Showing posts sorted by date for query PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Opinion

Israeli prepares to annex the occupied West Bank and impose a fait accompli on the Palestinians




A view of the West Bank separation barrier, which separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, has become the site of many artists’ drawings to depict the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, on November 12, 2024 in Bethlehem, West Bank [Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency]




MEMO
November 21, 2024 
by Aziz Mustafa


As soon as it was known that Donald Trump will be back in the White House in January, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that 2025 would be the year to impose the occupation state’s sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria”, known to the rest of the world as the West Bank. Naftali Bennett made a similar announcement in 2016, when Trump was a US presidential candidate for the first time. The Palestinian territory, said Bennett, should be part of the occupation state.

Annexation is illegal under international law.

Any Israeli attempt to annex the West Bank projects a worrying picture of the consequences. The Israelis themselves are monitoring this, but it is not acknowledged by the right-wing government, because even partial annexation could lead to some negative responses that would jeopardise the occupation state’s position. While the Jewish settlers and their leaders who support annexation claim that it can be implemented gradually and thus be revealed as a fait accompli, with reduced negative consequences, research suggests that this is a delusion.

The gradual annexation of so-called Area C of the West Bank (delineated by the Oslo Accords and controlled fully by Israel), or even part of it, is expected to lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and thus the end of its security coordination with the occupation state, and the occupation army will have to control the occupied Palestinian territory. In such a situation, Israel will be forced to fund a military-run regime and be responsible for the lives of 2.8 million Palestinians. The cost of such a move is estimated at $14.5 billion annually, including expenses for health services, education and national insurance for Palestinians.

OPINION: Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real

Moreover, the annexation of the West Bank could damage the Israeli economy due to a predicted decline in foreign investment and the imposition of international sanctions. Security will also be affected, as the occupation army will be required to double its presence on the ground, hindering its readiness for war on other fronts. Vital security cooperation under the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt will be hit, with the potential for Jordan to become dangerously unstable within the international arena, and Israel could find itself in a serious diplomatic crisis.

Even if the incoming Trump administration supports the annexation move, even tacitly, the reaction of Europe and the Arab world is expected to be harsh. It is likely to include economic and diplomatic sanctions, and Israel’s international legitimacy, such as it is, will be damaged severely.


It might even be declared to be a pariah state, similar to South Africa during the apartheid era.

The main fear, though, is that annexation will lead to a point of no return, where the occupation state will be forced to choose between two impossible options: a binational state in which it will lose its Jewish majority, or an apartheid regime in which millions of Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, without full civil rights. Israel has already been found to have passed the threshold as an apartheid state by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Coinciding with Israeli preparations to annex the West Bank, the government’s attitude towards Palestinian construction, especially in Area C, means implementing a demographic and population revolution in favour of the Jewish immigrant settlers at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians.

There were 2,868 new Palestinian buildings built in Area C from June 2023 to May 2024, less than half of the number built in the corresponding periods in previous years since 2018. The monthly average in 2023 was 260 new Palestinian buildings, compared with an average of 608 buildings per month in previous years from 2018 onwards. This is a 57 per cent decrease. Meanwhile, there has been very intense activity by the occupation army, prompting many Palestinians to stay in their homes and postpone their housing plans.

READ: Israel forces assault staff member after storming Palestinian school

The operations of the army-run Civil Administration in the West Bank; the appointment of far-right extremist Smotrich as Finance Minister and as an additional minister in the Defence Ministry; and the establishment of the Settlement Directorate have all contributed to imposing more control over Palestinian land in the West Bank. This began with building a strategy for work and determining the location for Palestinian construction, and has been extended to a legal advisory system to deal with petitions, the confiscation of engineering equipment and the demolition of “unlicensed” structures that deter Palestinian residents from trying to extend their homes or build new properties.

A major factor in the decline in Palestinian construction has been the decisive move by the Ministry of Settlements and National Missions, headed by Orit Strook, to fund land coordinators in all settlement councils. Their job is to patrol in a vehicle and use drones to detect and report any Palestinian construction. The result has been the confiscation of more than 440 tractors, small trucks and engineering tools used by Palestinian contractors, leaving them without tools for lengthy periods, which is costly and forces them to think twice before their next construction project.

The occupation authorities do not hesitate to demolish any new Palestinian building.

Unlike the past, the procedure is short and sharp. The heads of Palestinian villages know that anything being built has a low chance of survival and faces rapid demolition. The occupation authorities have destroyed 901 Palestinian buildings in Area C this year alone, and declared 5,978 acres to be state land. This is equivalent to half of the entire area that was declared as state land since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

With 19 per cent of Palestinian new-build sites destroyed in 2021, 27 per cent in the following year, 2022, and 22 per cent in 2023, a shocking increase has been recorded this year, with 68 per cent of new Palestinian buildings destroyed. All of this is in preparation for the annexation of the West Bank as soon as Donald Trump takes office in January. With many supporters of Israel’s illegal settlements nominated for major positions in his administration, the incoming US president may be unable to stop the annexation plan, even if, as Republican Party sources claim, he opposes it.


The shadow of Israeli settlement expansion hangs over Gaza

Analysis: With an emboldened Israeli far-right calling to resettle Gaza, Israel's systematic destruction is seen as a prelude to mass Palestinian displacement.



Mohamed Solaimane
21 November, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

Since its launch on 5 October this year, Israel’s campaign of forced evacuations in northern Gaza has claimed over 2,000 Palestinian lives and left more than 6,000 injured. While the immediate toll is devastating, Gazans fear an even darker threat looms over the enclave’s future.

Eyewitness accounts detail the widespread levelling of neighbourhoods in northern Gaza, with bulldozed infrastructure and new road networks tailored for military use. Coupled with growing calls within Israel’s political establishment to reinstate settlements in the area, these developments are deepening fears of permanent Palestinian displacement.

