supporters in Rae Bareli (Reuters)

The Independent spoke with Mr Gandhi’s sister, Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra, who is herself a top party strategist and star campaigner. Asked what Congress had to offer voters at this election, she said: “Our pitch is very simple. Mr Modi’s policies have been extremely, they’ve actually been harmful for the poor of this country, for the farmers, for labourers [and] even for the middle class. Frankly, he has not done anything to strengthen them.

“We are saying that his policies have all been skewed towards three or four of his oligarch friends to whom he seems to be handing everything, even the nation’s assets,” she says, an apparent reference to Mr Modi’s close ties with billionaire industrialists like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani, the country’s two richest men.

“And we are saying that we want to put in place a government that is focused on solving your problems and focused on strengthening you so that you can face all these problems that have multiplied under Modi’s rule.”

Narendra Modi with Yogi Adityanath, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, waves to the crowd in Varanasi last month (AFP)

While most would agree that this election has been far from fair for Congress and its allies, the party is also facing criticism for an apparent inability to recover from the landslide losses of 2014 and 2019 and provide a viable alternative to Mr Modi. Sugata Srinivasaraju, journalist and author of a book on Rahul Gandhi, Strange Burdens, suggests the Gandhis have spent too much of the election preparing to defend their own roles in the party in the event that they lose.

“They are creating a ground already to say that the elections may not be so credible after all. That it is possible they are stolen. They are planting doubts with regard to the electoral processes,” he tells The Independent.

“My question is when you spent so much energy on a negative campaign, on berating Modi, you could have spent a part of that energy to positively approach your own party. What have you done concretely to reorganise your party?”

Children riding a bicycle wear masks portraying Narendra Modi in Varanasi (AFP)

Facing relentless criticism from the government benches that Congress exists as a party only to further the ambitions of one family, in 2022 the party held an election to appoint a president from outside the party’s ranks. Among those running were Shashi Tharoor, a former high-ranking UN official and author popular with Indian liberals and young people. In the end the party chose Mallikarjun Kharge, a Gandhi loyalist who Mr Srinivasaraju describes as no more than a “rubber stamp” for the family.

“Why didn’t you, in the last 10 years, focus [on rebuilding the party] after your first loss in 2014?” he asks the Gandhis. “Why didn’t you spend that energy building the infrastructure and network for your party? You did not focus on that, you just placed it on one side. You thought you will come back by default again.”

Congress party leader Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra at an election rally in Dhubri district in lower Assam (AP)

There are a host of reasons given by voters in Amethi for why they are turning their backs on the Gandhis, and these range from the local to the religious.

Several cite Mr Modi’s inauguration of a temple to Lord Ram in Ayodhya, also in Uttar Pradesh, as a moment of pride for them as Hindus. With the Ram Temple’s first phase hastily built in time for Mr Modi to declare it open just before the election, it was another moment of history in the country’s lurch towards Hindu nationalism, with the prime minister acting as high priest at a grand monument to Hinduism’s most important deity – on the site of an illegally demolished mosque.

Awadh Prasad Patel, who sings holy songs at religious gatherings, vows to vote for Mr Modi, saying members of his caste support the party. “Only Muslims and a few Dalits [formerly Untouchables] might vote for Congress,” he says. “I am a farmer and a follower of deity Lord Ram. And Modi put an end to the issue of Ram temple. So we would be voting for them.”

“For the longest time, there was no road here. Just potholes,” Chotey Lal Sahu, a 65-year-old from Berara, a village in the Amethi constituency, tells The Independent. “It was filled with water (during the rainy season). But now there is a road. Its construction has eased things for us,” he says.

“Under this government, we are getting ration, we are getting pension. This is the first time the country has a vegetarian prime minister, as well as a vegetarian chief minister,” he added, referring to the firebrand local BJP leader in the state, chief minister Yogi Adityanath.

A Congress party rally in Dhubri district (AP)

Ram Shankar, from Tiloi in Amethi, vociferously backs the BJP. “Rahul gave us a lot. But Thakurs [upper caste men] have taken everything. From land to grazing area to pond. There is nothing left.

“I raised a complaint about waste pipe leaking but the police came and beat me. They also beat my father,” he says. “I will vote for the BJP. At least they give money to farmers and have waived off some of my loans.

“I do not care what Rahul Gandhi or his family did, as I was not there. We will only vote for those who will fight for our rights. There is no road, it is just mud. People s*** on the roadside. And our head of village never visits us.”

Modi at a rally in New Delhi (Reuters)

Issues relating to caste and religious politics are powerful tools to sway voters here in Uttar Pradesh, and Congress has been seen as largely reactive in its response to the way Hindutva [Hindu-first] policies have won waves of support for Mr Modi’s party. For a time Congress was accused of doing “soft Hindutva”, showing Gandhi touring Hindu temples as a way of saying the party could still appeal to the religious group that makes up around 80 per cent of the population.

But more recently the party has realised it will never win back the die-hard Hindu nationalists that make up the BJP’s base, Mr Srinivasaraju says, and it is instead “trying to present the Congress as a complete opposite to the philosophy of the BJP”.

“[Gandhi] started speaking about federalism and balkanised caste politics, which was in contrast to the centralised and pan-Indian imagination the Congress was known for not so long ago. He started saying that India was a union of states and not exactly a nation,” he says. “I think Rahul Gandhi is trying to occupy a kind of high moral ground because there is nothing else left.”

Many will question whether Congress picked the right strategies for this election if the results on Tuesday go in line with what the exit polls are saying. But whatever reckoning is due, it seems certain that the party’s first response will be to publicly question the fairness of the world’s largest election.

Rahul Gandhi greets his supporters as he arrives at Fursatganj airport in Amethi last month (AFP)

“It’s the first, possibly the first election in the history of India, where chief ministers from opposition parties have been imprisoned during election time,” says Ms Gandhi-Vadra, as she highlights the challenges faced by the opposition. “There has been a massive attack on opposition leaders in India. Not just opposition leaders, but on free and fair media. So there’s hardly any journalists now who will take an independent stand. The ones who did have either been imprisoned or cases have been put against them.