The destruction has sparked speculation that Israel intends to establish a buffer zone along its border with Gaza, a security measure that could also prevent the return of displaced Palestinians, but more troubling is the spectre of reintroducing settlements to northern Gaza, a region Israel evacuated in 2005 when it dismantled 21 settlements as part of a unilateral withdrawal.

The Israeli resettlement of Gaza is no longer a fringe idea
In-depth
Jessica Buxbaum

While Israel’s government has not explicitly announced plans to annex northern Gaza or resettle it with Israeli civilians, observers point out that the widespread displacement and destruction align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no-man’s land in northern Gaza, intended as a buffer zone against potential attacks.

Far-right parties and settlement organisations in late October organised a provocative rally held just hundreds of meters from Gaza’s border. The event featured members of Israel’s parliament and cabinet, all advocating for renewed settlement in Gaza. This gathering followed a January conference, during which far-right activists and lawmakers signed a petition urging the Israeli government to rebuild settlements in Gaza and northern parts of the West Bank.

Ahmed Fayad, a researcher in Israeli affairs, argues that these calls are “deeply rooted” in the ideology of the Zionist movement now dominating the government.

“This government believes that wherever settlements exist, the army will defend them, thereby ensuring security for surrounding areas,” Fayad told The New Arab, adding that he sees the push for settlements in northern Gaza as driven by “ideological conviction” as well as “political and military aims”.

Israel’s current actions in northern Gaza, which include razing buildings, displacing populations, and enforcing strict security protocols, appear designed to create “a buffer zone, ostensibly to protect nearby Israeli communities,” he adds.


The widespread displacement and destruction in north Gaza align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no man's land intended as a buffer zone. [Getty]


“It’s too early to conclude that far-right proposals for new settlements will gain traction,” he noted. “Settlements require a level of security and stability that simply doesn’t exist in Gaza right now. The territory is still a closed military zone, inaccessible even to Israelis.”

The future of Gaza, Fayad contended, depends on how Israel envisions its administration of the territory in the post-war era.

“There’s a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza,” Fayad said. “Legislative and administrative measures already in place could make this relatively easy to execute. However, such a move hinges on military and political decision-making, which is complicated by the memory of the severe security risks settlements faced before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal.”
Related

Israeli ethnic cleansing nears completion in northern Gaza
Analysis
Paul R. Pillar

The shift from political discourse to open calls for action is evident in statements by Israeli politicians and officials. Current and former members of Israel’s Knesset, ministers, and other high-ranking figures have increasingly advocated for establishing settlements across Gaza.

Mowaffaq al-Kafarna, a political science professor at Gaza University, does not rule out the eventual establishment of settlements but considers it unlikely during the current military campaign.

“The war is ongoing, and the complexities of ensuring security for settlements make such a move implausible at this stage,” he said.

However, he warns that Israel’s actions on the ground suggest a long-term strategy to completely evacuate northern Gaza.


“In this scenario, northern Gaza’s depopulation is just the beginning, with the process potentially extending to Gaza City itself,” al-Kafarna explained. “Israel seems intent on creating a northern Gaza entirely devoid of Palestinian presence, starting with this evacuation as a precursor to wider changes.”

He pointed to the systematic destruction of neighbourhoods and the construction of new road networks bisecting northern Gaza as evidence.

“The division of northern Gaza into isolated sections, combined with widespread destruction, lays the groundwork for gradual and comprehensive depopulation,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the first phase of a larger plan to establish security zones. Settlements may follow, depending on Israel’s long-term calculations.”

He also believes the overarching goal is to neutralise Gaza as a threat to Israel, dismantle resistance groups entirely, and replace Hamas with a pliable civilian administration loyal to Israeli interests.

“This is about ensuring Gaza can never challenge Israel again,” al-Kafarna said. “It’s not just about military domination but also political control, ensuring free movement for the Israeli military while maintaining a civilian administration subservient to Israeli security interests.”

There's a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza. [Getty]


One possibility, he suggests, is the incorporation of Gaza under Israel’s broader political and security apparatus. However, this would likely exclude any responsibility for the Palestinian population, which Israel might delegate to international organisations.

“This would contrast sharply with the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority manages civilian life. In Gaza, there would be no place for any Palestinian-led authority,” he noted.

From the Palestinian perspective, the signs on the ground suggest that settlements are not a distant possibility but an imminent reality. Nasser Attaallah, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, believes that Israel’s policies and actions in northern Gaza are preparing the ground for settlement expansion.

“Netanyahu and his extremist government have dredged up distorted historical and ideological justifications to legitimise these brutal crimes,” Attaallah said. “Settlement in Gaza is no longer just a plan; it’s becoming a reality.”

He warned that such moves will further entrench Palestinian dispossession, with “devastating consequences for the already shattered social and economic fabric of Gaza”.


For Palestinians like Attaallah, the renewed settlement discourse signals a return to a dark chapter they hoped was closed.

“We are witnessing the resurrection of an old nightmare,” he said, “and the world seems powerless to stop it”.

As Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian voices express a deepening sense of despair and inevitability over the region’s future. For many, the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, which set off the latest escalation, has become a pretext for what they describe as the total obliteration of Gaza.
Related


With Trump's win, Israel moves closer to annexing the West Bank
Analysis
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey

“Gaza is facing a full-scale settlement project,” Attaallah asserts. He argues that years of far-right planning, previously limited to policy papers, are now becoming a reality under the current government. The situation is further compounded, he believed, by the global landscape, particularly the influence of now-President-elect Donald Trump.

“During his first term, Trump legitimised settlements and supported every move by the Israeli right wing. With an administration sympathetic to the settler cause, the situation for Palestinians can only worsen,” he explained.