“On every front, whether it’s activists, journalists, political parties or movie stars who have raised their voices. On every front, the government has attacked them.” The harsh reality for the Gandhi family and its party is that it has had no real defence against the onslaught it has faced from the man now set to become the first after Nehru to win three terms as India’s prime minister.

The Mystery of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her own bodyguards

Breana Scheckwitz
Updated May 23, 2024

The Mystery of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her own bodyguards

Indira Gandhi, a prominent Indian politician and the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's inaugural prime minister, was tragically assassinated by her own bodyguards on Oct. 31, 1984.

Born Nov. 19, 1917, she emerged as a central figure in her country's political landscape, eventually becoming prime minister in her father's footsteps.

The trust she placed in her favorite Sikh security guard, following Operation Blue Star, ultimately proved to be a fatal mistake. In exploring the narrative of Gandhi's assassination, it is crucial to examine the backgrounds and motivations of her assailants, shedding light on the reasons that led to their fatal decision.


Prior to her time in office, Indira Gandhi studied at prominent institutions, including Somerville College, Oxford and the Visva-Bharati University in West Bengal.


Gandhi served as her country's third and only female prime minister starting in 1966 to 1977, and then served another term from 1980 until she died in 1984.

As a central figure of the Indian National Congress, she was admired for her leadership and criticized for her authoritarian approach. She played a significant role in Indian politics and is often cited as a trailblazer for women throughout the country.

Gandhi was a key player in Indian politics for 17 years, whether in office or out of it. She played an active role in the Independence movement and closely worked with her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, a pivotal figure in the establishment of contemporary India, serving as his assistant when he was prime minister. In 1959, she also held the position of president of the Indian National Congress.

Indira Gandhi's tenure has been characterized by significant economic and social changes, but also by allegations of authoritarianism.

Gandhi rose to power suddenly after Lal Bahadur Shastri died in 1966. At the outset of her leadership, India struggled with significant economic hardships, including high inflation and food shortages. The country's agricultural sector was vulnerable due to its dependence on the monsoon seasons and aid from the U.S.

She also faced substantial political challenges and dedicated much of her tenure to overcoming these issues, the same issues Nehru attempted to resolve. She fought to direct India toward self-reliance and economic resilience. By 1980, India had become self-reliant and even became a nation of grain surplus, alongside notable industrial progress — achievements attributed to her governance.

Indira Gandhi's involvement in politics began at an early age, often accompanying her father on his political campaigns.

Acknowledged milestones during her leadership include the triumph in the 1971 War with Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh and the cementing of India's status as a potential nuclear power. All of these developments strengthened India's self-esteem.

Her tenure ended with her assassination, leaving behind a legacy of achievements and unresolved tensions.

Indian society was divided about her; some called her "Mother Indira," and others viewed her as authoritarian. However, it is widely accepted that her leadership shaped India and set the course for its future.

Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguards on Oct. 31, 1984, following the events of Operation Blue Star.

Gandhi's time as prime minister was impaired by increasing tensions with Sikh separatists, culminating in Operation Blue Star. This was the Indian army's response in June 1984 to remove militant Sikh leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers, who had hidden themselves within the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The militants' substantial armaments led to a heavy-handed military response, which included the use of artillery.

The conflict ended on June 10 with the army seizing control of the temple. However, the operation, which coincided with a significant Sikh religious event, resulted in numerous civilian deaths who were present at the time. This resulted in widespread condemnation from Sikhs globally. They interpreted it as an attack on their religious community.

Indira Gandhi served as prime minister of India for three consecutive terms (1966-77) and a fourth term from 1980 until her assassination in 1984.

The repercussions of Operation Blue Star severely damaged Gandhi's standing with Sikhs, which eventually led to her assassination.

Gandhi's assassination on Oct. 31, 1984, was committed by her bodyguards, notably Beant Singh, who was considered a favorite. The assassination was a consequence of the tensions from Operation Blue Star and led to a planned reassignment of Sikh bodyguards, including Singh. Gandhi canceled the transfer, worried about increasing her anti-Sikh persona.

Indira Gandi married Feroze Gandhi in 1942, and together had two sons, Rajiv Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi.

On the morning of her assassination, despite being advised to wear a bulletproof vest, Gandhi was not wearing it.

As she walked through a gate headed to an interview, Singh shot her three times in the abdomen with his .38 revolver. Satwant Singh, another bodyguard, fired 30 rounds from his submachine gun. Following the assault, Beant was located and killed by Border Police, and Satwant was tried and executed in 1989.

Indira Gandhi’s son, Rajiv Gandhi, succeeded her as prime minister of India.

A Modi Win Will Only Mean More Trouble for Indian Muslims

A Muslim woman is casting her vote in the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) at a polling station during the sixth phase of the Indian General Elections in New Delhi, India, on May 26, 2024. Kabir Jhangiani

—NurPhoto/Getty Images

TIME\IDEAS
BY ISMAT ARA
MAY 31, 2024 9:14 AM EDT
Ismat Ara is a New Delhi-based journalist. She covers politics, crime, gender, culture and environment.

More than two years have passed since a picture of me, picked up from my personal social media handles, was put up with a price tag for auction on the internet. It was part of a website called Bulli Bai, a religious slur used for Muslim women in India.

Why was I targeted? Likely because of my reporting. The perpetrators wanted to shame and humiliate a journalist who was determined to expose the failures of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s gender, caste, and religion-based violence. But more importantly, they wanted to shut up a Muslim woman who had dared to be vocal in Modi’s India.