For Palestinians, this rhetoric, combined with the devastation on the ground, signals the erasure of any prospects for autonomy or stability. The stakes, Attaallah emphasises, could not be higher.

“This is about more than land - it’s about the survival of a people and the obliteration of their existence.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.


Opinion

Realism and the invasion of Gaza: 
Critiquing Israel’s Zionist agenda


Palestinians fleeing to Gaza City with their belongings they could take with them, on October 23, 2024 in Gaza City, Gaza. [Mahmoud Isleem – Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
by Syeda Fatima Shuja
November 21, 2024

Realism is a prominent school of thought in international relations and often justifies state actions based on national interests, power dynamics and security. It prioritises the preservation of the state’s autonomy and survival, even at the expense of ethical considerations. However, realism fails to address the moral implications of state actions adequately, particularly when they result in human suffering and violations of international law.

“States,” said Kenneth Waltz in 1979, “are the principal actors in international politics, and their primary concern is survival. The structure of the international system compels states to act in ways that maximise their security.”

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, realism’s reliance on power and security has often masked the underlying injustices and deprivations faced by the Palestinians. It has perpetuated a binary understanding of the conflict, overlooking the complexities of historical grievances, political motivations and the legitimate Palestinian struggle for self-determination.


This narrow perspective overlooks the crucial need for justice, accountability and the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Israel’s latest invasion and occupation of the Gaza Strip, a densely populated territory now under complete Israeli control, is a stark example of how realist thinking can fail to address fundamental moral concerns. The ongoing blockade, military operations and restrictions on movement have caused immense human suffering, yet these actions are often justified by the need to ensure Israel’s security. This approach ignores the long-term consequences of the occupation, including the erosion of trust, the perpetuation of violence and the hindering of peace negotiations. Not for nothing has it been called a “plausible genocide” by the International Court of Justice.

READ: IDF soldiers will pay for Netanyahu seeking to impose military rule in Gaza, warns Gallant

The justification used by Israel for its capture of the Gaza Strip is rooted in a combination of historical narratives, security concerns and political calculations. The claim that Gaza is a strategic buffer zone for Israel is often used to justify the occupation, arguing that the territory’s control is vital for Israel’s security. This narrative, however, is highly contested, with critics arguing that it overlooks the disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians and the role of the “unlawful” (as per the ICJ) occupation itself in fuelling conflict.

For Israel, the war in Gaza is framed as a war of self-defence against the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, but, in reality, it amounts to a genocide against the Palestinians. The occupation of the Gaza Strip can be seen as a strategic move, aiming to gain an advantageous position in future negotiations. Moreover, Israel is interested in the natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza. The Zionist state also wants to eliminate the possibility of serious resistance from Gaza when extremist Jews seek to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and build a temple in its place.

Although the ongoing air strikes, blockade of humanitarian aid and essential goods and services, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools and homes have led to a staggering number of civilian casualties, there has been little or no adequate action by the international community to stop the carnage. At least 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, mainly women and children, while 104,000 have been wounded. The sheer scale of the violence, along with the targeting of civilians, has drawn accusations of disproportionate force and collective punishment.


The loss of innocent lives, particularly children, has been devastating.

Thousands of children have been killed or severely wounded in their homes and schools, leaving families in shock. Women’s rights and safety have also been undermined as they bear the burden of displacement, loss of loved ones and injury. Rapes by soldiers have been reported. Whole communities and generations have been affected, losing their homes, futures and hopes.

READ: British MPs urge government to endorse ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Gallant

The ongoing genocide in Gaza raises serious questions about Israel’s treatment of civilians. This is not self-defence as outlined by the realist perspective, as the state is not focusing on addressing the threat posed by Hamas, which it regards as a terrorist organisation. That’s just an excuse. Ethnic cleansing of the enclave is the objective, either through killing or displacement. What’s more, an occupation state — Israel in this case — has no legal right to claim “self-defence” against the legitimate resistance of the people living under its military occupation.

The occupation state has ignored the repeated calls by the international community to respect international law and protect civilians. This highlights the need for reform of the United Nations, where Israel has been protected by the US veto and no means of enforcing resolutions are available. This emboldens Israel and allows it to act with total impunity. The effects are starting to be felt badly across the whole region.

While there has been much talk about the political aspects of “the day after” the war, little thought has apparently been given to the undoubted serious physical and mental health issues affecting the Palestinians in Gaza. Children are traumatised, as are their parents. Who is going to help them?

In the middle of all of this, even as Western governments struggle with poverty and declining public services in their own countries, they continue to give billions of dollars in aid to Israel as well as preferential trading, research and arms agreements.


Nobody is able to explain why with any degree of conviction.

Realism fails to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza because it focuses solely on power dynamics and security concerns, ignoring the human suffering and rights violations. This narrow perspective perpetuates the cycle of violence without tackling the underlying cause: the decades-old occupation. A just approach based on international law and human rights is needed to end the conflict.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an affront to human rights, an act of aggression, and a violation of international law,” said Noam Chomsky. How right he was.


Opinion

Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real



Israel’s Finance Minister and leader of the Religious Zionist Party Bezalel Smotrich on March 20, 2023 [GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AFP via Getty Images]


MEMO
by Hussein Laqra’a

November 20, 2024


The leaders of 56 Arab and Islamic countries advocated at the Riyadh Summit last week for the “two-state solution” and the need to establish a Palestinian state on the nominal borders of 4 June 1967, and tried to convince the world that it is the only solution to the Palestinian issue. In response, the extreme far-right Finance Minister of the occupation state, Bezalel Smotrich, insisted that 2025 will be the year that “Judea and Samaria” — the occupied West Bank — will be annexed to Israel and that he expects US President-elect Donald Trump to support this step. He basically confirmed that the quest for “Greater Israel” is real.