When the photo was posted, I wondered how the main perpetrator, a 21-year-old student from Assam, who created Bulli Bai could be so consumed by his hatred that he felt compelled to auction Muslim women online for their outspoken criticism of the BJP—journalists, social workers, actors, and politicians. A recent meeting with my lawyer about my case against the Bulli Bai creators, who are still being investigated by the Delhi police, was a painful reminder of the targeted harassment faced by outspoken Muslim voices critical of the ruling BJP.

As the ongoing election in India is set to finish on June 1, it has once again offered deeper insight into how political dialogue is fueling this culture of hate.


Particularly, the political campaign of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP has leaned into anti-Muslim sentiment, progressively making Islamophobia one of the defining features of this election.

It was most prominently on display when Modi, in a thinly veiled reference to Muslims, referred to the 200 million Indian Muslim population as “infiltrators” at a BJP campaign rally while addressing voters in the Western state of Rajasthan on April 21. The Prime Minister also accused the opposition Congress party of planning to distribute the country’s wealth to Muslims.


Modi, in his speech, asked, “Earlier, when his [ former Prime Minister and Congress Party member Manmohan Singh’s] government was in power, he had said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s property, which means who they will collect this property and distribute it to—those who have more children, will distribute it to the infiltrators. Will the money of your hard work be given to the infiltrators? Do you approve of this?”

Read More: How India’s Hindu Nationalists Are Weaponizing History Against Muslims

This 2006 statement by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasizing that minorities, particularly Muslims, should have the first claim on resources to help uplift their socio-economic status, has been often quoted out of context in political rhetoric, distorting its original intent to uplift marginalized communities.

The reemergence of conspiracy theories like “Love Jihad,” alleging a covert agenda by Muslim men to ensnare and convert Hindu women, by Modi, has surged back into public attention, prominently surfacing at an election rally on May 28, days before the seventh and last phase of the ongoing elections, in the Eastern state of Jharkhand.

The alarming rhetoric about Muslim population growth too have dominated the election discourse, fueled by the BJP's top leader, Modi, who has been criticized for his Islamophobic remarks, evoking memories of Gujarat's 2002 riots. While he later denied singling out Muslims in an interview with an Indian news channel, his history of linking them to population growth fuels a Hindu-majoritarian conspiracy theory.


Following the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat during his tenure as chief minister, Modi faced scrutiny regarding his administration's lack of assistance to relief camps, predominantly established by non-profit organizations and Muslim communities. During a campaign rally, Modi then insinuated that these camps might transform into "baby factories," implying that Muslims could potentially have families as large as 25 children.

In his Jharkhand rally in May of this year, Modi spoke of "unseen enemies" working to divide society and claimed that the opposition parties were playing into the hands of “infiltrators”. He warned against "Zalim (cruel) love," alluding to Love Jihad.

As the elections progressed, Modi’s speeches transformed slowly from issues such as “development” to anti-Muslim rhetoric. Unlike previous elections, Modi's campaign strategy this time has shifted towards overt Hindu-Muslim politics, drawing attention to his past record and raising concerns among Indian Muslims, as evidenced by the Election Commission's intervention in a campaign video by the BJP inciting hatred against Muslims.

The video, shared by BJP Karnataka wing with a cautionary message in Kannada, depicted a cartoon version of Congress’s Rahul Gandhi placing an egg marked "Muslims" into a nest alongside smaller eggs labeled with categories such as "Scheduled Castes," "Scheduled Tribes," and "Other Backward Castes.” The narrative unfolds as the "Muslim" hatchling is shown being nourished with financial resources, eventually growing larger and displacing the other hatchlings from the nest—implying that a Congress government will give away all resources to Muslims.


This came days after another animated video shared by the BJP’s official Instagram handle was removed on May 1 after a large number of users of the platform reported the video for “false information” and “hate speech.” The video repeats the BJP’s rhetoric on the Congress party, who they allege are“empowering people who belong to the very same community [of] invaders, terrorists, robbers and thieves [who] used to loot all our treasures” while the voice-over says, “If Congress comes to power, it will snatch all the money and wealth from non-Muslims and distribute them among Muslims, their favorite community.”

Despite its controversial content, the video amassed over 100 thousand likes before being removed.

Both videos come after claims by Modi during his campaign speeches that Congress was planning to “steal” reservations in educational institutes and government jobs among other benefits from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Castes and redistribute them to Muslims.

Modi may be the foremost leader, but he's not alone in setting the tone; other top-tier BJP leaders are also walking in his footsteps. Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah's remarks linking voting for the Congress party to "jihad" in the South Indian state of Telangana have also stirred controversy.


Read More: The Modi-fication of India Is Almost Complete

The India Hate Lab, a Washington D.C.-based group that documents hate speech against India’s religious minorities, in its report of 2023 paints a grim picture of rising hate speech incidents against Muslims, totaling 668 documented cases.

These incidents, often featuring calls for violence and spreading divisive theories, were predominantly concentrated in regions governed by the BJP, particularly during key election periods like in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Chhattisgarh. Additionally, the report highlighted stark differences in hate speech content between BJP and non-BJP-governed areas, with BJP leaders more frequently involved in non-BJP territories as they strive to expand political footholds.

When leaders resort to fear-mongering, it legitimizes the dehumanization of minorities, creating a fertile ground for extremists. This often isn’t just about one app or incident. It’s about the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance that such rhetoric by the BJP leaders breeds. And those who oppose this type of hate speech want to ensure that no one—regardless of their faith, gender, or caste—has to live in fear of being targeted for who they are.

Modi’s statement received widespread criticism from the opposition, the intelligentsia community including authors, writers, scholars, academics, and the minority Muslim population of India. The Congress party even filed a complaint with the Election Commission, alleging that Modi's remarks violate electoral laws that prohibit appeals to religious sentiments. Despite public outcry and demands from activists and citizens for action, the Election Commission has so far taken no appropriate action.


Modi's Islamophobic statements, which have fueled fears over and over again among India's Muslim population, must be viewed within the broader context of his party's strategies—which often invoke religious and communal sentiments to galvanize their voter base. And this time, the aim is to break all previous records by securing 400 plus seats in the 543 seat parliament.

If the BJP is able to secure such a huge majority in the parliament, Hindu majoritarianism will remain unchecked. The hostility towards the minorities could escalate even more, and opposition parties may bear the brunt of state agencies and crackdowns if they ask questions.

During Modi’s previous terms, Muslims have seen an increased marginalization and discrimination fueled by Hindu nationalist agendas—ranging from difficulty in securing a rented accommodation in urban cities, erasure of Muslim names from roads, cities and railway stations, to the underrepresentation in government jobs and discrimination and vandalism of shops of small Muslim vendors.

Today, India, a country which once took pride in its ganga-jamuni tehzeeb—a term used to refer to the fusion of Hindu-Muslim cultures—has become a global epicenter of divisive politics. While elections will come and go, the impact of the irresponsible words of Modi and the BJP will stay with the 200 million plus Muslims in the country.


These words have real and dangerous implications for the safety and security of India's Muslim population. Muslims in India currently face increased social ostracism, economic boycotts, and even physical violence. And another victory with an overwhelming majority will only mean more trouble.

Bollywood is playing a large supporting role in India’s elections

Photo by Vinatha Sreeramkumar on Unsplash
woman in yellow dress standing on pink flower field during daytime

The Conversation

April 14, 2024

As the largest electorate in history goes to the polls in India from April 19 to June 1, 2024, political parties are seeking to influence voters’ decisions – through cinema.

The incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, seeking a third term in office under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has deployed the medium of cinema, more than others, to spread the party’s goals and ideas.

The BJP claims India as a Hindu nation. The Modi government openly supports films that promote the BJP ideology through providing tax breaks and removing regulatory restrictions, especially when such films are strategically timed to release in theaters ahead of the elections. “Swatantrya Veer Savarkar,” a biopic on an ardent advocate of a purely Hindu nation, was released a few weeks before polling begins for the 2024 elections.

India’s entertainment film industry is a complex behemoth with an output of about 1,500 releases per year and a base of fans that extends around the world. Fabulously choreographed dance routines, catchy lyrics, memorable dialogue and historical and religious imagery make it a favored medium of communication – even for political parties.

The use of Indian popular cinema for political ends has a long history – one that predates Indian independence. As an art historian, I documented how cinematic imagery was used to produce a heroic aura around political figures in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu in my 2009 book “Celluloid Deities: The Visual Culture of Cinema and Politics in South India.”

The connection between cinema and politics made it the primary vehicle for the lengthy careers of numerous charismatic politicians – some of them screenwriters and film producers, others leading actors and actresses. Since the 1980s, it also set in motion a nationwide trend of using cinematic means to capture the attention of voters.

Mobilizing film fans for electoral campaigns

Viewing movies in theaters is an eventful and enjoyable experience that draws a mass audience. As sociologist Lakshmi Srinivas describes in her 2016 book “House Full,” the release of highly anticipated blockbusters is much like a festival. Most striking is the excitement of audiences as they recite the dialogues, dance to the lyrics and hail stars as they appear on the screen.

In an Indian context, cinema’s impact extends from the movie theater to the street in the form of advertisements, fashion and film music that dominate public spaces. Art historian Shalini Kakar argues that the spectacle of cinema brings forth passionate responses from viewing masses that are much like religious emotion. She discusses case studies of film fans who even worship their favorite celebrities as deities by creating temples to these stars within residential and commercial spaces. These fans conduct religious ceremonies and organize public festivities for their favored stars.

But more often, fans are part of a large and vocal collective. Media theorist S.V. Srinivas found that film fans can make or destroy the careers and lives of stars. If a star decides to venture into politics, these film fans can become active participants in the star’s political campaigns. But if the star does something that the fans disapprove of, they will as easily boycott his films and even destroy the star’s career.

An alignment of cinema and politics

The cinema industry in Tamil Nadu, more than any other in India, has evolved closely with political and social developments in the region since the 1940s. The ideals of Tamil nationalism, a political movement that changed the course of history in Tamil Nadu, were powerfully communicated through the medium of entertainment films. Often, the personalities associated with these films were physically present alongside politicians at party meetings.


Voters’ choices can be influenced by popular films in India.
AP Photo/Ajit Solanki

In my research, I found that the alignment of cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu was helped by the use of identical advertising media. Political parties regularly commissioned advertisers to produce “star images” of politicians. A favored publicity medium of both the cinema industry and party members was the hand-painted plywood cutout. These full-length portraits, 20 feet to 100 feet in height, featured charismatic leaders of Tamil nationalist parties such as M. Karunanidhi, a prolific and influential scriptwriter, and J. Jayalalithaa, a famous film star turned politician.

Though these political portraits were meant to be realistic rather than melodramatic, the style and scale of these portraits resembled the cinematic star image. In this way, they helped to transfer the power of the cinematic star image to the image of the leader.

I argued that these advertisements played an important role in visualizing, and shaping, the identity politics of Tamil nationalism.

The audience for these images numbered in the millions. When these vibrantly colored portraits of film stars and political leaders appeared side by side in public spaces, they soared above the skyline like celestial beings. Often, the images became the focus of adulation. They were feted and garlanded, people danced, burst crackers, cheered and crowded around these images, and posed next to them for photographs.

The charismatic politicians of the Tamil nationalist movement set the trend of combining the sheen of the star image, the power of political portraiture and the divine aura of icons in their advertising.

Cinema’s role in divisive politics

Under Modi’s leadership, three themes emerge in a cluster of films that favor the BJP’s goals and policies and are endorsed by the party: claiming credit for welfare initiatives, instilling Hindu nationalist beliefs in society, and heightening tensions between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority communities.