The nominal borders as at 4 June 1967 were the 1949 Armistice (“Green”) Line between the Zionist state of Israel and the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. These occupied Palestinian territories combined make up no more than 22 per cent of occupied Palestine. This means that the 56 Arab and Islamic countries have agreed that 78 per cent of Palestinian land should be served to the Zionist occupation state on a silver platter. In fact, the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut approved of this.

Some Arabs paid for advertisements in Israeli newspapers to promote this “Arab Peace Initiative”, but the Zionist Prime Minister at the time, war criminal Ariel Sharon, said that it “is not worth the ink it was written with” and rejected it completely. This rejection of the initiative continues to this day, despite Arab pleas and appeals, as well as the many humiliating concessions made by the Palestinian Authority since the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed. The occupation regime and parliament passed a bill recently refusing to recognise a Palestinian state, even if the entire world does so. The Israeli right and left, government and opposition, all agreed on this.

OPINION: A nation in denial: Why Israel’s defeat is imminent

Now Smotrich is working to bury the two-state solution once and for all, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports him. We have to ask, therefore, why the Arab and Islamic countries are trying to revive the moribund “two-state solution” despite it being biased and complicit with the occupation?


More than 30 years of “negotiations” have simply bought time for the occupation regime to steal more Palestinian land.

We now know — if anyone was ever in any doubt — that the settler-colonial state rejects sharing Palestine with the Palestinians, even if it is only 22 per cent of the historic territory. While arguing that chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are “anti-Semitic”, the Zionists have no qualms about stating openly that they want a Jewish state “from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] sea”. Intensive settlement activity — all illegal under international law — is swallowing up what remains of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and probably northern Gaza as well if the occupation regime is allowed to get away with its ethnic cleansing and genocide. It would have made far more sense, therefore, for the Arab and Islamic leaders to turn this humiliating page, forget about a “two-state solution” and declare the death of the so-called “peace process”. At the same time, they could have announced their collective political and practical support for legitimate resistance to the brutal Israeli occupation.

I have been saying for years that the Palestinian Authority is wrong to participate in futile negotiations with the occupation state to establish an independent Palestinian state that the Zionists will never accept. And that this path will lead to the loss of what remains of Palestine and thus the liquidation of its cause.

I have also said that the Arabs are wrong to waste their time chasing the mirage of peace with a criminal, fascist, racist, expansionist regime which wants all of Palestine for itself; and, indeed, wants to establish “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, despite the peace treaties and normalisation agreements with its neighbours whose land it will steal. When the occupation finishes swallowing the West Bank and East Jerusalem with settlements and announces their annexation, it will devote itself to expanding at the expense of its Arab neighbours, into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even if it takes another eight decades. When the right time is right, the occupation will do this and will not care about any of the normalisers who are now supporting it against any and all legitimate resistance, thinking that they are thereby weakening Iran’s influence in the region and creating the appropriate conditions for a comprehensive peace deal.

Smotrich stood next to a map of the State of Israel in March 2023 in France, and “Israel” included Jordan, even though the Zionist entity signed a peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom in 1994. Didn’t the terrorist Menachem Begin sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979?

That won’t stop the Zionists. They want it all, and give nothing in return.

The issue is quite clear, but unfortunately the Arabs continue to bury their heads in the sand. If they were rational, they would have stopped the reckless promotion of the two-state solution illusion that the occupation regime does not want, and the normalisation countries would have severed, not strengthened their relations with it. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority would announce the end of security coordination with the enemy forces in the West Bank, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords, and its return to resistance against the occupation. If the Arabs were rational, they would have backed the legitimate resistance as their own first line of defence instead of abandoning the Palestinians in Gaza. Are they all insane?

Translated from Echoroukonline
16 November 2024

 

Geopolitical conflicts, anti-imperialism and internationalism in times of ‘reactionary acceleration’


Published 

TwitterEmail
Kicking over the table graphic

First published in Spanish at Viento Sur. Translation from Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières.

Within the general framework of the multidimensional crisis in which we find ourselves, now aggravated by the stimulus that Trump’s recent electoral victory represents for the rise of an extreme right on a global scale, it seems even more evident that we are witnessing a profound crisis of the international geopolitical (dis)order, as well as of the basic rules of International Law that have been established since the end of the Second World War. The most tragic manifestation of this crisis (which calls into question even the future of the UN) is found in the genocidal war against Gaza (Awad, 2024), to which are currently added around 56 wars across the planet.

In this context, the imperialist hierarchical system based on US hegemony is openly questioned and challenged by other major powers, such as China and Russia, as well as by others on a regional scale, such as Iran. This global geopolitical competition is clearly evident in certain war conflicts, the evolution of which will determine a new configuration of the balance of power within this system, as well as of the blocks present or in formation, such as the BRICS. In light of this new scenario, in this article I will focus on a summary description of the current panorama, then characterise the different positions that appear within the left in this new phase and insist on the need to build an internationalist left that is opposed to all imperialisms (main or secondary) and in solidarity with the struggles of the attacked peoples.

Polycrisis and authoritarian neoliberalisms

There is broad consensus on the left regarding the diagnosis we can make of the global crisis that the world is currently going through, with the eco-social and climate crisis as a backdrop. A polycrisis that we can define with Pierre Rousset as “multifaceted, the result of the combination of multiple specific crises. So we are not facing a simple sum of crises, but their interaction, which multiplies their dynamics, fueling a death spiral for the human species (and for a large part of living species)” (Pastor, 2024).

A situation that is closely related to the exhaustion of the neoliberal capitalist accumulation regime that began in the mid-1970s, which, after the fall of the bloc dominated by the USSR, took a leap forward towards its expansion on a global scale. A process that led to the Great Recession that began in 2008 (aggravated by austerity policies, the consequences of the pandemic crisis and the war in Ukraine), which ended up frustrating the expectations of social advancement and political stability that the promised happy globalization had generated, mainly among significant sectors of the new middle classes.

A globalization, it must be remembered, that was expanded under the new neoliberal cycle that throughout its different phases: combative, normative and punitive (Davies, 2016), has been building a new transnational economic constitutionalism at the service of global corporate tyranny and the destruction of the structural, associative and social power of the working class. And, what is more serious, it has turned into common sense the “ market civilization” as the only possible one, although this whole process has acquired different variants and forms of political regimes, generally based on strong States immune to democratic pressure (Gill, 2022; Slobodian, 2021). A neoliberalism that, however, is today showing its inability to offer a horizon of improvement for the majority of humanity on an increasingly inhospitable planet.

We are therefore in a period, both at the state and interstate level, full of uncertainties, under a financialized, digital, extractivist and rentier capitalism that makes our lives precarious and seeks at all costs to lay the foundations for a new stage of growth with an increasingly active role of the States at its service. To do so, it resorts to new forms of political domination functional to this project that, increasingly, tend to come into conflict not only with freedoms and rights won after long popular struggles, but also with liberal democracy. In this way, an increasingly authoritarian neoliberalism is spreading, not only in the South but increasingly in the North, with the threat of a “reactionary acceleration” (Castellani, 2024). A process now stimulated by a Trumpism that is becoming the master discursive framework of a rising far right, willing to constitute itself as an alternative to the crisis of global governance and the decomposition of the old political elites (Urbán, 2024; Camargo, 2024).

The imperialist hierarchical system in dispute

Within this context, succinctly explained here, we are witnessing a crisis of the imperialist hierarchical system that has predominated since the fall of the Soviet bloc, facilitated precisely by the effects generated by a process of globalization that has led to the displacement of the center of gravity of the world economy from the North Atlantic (Europe-USA) to the Pacific (USA, East and Southeast Asia).

Indeed, following the Great Recession that began in 2007-2008 and the subsequent crisis of neoliberal globalization, a new phase has begun in which a reconfiguration of the global geopolitical order is taking place, tending to be multipolar but at the same time asymmetrical, in which the United States remains the great hegemonic power (monetary, military and geopolitical), but is weakened and challenged by China, the great rising power, and Russia, as well as by other sub-imperial or secondary powers in different regions of the planet. Meanwhile, in many countries of the South, faced with the plundering of their resources, the increase in sovereign debt and popular revolts and wars of different kinds, the end of development as a goal to be achieved is giving way to reactionary populisms in the name of order and security.

Thus, global and regional geopolitical competition is being accentuated by the different competing interests, not only on the economic and technological level, but also on the military and values level, with the consequent rise of state ethno-nationalisms against presumed internal and external enemies.

However, one must not forget the high degree of economic, energy and technological interdependence that has been developing across the planet in the context of neoliberal globalisation, as was clearly highlighted both during the global pandemic crisis and the lack of an effective energy blockade against Russia despite the agreed sanctions. Added to this are two new fundamental factors: on the one hand, the current possession of nuclear weapons by major powers (there are currently four nuclear hotspots: one in the Middle East (Israel) and three in Eurasia (Ukraine, India-Pakistan and the Korean peninsula); and, on the other, the climate, energy and materials crisis (we are in overtime!), which substantially differentiate this situation from that before 1914. These factors condition the geopolitical and economic transition underway, setting limits to a deglobalisation that is probably partial and which, of course, does not promise to be happy for the great majority of humanity. At the same time, these factors also warn of the increased risk of escalation in armed conflicts in which powers with nuclear weapons are directly or indirectly involved, as is the case in Ukraine or Palestine.

This specificity of the current historical stage leads us, according to Promise Li, to consider that the relationship between the main great powers (especially if we refer to that between the USA and China) is given through an unstable balance between an “antagonistic cooperation” and a growing “inter-imperialist rivalry”. A balance that could be broken in favour of the latter, but that could also be normalised within the common search for a way out of the secular stagnation of a global capitalism in which China (Rousset, 2021) and Russia (Serfati, 2022) have now been inserted, although with very different evolutions. A process, therefore, full of contradictions, which is extensible to other powers, such as India, which are part of the BRICS, in which the governments of its member countries have not so far questioned the central role of organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, which remain under US hegemony (Fuentes, 2023; Toussaint, 2024).

However, it is clear that the geopolitical weakening of the United States — especially after its total fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan and, now, the crisis of legitimacy that is being caused by its unconditional support for the genocidal State of Israel — is allowing a greater potential margin of manoeuvre on the part of different global or regional powers, in particular those with nuclear weapons. For this reason I agree with Pierre Rousset’s description:

The relative decline of the United States and the incomplete rise of China have opened up a space in which secondary powers can play a significant role, at least in their own region (Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, etc.), although the limits of the BRICS are clear. In this situation, Russia has not failed to present China with a series of faits accomplis on Europe’s eastern borders. Acting in concert, Moscow and Beijing were largely the masters of the game on the Eurasian continent. However, there was no coordination between the invasion of Ukraine and an actual attack on Taiwan (Pastor, 2024).

This, undoubtedly facilitated by the greater or lesser weight of other factors related to the polycrisis, explains the outbreak of conflicts and wars in very different parts of the planet, but in particular those that occur in three very relevant current epicentres: Ukraine, Palestine and, although for now in terms of the cold war, Taiwan.

Against this backdrop, we have seen how the US took advantage of Russia’s unjust invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to relaunch the expansion of a NATO in crisis towards other countries in Eastern and Northern Europe. An objective closely associated with the reformulation of NATO’s “new strategic concept”, as we were able to see at the summit that this organisation held in Madrid in July 2022 (Pastor, 2022) and more recently at the one held in Washington in July of this year. At the latter, this strategy was reaffirmed, as well as the consideration of China as the main strategic competitor, while any criticism of the State of Israel was avoided. The latter is what is showing the double standards (Achcar, 2024) of the Western bloc with regard to its involvement in the war in Ukraine, on the one hand, and its complicity with the genocide that the colonial State of Israel is committing against the Palestinian people, on the other.