For example, a film released in 2017, “Toilet: Ek Prem ki Katha,” or “Toilet: A Love Story,” tells the story of a couple whose marriage starts to fall apart over the lack of a toilet within the home. At the beginning of the film, which is an entertaining musical melodrama, viewers are informed that while Mahatma Gandhi championed for a clean environment, it is Modi who is making that dream a reality through budgeting for the construction of toilets nationwide.

Another series of films in the biopic genre showcases the historical legacy of right-wing Hindu nationalist organizations and their leaders. “PM Narendra Modi,” which reminded voters of the prime minister’s rise from poverty, was scheduled for release just before the 2019 elections. But the Election Commission of India, an independent body charged with ensuring free and fair elections, ordered that the film could be released only after the elections.

A third and more troubling genre is politically polarizing films. Drawing on ethnically charged actual events in which communities of Hindus and Muslims clashed, the scripts for these films dramatize highly biased narratives in which Hindus are cast as the victims while Muslims are the villainous perpetrators.

Widely viewed examples of this genre include “Kashmir Files,” which shows the mass exodus of Hindus from the north Indian state of Kashmir in the early 1990s when they were targeted by a pro-Pakistan armed uprising of Kashmiri Muslims. The film, which demonizes Muslims and shows them committing extremely barbaric and cruel acts, is among those publicly endorsed by the prime minister himself.

Film producers and distributors I interviewed for my research were unanimous that it was impossible to accurately predict whether a film would succeed at the box office, as are the results of the elections.

Should the BJP succeed, however, it would be fair to conclude that one element in the hat trick was a clever endorsement of cinema as a vehicle for party propaganda.

Preminda Jacob, Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Switzerland's Nemo wins 68th Eurovision Song Contest after event roiled by protests

Nemo beat Croatia's Baby Lasagna to the title by winning the most points from a combination of national juries and viewers around the world.


Photo by: Martin Meissner / AP
Nemo of Switzerland, who performed the song The Code, celebrates after winning the Grand Final of the Eurovision Song Contest in Malmo, Sweden, Sunday, May 12, 2024.

By: AP via Scripps News
May 12, 2024

Swiss singer Nemo won the 68th Eurovision Song Contest early Sunday with "The Code," an operatic pop-rap ode to the singer's journey toward embracing a nongender identity.

Switzerland's contestant beat Croatian rocker Baby Lasagna to the title by winning the most points from a combination of national juries and viewers around the world. Nemo, 24, is the first nonbinary winner of the contest that has long been embraced as a safe haven by the LGBT community. Nemo is also the first Swiss winner since 1988 when Canadian chanteuse Celine Dion competed under the Swiss flag.


"Thank you so much," Nemo said after the result from Saturday's final was announced soon after midnight. "I hope this contest can live up to its promise and continue to stand for peace and dignity for every person."

At a post-victory news conference, Nemo expressed pride in accepting the trophy for "people that are daring to be themselves and people that need to be heard and need to be understood. We need more compassion, we need more empathy."

Nemo's victory in the Swedish city of Malmo followed a turbulent year for the pan-continental pop contest that saw large street protests against the participation of Israel that tipped the feelgood musical celebration into a chaotic pressure cooker overshadowed by the war in Gaza.

Hours before the final, Dutch competitor Joost Klein was expelled from the contest over a backstage altercation that was being investigated by police.


Nemo — full name Nemo Mettler — bested finalists from 24 other countries, who all performed in front of a live audience of thousands and an estimated 180 million viewers around the world. Each contestant had three minutes to meld catchy tunes and eye-popping spectacles into performances capable of winning the hearts of viewers. Musical styles ranged across rock, disco, techno and rap — sometimes a mashup of more than one.

Israeli singer Eden Golan, who spent Eurovision week in Malmo under tight security, took the stage to a wall of sound — boos mixed with cheers — to perform the power ballad "Hurricane." Golan shot up the odds table through the week, despite the protests that her appearance drew, and ended in fifth place behind Nemo, Baby Lasagna, Ukrainian duo alyona alyona & Jerry Heil, and French singer Slimane.

Eurovision organizers ordered a change to the original title of her song, "October Rain" — an apparent reference to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that killed about 1,200 people in Israel and triggered the war in Gaza.

The show was typically eclectic Eurovision fare, ranging from the pop-zombie folk hybrid of Estonia's 5Miinust x Puuluup to the folk-inflected power pop of Greece's Marina Satti and Armenia's Ladaniva and the goofy 1990s nostalgia of Finland's Windows95man, who emerged from a giant onstage egg wearing very little clothing.

Britain's Olly Alexander offered the upbeat dance track "Dizzy," while Ireland's gothic Bambie Thug summoned a demon onstage and brought a scream coach to Malmo, and Spain's Nebulossa boldly reclaimed a term used as a slur on women in "Zorra."

Nemo had been a favorite going into the contest, alongside Baby Lasagna, whose song "Rim Tim Tagi Dim" is a rollicking rock number that tackles the issue of young Croatians leaving the country in search of a better life.


The contest returned to Sweden, home of last year's winner, Loreen, half a century after ABBA won Eurovision with "Waterloo" — Eurovision's most iconic moment. ABBA did not appear in person in Malmo, though their digital "ABBA-tars" from the "ABBA Voyage" stage show did.

A trio of former Eurovision winners — Charlotte Perrelli, Carola and Conchita Wurst — performed "Waterloo" in tribute.

Though Eurovision's motto is "united by music," this year's event has proven divisive. Protests and dissent overshadowed a competition that has become a campy celebration of Europe's varied — and sometimes baffling — musical tastes and a forum for inclusiveness and diversity.

Thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched for the second time in a week on Saturday through Sweden's third-largest city, which has a large Muslim population, to demand a boycott of Israel and a cease-fire in the seven-month Gaza war that has killed almost 35,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.

Several hundred gathered outside the Malmo Arena before the final, with some shouting "shame" at arriving music fans, and facing off with police blocking their path. Climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those escorted away by police.