Again, we have also seen NATO’s growing interest in the Southern flank in order to pursue its racist necropolitics against illegal immigration while continuing to aspire to compete for control of basic resources in countries of the South, especially in Africa, where French and American imperialisms are losing weight against China and Russia.

In this way, the strategy of the Western bloc has been redefined, within which US hegemony has been strengthened on the military level (thanks, above all, to the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and to which a more divided European Union with its old German engine weakened is clearly subordinated. However, after Trump’s victory, the European Union seems determined to reinforce its military power in the name of the search for a false strategic autonomy, since it will continue to be linked to the framework of NATO. Meanwhile, many countries in the South are distancing themselves from this bloc, although with different interests among them, which differentiates the possible alliances that may be formed from the one that in the past characterized the Non-Aligned Movement.

In any case, it is likely that after his electoral victory, Donald Trump will make a significant shift in US foreign policy in order to implement his MAGA (Make America Great Again) project beyond the geoeconomic level (intensifying his competition with China and, although at a different level, with the EU), especially in relation to the three epicentres of conflicts mentioned above: with regard to Ukraine, by substantially reducing economic and military aid and seeking some form of agreement with Putin, at least on a ceasefire; with regard to Israel, by reinforcing his support for Netanyahu’s total war; and finally by reducing his military commitment to Taiwan.

What anti-imperialist internationalism from the left?

In this context of the rise of an authoritarian neoliberalism (in its different versions: the reactionary one of the extreme right and that of the extreme centre, mainly) and of various geopolitical conflicts, the great challenge for the left is how to reconstruct antagonistic social and political forces anchored in the working class and capable of forging an anti-imperialism and a solidarity internationalism that is not subordinated to one or another great power or regional capitalist bloc.

A task that will not be easy, because in the current phase we are witnessing deep divisions within the left in relation to the position to maintain in the face of some of the aforementioned conflicts. Trying to synthesize, with Ashley Smith (2024), we could distinguish four positions:

The first would be the one that aligns itself with the Western imperial bloc in the common defense of alleged democratic values against Russia, or with the State of Israel in its unjustifiable right to self-defense, as has been stated by a majority sector of the social-liberal left. A position that hides the true imperialist interests of that bloc, does not denounce its double standards and ignores the increasingly de-democratizing and racist drift that Western regimes are experiencing, as well as the colonial and occupying character of the Israeli State.

The second is what is often described as campism, which would align itself with states such as Russia or China, which it considers allies against US imperialism because it considers the latter to be the main enemy, ignoring the expansionist geopolitical interests of these two powers. A position that reminds us of the one that many communist parties held in the past during the Cold War in relation to the USSR, but which now becomes a caricature considering both the reactionary nature of Putin’s regime and the persistent state-bureaucratic despotism in China.

The third is that of a geopolitical reductionism , which is now reflected in the war in Ukraine, limiting itself to considering it to be only an inter-imperialist conflict. This attitude, adopted by a sector of pacifism and the left, implies denying the legitimacy of the dimension of national struggle against the occupying power that the Ukrainian resistance has, without ceasing to criticize the neoliberal and pro-Atlanticist character of the government that heads it.

Finally, there is the one that is against all imperialisms (whether major or minor) and against all double standards, showing itself ready to stand in solidarity with all attacked peoples, even if they may have the support of one or another imperial power (such as the US and the EU in relation to Ukraine) or regional power (such as Iran in relation to Hamas in Palestine). This is a position that does not accept respect for the spheres of influence that the various major powers aspire to protect or expand, and that stands in solidarity with the peoples who fight against foreign occupation and for the right to decide their future (in particular, with the leftist forces in these countries that are betting on an alternative to neoliberalism), and is not aligned with any political-military bloc.

This last position is the one that I consider to be the most coherent from an anti-capitalist left. In fact, keeping in mind the historical distance and recognizing the need to analyze the specificity of each case, it coincides with the criteria that Lenin tried to apply when analyzing the centrality that the struggle against national and colonial oppression was acquiring in the imperialist phase of the early twentieth century. This was reflected, in relation to conflicts that broke out then, in several of his articles such as, for example, in “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” written in January-February 1916, where he maintained that:

The fact that the struggle for national freedom against an imperialist power can be exploited, under certain conditions, by another ’great’ power to achieve equally imperialist ends cannot force social democracy to renounce recognizing the right of nations to self-determination, just as the repeated cases of the use of republican slogans by the bourgeoisie for the purposes of political fraud and financial plunder (for example, in Latin countries) cannot force social democrats to renounce their republicanism (Lenin, 1976).

An internationalist position that must be accompanied by mobilisation against the remilitarisation process underway by NATO and the EU, but also against that of other powers such as Russia or China. And which must commit to putting the fight for unilateral nuclear disarmament and the dissolution of military blocs back at the centre of the agenda, taking up the baton of the powerful peace movement that developed in Europe during the 1980s, with the feminist activists of Greenham Common and intellectuals such as Edward P. Thompson at the forefront. An orientation that must obviously be inserted within a global eco-socialist, feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial project.

References

Achcar, Gilbert (2024) “Anti-fascism and the Fall of Atlantic Liberalism”, Viento Sur, 19/08/24.

Awad, Nada (2024) “International Law and Israeli Exceptionalism”, Viento Sur, 193, pp. 19-27.

Camargo, Laura (2024) Discursive Trumpism . Madrid: Verbum (in press).

Castellani, Lorenzo (2024) “With Trump, the Age of Reactionary Acceleration”, Le Grand Continent, 11/08/24.

Davies, William (2016) “Neoliberalism 3.0”, New Left Review , 101, pp. 129-143.

Fuentes, Federico (2023) “Interview with Promise Li: US-China Rivalry, ’Antagonistic Cooperation’ and Anti-Imperialism”, Viento Sur, 191, 5-18. Available in English at https://links.org.au/us-china-rivalry-antagonistic-cooperation-and-anti-imperialism-21st-century-interview-promise-li

Gill, Stephen (2002) “Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neoliberalism”. In Hovden, E. and Keene, E. (Eds.) The Globalization of Liberalism. London: Millennium. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lenin, Vladimir (1976) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, Selected Works, Volume V, pp. 349-363. Moscow: Progreso.

Pastor, Jaime (2022) “NATO’s New Strategic Concept. Towards a New Permanent Global War?”Viento Sur, 07/02/22. Available in English at https://links.org.au/towards-new-permanent-global-war-natos-new-strategic-concept

— (2024) “Interview with Pierre Rousset: World Crisis and Wars: What Internationalism for the 21st Century?”, Viento Sur, 04/16/24. Available in English at https://links.org.au/global-crisis-conflict-and-war-what-internationalism-21st-century

Rousset, Pierre (2021) “China, the New Emerging Imperialism”, Viento Sur, 10/16/21. 

Serfati, Claude (2022) “The Age of Imperialism Continues: Putin Proves It”, Viento Sur, 04/21/22. 

Slobodian, Quinn (2021) Globalists. Madrid: Capitán Swing. 

Smith, Ashley (2024) “Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism Today”, Viento Sur, 06/04/24. Available in English at https://links.org.au/imperialism-and-anti-imperialism-today

Toussaint, Eric (2024) “The BRICS Summit in Russia Offered No Alternative”, Viento Sur, 10/30/24. 

Urbán, Miguel (2024) Trumpisms. Neoliberals and Authoritarians . Barcelona: Verso.

 

Palestinian resistance is very much alive and kicking


Published 

France pro-Palestine protest

First published in French at L’Anticapitaliste. Translation from International Viewpoint.

Since 7 October, Palestinians in Gaza have been subjected to the worst military onslaught in the history of the enclave, with an unprecedented outpouring of force and violence. At the same time, Israel has been on the offensive in the other occupied territories: the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and now the whole region. The aim of this offensive, in all its configurations, is to increase colonial control, in particular by evicting and destroying homes, but also by deliberately and systematically killing those who resist — the Israelis call this ‘mowing the lawn’.

When the media talk about this situation — and it’s not often — the Palestinians are often portrayed as extremely passive. It is true that on the surface the asymmetry of resources gives this impression. But Palestinian resistance is very much alive and kicking — armed resistance, peaceful resistance and legal resistance. However, one of the important aspects of Israeli colonisation is the fragmentation of Palestinian society: territorial fragmentation without geographical contiguity, administrative fragmentation and political fragmentation. This means that, de facto, each group of Palestinians does not have the same difficulties or the same opportunities for response and support.

Palestinian civil society

Palestinians have not stood idly by. On the international stage, this resistance has led to important symbolic victories: condemnation of plausible genocide and condemnation of the occupation and apartheid by the International Court of Justice, recognition of the Palestinian state with observer status at the UN General Assembly.

In particular, this presence enabled sanctions against Israel to be included in the most recent resolution of this assembly. Palestinian civil society is also represented by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign based in Ramallah, which continues the fight to delegitimize the state of Israel, its colonisation and its apartheid. At once political, ideological and economic, this campaign has scored a number of victories: AXA divestment, PUMA withdrawal and a number of event boycotts.

Organised from Palestine, the BDS campaign is the simplest point of entry for people wishing to support Palestinians outside Palestine. The leadership of the BDS campaign recommends pushing harder, particularly on banks such as BNP, because it considers that the Israeli economy is on the brink of collapse and that massive disinvestment by the banks could push it further into the abyss.

The Palestinian Authority

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has found itself in an even more uncomfortable situation than in previous years, when the slaughter and oblivion of the Palestinians was carried out with little fanfare. Regularly — and quite rightly — accused of treason and of being suppletives of the Israeli army, the PA essentially controls a few towns in the West Bank and obviously the policy of resistance in international institutions. The PA is in a delicate position because it cannot continue its direct support for the offensive on Jenin, Tulkarem and so on and at the same time leave control to the radical elements. The fact that the PA is not negotiating the release of Marwan Barghouti is linked to the fact that he would de facto take over its leadership and purges would take place in the upper echelons.

The PA has a great deal at stake in staying in office. There are two million people in the West Bank and 250,000 people working for the PA, half of them in the security forces. Most of them are in zone A — Ramallah, Jericho and so on which are relatively unscathed for the moment. Even areas close to Ramallah such as Huwara are being targeted by settlers. The Israeli offensive is concentrated mainly on the poor refugee camps where there are autonomous armed groups. On the ground, apart from the usual protests, the PA has mainly acted as police force against armed groups in the West Bank, most of which come from these refugee camps. It therefore seems difficult at this stage to consider the PA as part of the resistance.1

On the West Bank

However, Israel has begun an unprecedented offensive in the West Bank, no doubt judging that at this stage Western support has been secured and that increasing the land seizures can be included in the ‘Gaza balance’, i.e. as part of the general offensive against ‘terrorism’ and Hamas. For the moment, the settlers and the Israeli army are still doing the easy thing, killing demonstrators and children and destroying buildings. But organised Palestinian military resistance is more significant and, as already indicated, even the Palestinian Authority is finding it very difficult to control the will of groups around Islamic Jihad or Hamas and even from within its own ranks, such as the Al Aqsa Martyrs or other more radical groups such as the Lion’s Den.