Klein, the Dutch performer, was ejected from the competition after a female member of the production crew made a complaint, competition organizer the European Broadcasting Union said. The 26-year-old Dutch singer and rapper had been a favorite of both bookmakers and fans with his song "Europapa."


Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, one of dozens of public broadcasters that collectively fund and broadcast the contest, said that as Klein came offstage after Thursday's semifinal, he was filmed without his consent and in turn made a "threatening movement" toward the camera.

The broadcaster said Klein didn't touch the camera or the camera operator and called his expulsion "disproportionate."

Tensions and nerves were palpable in the hours before the final. Several artists were absent from the Olympics-style artists' entrance at the start of the final dress rehearsal, though all appeared at the final.

Several competitors made reference to peace or love at the end of their performances, including France's Slimane, who said: "United by music for love and peace."

Nemo said the Eurovision experience had been "really intense and not just pleasant all the way."

"There were a lot of things that didn't seem like it was all about love and unity, and that made me really sad," Nemo said. "I really hope that Eurovision continues and can continue to stand for peace and love in the future. I think that needs a lot of work still."

Nemo's Eurovision win fires up Swiss advocates for nonbinary rights

Nemo's victory came a year-and-a-half after the Swiss government rejected proposals to create a third gender or non-specific option for official records

12 May 2024 - 

BY REUTERS

Nemo representing Switzerland celebrates after winning the 2024 Eurovision song contest.
Image: Leonhard Foeger/Reuters

Swiss advocates for nonbinary rights hailed local star Nemo's victory in Saturday's Eurovision Song Contest, urging the country's authorities to enable official recognition of people who identify as neither male or female.

In a politically-charged night in the Swedish city of Malmo, Nemo, a 24-year-old Swiss musician who uses they/them pronouns, claimed the top spot after dominating the jury section of the vote to beat out the audience favourite, Croatia's Baby Lasagna.

The Eurovision's traditionally carefree tone was clouded by booing and demonstrations from protesters who wanted Israel excluded from the contest because of its government's military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Israel's contestant, Eden Golan, placed second in the popular vote and wound up fifth overall.

Nemo's victory came a year-and-a-half after the Swiss government rejected proposals to create a third gender or non-specific option for official records, arguing that a binary gender model was still “strongly anchored” in Swiss society.

Sibel Arslan, a Swiss Green Party legislator who launched a legislative proposal in 2017 to overhaul rules to enable nonbinary designations, hailed Nemo's victory.

“A nonbinary person who officially doesn't exist in Switzerland has won Eurovision 2024 for us all with #BreakTheCode,” Arslan wrote on X, referencing Nemo's winning song The Code at the musical extravaganza.

Her proposal, she said, is now “more relevant than ever”.

An Ipsos LGBT Pride online poll in 2023 stated that 6% of respondents in Switzerland identified as either transgender, nonbinary, gender-fluid or differently from male or female, the highest proportion among the 30 countries surveyed.

The Code, Nemo's drum-and-bass, opera, rap and rock song, describes their journey of self-discovery as a nonbinary person, which the artist brought to a crescendo in Malmo while balancing precariously on a large, tilting revolving disc.

The youth wing of the Green Liberal Party said Nemo's success was a triumph for Switzerland and nonbinary people.

“It's time that Switzerland broke with its binary gender designation,” the group said on X.

Still, a nationwide survey last year by polling firm LeeWas for media 20 Minuten and Tamedia showed 62% of the Swiss public were broadly opposed to the introduction of a “third gender” designation on official documents, with only 35% in favour.

“I hope this contest can live up to its promise and continue to stand for peace and dignity for every person in this world,” Nemo said, after receiving the Eurovision trophy on stage.

“To know that a song that has changed my life and a song where I just speak about my story has touched so many people and maybe inspired other people to stay true to their story is the most insane thing that has ever happened to me,” Nemo later said during a press conference.

‘Every day it breaks my heart’: The long wait for freedom from the wrong body

South Africans seeking gender-change surgery through the state health system face a frustrating process that takes many years, writes Penwell Dlamini

Nemo's Eurovision triumph was the third for Switzerland, and the first since Canadian star Celine Dion won singing for the Alpine country in 1988 with Ne Partez Pas Sans Moi. Cheers of joy broke out in bars in central Zurich when the winner was announced, and Swiss revellers sang along as Nemo tore through a victory rendition of The Code.

“I think it's just great, Nemo is fantastic,” said Maha Nater, a 24-year-old kindergarten worker celebrating the win in the city after watching the marathon contest. One karaoke bar began blasting out Queen's We Are The Champions as patrons joined in.

Nemo's victory would blaze a trail for others who had had to cope with prejudice against nonbinary people, said Nater. “It sets an example to follow,” she said.

Croatia's Baby Lasagna, real name Marko Purisic, 28, came second with Rim Tim Tagi Dim, a song about a young man who leaves home aspiring to become a “city boy” with better opportunities.

Israel's Golan, 20, finished fifth in the contest despite demonstrators' calls for a boycott of the country. The female solo artist on Thursday emerged as one of the leading contenders to win after qualifying for the final.

Booing was heard during Golan's performance but also applause, a Reuters photographer in the auditorium said. The noise was partly audible in the broadcast viewed by tens of millions of people in Europe and around the world. There was also booing when the points of the Israeli jury were presented.

Several thousand protesters gathered in central Malmo ahead of Saturday's final, waving Palestinian flags and shouting “Eurovision united by genocide” — a twist on the contest's official slogan “United by music”. A few hundred people later also protested outside the venue, chanting “Eurovision, you can't hide, you're supporting genocide.”

Protesters have been pointing to double standards as the European Broadcasting Union banned Russia from Eurovision in 2022 because of its invasion of Ukraine. Police hauled away some protesters before surrounding and ushering them away, a Reuters reporter outside the arena said. Some protesters were seen lying on the ground after police used pepper spray to disband the demonstration.

Twenty-five countries competed in the final after Dutch artist Joost Klein was expelled on Saturday due to a complaint filed by a production crew member.

Viewer votes made up half of Saturday's final result, while juries of five music professionals in each participating country made up the other half.

The Eurovision winner is awarded the contest's official glass trophy, which is shaped like a classic, old-fashioned microphone, with sand blasted and painted details. The winner also gets to host the competition the following year.

Nemo broke the fragile prize shortly after receiving it, but was given a new one to replace it.

“I didn't just break the code, I also broke the trophy,” Nemo said, laughing, at the press conference after the win.

Dead Last (With an Emphasis on Dead!)

BY JUAN COLE

APRIL 18, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Image by Rongy Benjamin.

Last September witnessed what used to be a truly rare weather phenomenon: a Mediterranean hurricane, or “medicane.” Once upon a time, the Mediterranean Sea simply didn’t get hot enough to produce hurricanes more than every few hundred (yes, few hundred!) years. In this case, however, Storm Daniel assaulted Libya with a biblical-style deluge for four straight days. It was enough to overwhelm the al-Bilad and Abu Mansour dams near the city of Derna, built in the 1970s to old cool-earth specifications. The resulting flood destroyed nearly 1,000 buildings, washing thousands of people out to sea, and displaced tens of thousands more.

Saliha Abu Bakr, an attorney, told a harrowing tale of how the waters kept rising in her apartment building before almost reaching the roof and quite literally washing many of its residents away. She clung to a piece of wooden furniture for three hours in the water. “I can swim,” she told a reporter afterward, “but when I tried to save my family, I couldn’t do a thing.” Human-caused climate change, provoked by the way we spew 37 billion metric tons of dangerous carbon dioxide gas into our atmosphere every year, made the Libyan disaster 50 times more likely than it once might have been. And worse yet, for the Middle East, as well as the rest of the world, that nightmare is undoubtedly only the beginning of serial disasters to come (and come and come and come) that will undoubtedly render millions of people homeless or worse.

Failing Grades

In the race to keep this planet from heating up more than 2.7° Fahrenheit (1.5° Centigrade) above the preindustrial average, the whole world is already getting abominable grades. Beyond that benchmark, scientists fear, the planet’s whole climate system could fall into chaos, severely challenging civilization itself. The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), which monitors the implementation of the Paris climate accords, presented its alarming conclusions in a late March report. The CCPI crew was so disheartened by its findings — no country is even close to meeting the goals set in that treaty – that it left the top three slots in its ranking system completely empty.

For the most part, the countries of the Middle East made a distinctly poor showing when it came to the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are already heating the planet so radically. Admittedly, Morocco, with longstanding and ambitious green energy goals, came in ninth, and Egypt, which depends heavily on hydroelectric power and has some solar projects, ranked a modest 22nd. However, some Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hit rock bottom in the CCPI’s chart. That matters since you undoubtedly won’t be surprised to learn that the region produces perhaps 27% of the world’s petroleum annually and includes five of the 10 largest oil producers on the planet.

Ironically enough, the Middle East is at special risk from climate change. Scientists have found that it’s experiencing twice the rate of heating as the global average and, in the near future, they warn that it will suffer, as a recent study from the Carnegie Institute for International Peace put it, from “soaring heat waves, declining precipitation, extended droughts, more intense sandstorms and floods, and rising sea levels.” And yet some of the countries facing the biggest threat from the climate crisis seem all too intent on making it far worse.

Little Sparta

The CCPI index, issued by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and the Climate Action Network (CAN), ranks countries in their efforts to meet the goals set by the Paris Agreement according to four criteria: their emissions of greenhouse gases, their implementation of renewable energy, their consumption of fossil-fuel energy, and their government’s climate policies. The authors listed the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 65th place, calling it “one of the lowest-performing countries.” The report then slammed the government of President Mohammed Bin Zayed, saying: “The UAE‘s per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are among the highest in the world, as is its per capita wealth, while its national climate targets are inadequate. The UAE continues to develop and finance new oil and gas fields domestically and abroad.” On the southeast coast of the Arabian Peninsula, the UAE has a population of only about a million citizens (and about eight million guest workers). It is nonetheless a geopolitical energy and greenhouse gas giant of the first order.

The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, or ADNOC, headquartered in that country’s capital and helmed by businessman Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber (who is also the country’s minister of industry and advanced technology), has some of the more ambitious plans for expanding petroleum production in the world. ADNOC is, in fact, seeking to increase its oil production from four million to five million barrels a day by 2027, while further developing its crucial al-Nouf oil field, next to which the UAE is building an artificial island to help with its expected future expansion. To be fair, the UAE is behaving little differently from the United States, which ranked only a few spots better at 57. Last October, in fact, American oil production, which continues to be heavily government-subsidized (as does that industry in Europe), actually hit an all-time high.

The UAE is a major proponent of the dubious technique of carbon capture and storage, which has not yet been found to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions significantly or to do so safely and affordably. The magazine Oil Change International points out that the country’s carbon capture efforts at the Emirates Steel Plant probably sequester no more than 17% of the CO2 produced there and that the stored carbon dioxide is then injected into older, non-producing oil fields to help retrieve the last drops of petroleum they hold.

The UAE, which the Pentagon adoringly refers to as “little Sparta” for its aggressive military interventions in places like Yemen and Sudan, brazenly flouts the international scientific consensus on climate action. As ADNOC’s al-Jaber had the cheek to claim last fall: “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

Such outrageous denialism scales almost Trumpian heights in the faux grandeur of its mendacity. At the time, al-Jaber was also, ironically enough, the chairman of the yearly U.N. Conference of Parties (COP) climate summit. Last November 21st, he boldly posed this challenge: “Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.” (In the world he’s helping to create, of course, even the caves would sooner or later prove too hot to handle.) This year the International Energy Agency decisively answered his epic piece of trolling by reporting that the wealthier nations, particularly the European ones, actually grew their gross national products in 2023 even as they cut CO2 emissions by a stunning 4.5%. In other words, moving away from fossil fuels can make humanity more prosperous and safer from planetary catastrophe rather than turning us into so many beggars.