The emergence of new Palestinian armed groups is not a recent phenomenon. Such groups were formed during the first and second Intifadas, or during any period of escalating oppression or restriction of Palestinian rights under Israeli occupation.

A new generation of Palestinian armed groups with diverse strategies, tactics and objectives has emerged since 2021, particularly in the occupied West Bank, in response to repressive Israeli policies, increased violent raids, continued settlement and the absence of a political path.2

Gaza

Gaza has always been a hotbed of resistance. The withdrawal of the settlements in 2005 was mainly due to the prohibitive cost of monitoring and protecting them - and also in order to focus on the West Bank. It is also the place where the Palestinian Authority had the least influence and disappeared completely after the inter-group wars of 2007 following Fatah’s desire to overturn the election result.

Since the blockade of Gaza, the main political party organising life there is Hamas, which also has a military wing. On several occasions, Gazans have organised protests against colonisation and the separation wall. Several demonstrations took place last year. But since October, the resistance has been mainly military. Fighters from several armed groups continue to intervene against the Israeli forces. The main forces are the armed groups of Hamas (Al Qassam), Islamic Jihad (Al Quds), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and also Fatah (Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade).

These armed groups regularly intervene against the forces on the ground. This can be seen in videos of fighters in which targets are indicated by red triangles. These armed groups claim success against several thousand vehicles - tanks, bulldozers and troop carriers. Official figures indicate that since the start of ground operations in Gaza on 27 October 2023, 346 Israeli soldiers have been killed and more than 2,300 wounded. [Swords of Iron: IDF Casualties. www.gov.il ] [Given the frequency of the attacks documented by the videos, it would appear that this figure is greatly underestimated - probably by ignoring the losses of the mercenary groups deployed in the area.3

In addition, despite the destruction and control of several areas in Gaza, dozens of rockets were fired towards the north (Ashkelon) and towards the Naqab (Beer Sheva). More than a military result, these rocket attacks clearly demonstrate the poor control exercised by the Israeli army over the armed groups. Clearly, it is easier to destroy buildings and fire on refugee camps. However, the Israeli army is continuing its propaganda about human shields to justify its massacres, such as that at the Nuseirat refugee camp, where the bombing to kill one of the Hamas leaders resulted in 90 deaths. As usual, every accusation is a confession: there is no proof of the use of human shields by Hamas and other groups, although this has been extremely well documented on the Israeli side. In any case, such proof would be pointless to establish, given the massive and indiscriminate nature of the Israeli bombardments.

What prospects?

The main demands are for a ceasefire. The truth is that the main resistance factions in Gaza (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) have declared that they will accept any arrangement to govern the Gaza Strip after the end of the war, provided that this arrangement is Palestinian and not imposed by Israel.4

The Palestinian Authority has also agreed to play a role in the management of the Gaza Strip, provided that political unity is re-established with the West Bank. The Israeli government is the only one to have rejected all the proposals for the ‘day after’ and has not even specified a clear plan for that day, because it rejects the very existence of Hamas and any role for the Palestinian Authority, and refuses to include any political solution that guarantees even a fraction of the Palestinians’ national rights.

Hamas and the other resistance factions have called for an end to the aggression against Gaza from day one, but they have always come up against Israel’s refusal and inflexibility. As we have seen, Israel’s desire to eradicate Hamas is nothing more than propaganda. For even if Hamas were to disappear, new armed Palestinian groups would continue to emerge to fight against the Israeli occupation, with an emerging consensus among rights groups who regard the Israeli regime as apartheid. Moreover, the violence necessary for a military operation to dismantle or weaken Hamas could prove self-destructive, spawning new forms of armed resistance and the creation of new Palestinian groups.

Indeed, Israel’s approach to solving its security problems does not include a political solution, without which no military solution can produce lasting results. And at least in Gaza, the armed groups are paradoxically the force that is most preventing the massacres.5

Palestinian resistance and resilience demonstrate the impasse in Israel’s military tactics. The ongoing war of colonisation has more to do with a headlong rush than with a political solution. By setting fire to everything, Israel hopes that, in time, its territorial gains in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank and, why not, Lebanon, will become ‘permanent’. As far as Gaza is concerned, total annihilation is probably not possible (even though the Israeli leaders obviously want it); Israel would be content with a permanent field of tents paid for by the UN, surrounded by barbed wire, corridors and buffer zones. This is why the negotiations for a cessation of hostilities must at the very least include withdrawal from Gaza in its entirety.

Having said that, armed resistance will not be enough to secure withdrawal without movement from the outside, whether it be boycott campaigns or direct pressure via mobilisation (the two are not mutually exclusive). ‘For non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none”, said Stokely Carmichael. The same goes for Israel.

  • 1

    Emad Moussa, ‘Israel-PA security coordination: Protection for whom?’ New Arab, 14 October 2021.

  • 2

    Jessica Buxbaum, ‘Amid Gaza’s devastation, Israel wages another war in the West Bank’, New Arab, 02 November 2023; Sally Ibrahim, ‘A new generation of Palestinians is emerging to resist Israel’, New Arab, 6 October 2022; Mat Nashed, ‘How Israel’s raids on Jenin only fuel Palestinian resistance’, Al Jazeera, 2 June 2024 and Mariam Barghouti, ‘How growing Israeli violence in the West Bank is fuelling Palestinian resistance’, New Arab, 12 August 2024.

  • 3

    ‘Palestinian resistance movements fight back against Israeli occupation in Gaza’, Daily News Egypt, 22 May 2024.

  • 4

    Dario Sabagh, ‘Why dismantling Hamas won’t end Palestinian armed resistance’, New Arab, 18 October 2023.

  • 5

    Sébastian Seibt, ‘Israeli army in urgent need of troops amid rising casualties in Gaza’, France24, 19 June 2024.