“Absolutely Not!”

What could be worse than the UAE’s unabashedly pro-fossil fuel energy policy? Well, Iran, heavily wedded to oil and gas, is, at 66, ranked one place lower than that country. Ironically, however, extensive American sanctions on Iran’s petroleum exports may, at long last, be turning that country’s ruling ayatollahs toward creating substantial wind and solar power projects.

But I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that dead last — with an emphasis on “dead” — comes that favorite of Donald (“drill, drill, drill“) Trump, Saudi Arabia, which, at 67, “scores very low in all four CCPI index categories: Energy Use, Climate Policy, Renewable Energy, and GHG Emissions.” Other observers have noted that, since 1990, the kingdom’s carbon dioxide emissions have increased by a compound yearly rate of roughly 4% and, in 2019, that relatively small country was the world’s 10th largest emitter of CO2.

Worse yet, though you wouldn’t know it from the way the leaders of both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are acting, the Arabian Peninsula (already both arid and torrid) is anything but immune to the potential disasters produced by climate change. The year 2023 was, in fact, the third hottest on record in Saudi Arabia. (2021 took the all-time hottest mark so far.) The weather is already unbearable there in the summer. On July 18, 2023, the temperature in the kingdom’s Eastern Province, al-Ahsa, reached an almost inconceivable 122.9° F (50.5° C). If, in the future, such temperatures were to be accompanied by a humidity of 50%, some researchers are suggesting that they could prove fatal to humans. According to Professor Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and his colleagues, that kind of heat can actually raise the temperature of an individual by 1.8° F. In other words, it would be as if they were running a fever and, worse yet, “people’s metabolic rates also rose by 56%, and their heart rates went up by 64%.”

While the Arabian Peninsula is relatively dry, cities on the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden can at times be humid and muggy, which means that significant increases in temperature could sooner or later render them uninhabitable. Such rising heat even threatens one of Islam’s “five pillars.” This past year the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, took place in June, when temperatures sometimes reached 118° F (48° C) in western Saudi Arabia. More than 2,000 pilgrims fell victim to heat stress, a problem guaranteed to worsen radically as the planet heats further.

Despite the threat that climate change poses to the welfare of that country’s inhabitants, the government of King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is doing less than nothing to address the growing problems. As the CCPI’s authors put it, “Saudi Arabia’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are rising steadily. Its share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (TPES) is close to zero.” Meanwhile, at the 2022 U.N. climate summit conference held in Egypt, “Saudi Arabia played a notably unconstructive role in the negotiations. Its delegation included many fossil fuel lobbyists. It also tried to water down the language used in the COP’s umbrella decision.”

At the next meeting in Dubai last fall, COP28, the final document called only for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.” Avoided was the far more relevant phrase “phase down” or “phase out” when it came to fossil fuels and even the far milder “transitioning away” was only included over the strenuous objections of Riyadh, whose energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman, said “absolutely not” to any such language. He added, “And I assure you not a single person — I’m talking about governments — believes in that.” His assertion was, of course, nonsense. In fact, some leaders, like those of Pacific Island nations, consider an immediate abolition of fossil fuels essential to the very survival of their countries.

Abandoning the Logic of Small Steps

Although Saudi Arabia’s leaders sometimes engage in greenwashing, including making periodic announcements about future plans to develop green energy, they have done virtually nothing in that regard, despite the Kingdom’s enormous potential for solar and wind power. Ironically, the biggest Saudi green energy achievement has been abroad, thanks to the ACWA Power firm, a public-private joint venture in the Kingdom. The Moroccan government, the only one in the Middle East to make significant strides in combatting climate change, brought in ACWA as part of a consortium to build its epochal Noor concentrated solar energy complex near the ancient city of Ouarzazate at the edge of the Sahara desert. It has set a goal of getting 52% of its electricity from renewables by 2030. Though critics pointed out that it missed its goal of 42% by 2020, government boosters responded that, by the end of 2022, 37% of Morocco’s electricity already came from renewables and, just in the past year, it jumped to 40%, with a total renewables production of 4.6 gigawatts of energy.

Moreover, Morocco has a plethora of green energy projects in the pipeline, including 20 more hydroelectric installations, 19 wind farms, and 16 solar farms. The solar plants alone are expected to generate 13.5 gigawatts within a few years, tripling the country’s current total green energy output. Two huge wind farms, one retooled with a new generation of large turbines, have already come online in the first quarter of this year. The country’s expansion of green electricity production since it launched its visionary plans in 2009 has not only helped it make major strides toward decarbonization but contributed to the electrification of its countryside, where access to power is now universal. Just in the past two and a half decades, the government has provided 2.1 million households with electricity access. Morocco has few hydrocarbons of its own and local green energy helps the state avoid an enormous drain on its budget.

In contrast to the pernicious nonsense often spewed by Saudi and Emirati officials, the Moroccan king, Mohammed VI, is in no doubt about the severe challenges his poverty-ridden country faces. He told the U.N. COP28 climate conference in early December, “Just as climate change is inexorably increasing, the COPs must, from here on, emerge from the logic of ‘small steps,’ which has characterized them for too long.”

Large steps toward a Middle East (and a world) of low-carbon energy would, of course, be a big improvement. Unfortunately, on a planet they are helping to overheat in a remarkable fashion, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have largely taken steps — huge ones, in fact — toward ever more carbon dioxide emissions. Worse yet, they’re located in a part of the world where such retrograde policies are tantamount to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

This piece first appeared at TomDispatch.