Wednesday, August 21, 2024


The Past is Not Always Our Guide

DAVID ROSENBERG takes a look back to the days when the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism stood against the thugs of the National Front, and sees some important differences to the anti-racism battles of today, which call for fresh thinking rather than transplanting the tactics of the ’70s
August 19, 2024
Source: Morning Star

A massive column of demonstrators occupying the full width of the Strand after the start of a procession from Trafalgar Square to Hackney's Victoria Park in a "Carnival Against the Nazis" organised jointly by the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, April 30, 1978 | Image via Morning Star UK

As far-right hate and violence sweep across Britain, exploiting the Southport murders as a pretext but especially targeting Muslim communities, anti-fascists of a certain vintage are taking to social media and posting defiant images of an Anti-Nazi League (ANL) badge. It’s a way of saying: “We have seen this before, and we will stand up to it again.”

The ANL, launched in autumn 1977, credits itself, with much justification, for defeating the National Front (NF) in that period. With 20,000 members nationally organised into local branches, and with a large hinterland of sympathisers, the NF terrorised inner-city migrant communities with incendiary racist propaganda and provocative marches. The ANL mobilised impressively to physically confront the fascists in large numbers, drown out their messages and discredit their lies about immigrants through mass literature.

The NF, though, was more than an organised group of racist thugs propagating hate and violence. It had a political programme. Beyond the obvious racism targeted against Asian and Caribbean minorities of “Stop Immigration — Start Repatriation” and a demand that Britain must remain a “white country,” the NF called for: the return of national service; restoring capital punishment; an education system that recognised “innate differences in intelligence between children”; withdrawal from the common market and replacing it with an ultra-protectionist “economic nationalism” and self-sufficiency; and adequate warmth in winter funded for pensioners.

When the NF was formed in 1967, its chair was AK Chesterton (GK’s cousin), a veteran of Oswald Mosley’s deeply anti-semitic pre-war British Union of Fascists. Through the 1970s the NF’s more internal literature was replete with “world Jewish conspiracy” theories, but the anti-semitism was more coded in its literature for mass consumption. It condemned the “malign influence” of “cosmopolitan finance.” It asserted that “international monopoly capitalism” and “international communism” represent different means to “a world tyranny,” run by the you-know-whos.

Among the NF’s inner-core, the “mongrelisation” of Britain through black and Asian immigration was cast as a Jewish plot. International fascists today promote the “Great Replacement Theory” which claims that Muslim immigrants/refugees are replacing white Christians in the West. They finger Jews such as George Soros as the instigators. Fascists don’t move on from one enemy to the next, they merely accumulate them.

Some older anti-fascists have also posted images of their Rock Against Racism (RAR) badges, recalling an incredibly exciting and overlapping cultural movement that preceded the ANL by more than a year but combined with it to hold two mass carnivals in London in April and September 1978 with a Northern Carnival in Manchester sandwiched between them in July. Total attendances at these carnivals were well into six figures.

Leading black bands and white bands pushed defiant anti-racist, anti-fascist messages on stage, and celebrated multiculturalism. In the first Carnival in Victoria Park, east London, the Birmingham-based reggae band Steel Pulse donned white hoods for their song Ku Klux Klan, The Clash played an immensely powerful set, and Tom (not Tommy!) Robinson had the whole 80,000 crowd singing the refrain of “Glad to be Gay” — a song that BBC radio had banned.

ANL propaganda sheets ridiculed the fascists’ “NF” acronym as an anti-democratic movement that promised No Fun and No Future. They made badges appealing to specific identities: “Social Workers Against the Nazis,” “Skateboarders Against the Nazis,” “Vegetarians against the Nazis.”

In 1977, in my late teens I was immersed in these movements that formed much of my lasting political and cultural outlook. I still treasure my original memorabilia — circular placards that on one side say, in black on yellowing white, “Smash Race Hate in 78,” and on the other: “Reggae Soul Rock ’n’ Roll, Jazz Funk and Punk, our Music! Rock Against Racism.”

RAR’s regular gigs in smaller venues around Britain mainly combined punk (almost entirely white) and reggae (almost entirely black). They brought the growing audiences of both genres together at the same gigs.

While I enjoy seeing ANL and RAR badges on social media, I hesitated about putting mine up there in response to the riots, because I worry that too simplistic a parallel is being made with the late 1970s. There are important differences, and we can’t simply transplant the main tactics we used in the 1970s. In that time we drew inspiration from the anti-fascist struggles of the 1930s, and the slogan “They Shall Not Pass,” but these were not an exact blueprint.

ANL and RAR had enormous strengths which we can build on today. They sought to drive a wedge between the Hitler-worshipping leaders of the fascist movements and the more diffuse angry, frustrated, often unemployed young people who were prey to arguments that scapegoated immigrants for their misery.

They grasped the need for a mass movement far beyond the ranks of those already politically aware. They captured the imagination especially of many young people who could be pulled in a very different political direction under the pressure of economic crisis, and educated them about fascism and hate. Using the slogan “Black and White, Unite and Fight!” they offered those people the chance to be part of a meaningful, humane future based on solidarity and multicultural unity.

But these extraordinary movements inevitably also had limitations and weaknesses. The ANL’s founding statement was signed by 300 figures from politics, trade unions, music, the arts, professions, football and other sports, TV, film — including many individuals young people admired and identified with. Nearly all of the signatories were white. The minorities most under direct physical attack — Asian and Caribbean — were relatively absent from this list and from the leadership of these movements.

While the propaganda they produced was sharp on pinpointing the explicitly pro-Nazi sentiments of NF leaders, their attention to state racism and the politics of immigration control which impacted on the daily lives of minorities was more sketchy.

While the ANL can claim most credit for defeating the NF on the streets, three other factors played a significant part: the militant youth movements of minorities under attack which often operated autonomously, an intelligence-led operation by the anti-fascist magazine, Searchlight, to infiltrate and disrupt the NF, setting off conflicts within its ranks; and the co-option by the Tories, led by Thatcher, of much of the NF’s anti-immigration programme, combined with increasingly racist policing tactics against minority groups. Non-fascist racists could achieve their goals through conventional right-wing politics which took power in 1979 and kept clear blue water between hard-right Conservatives and the openly fascist far right.

Fast forward to 2024. What is different about the threats to migrant, refugee and longer-standing minority communities now? Even before September 11 2001, the majority of the British far right began to embellish their generalised anti-immigrant position with a more specifically Islamophobic politics, while retaining their conspiracy theories. But since September 11, we’ve had more than two decades of a deepening state-sponsored Islamophobia connected with both domestic and foreign policy, that has had support across the political Establishment and its media.

The interlude of Corbyn-led Labour temporarily pushed back against these agendas, but Keir Starmer’s Labour has renewed that Islamophobic Establishment consensus. This has been illustrated by Starmer’s description of the last two weeks’ events. He condemned “thuggery” and “violence” against the police. Only under pressure, has he talked of keeping Muslims safe, and even then he can’t utter the word “Islamophobia” — something that many Muslims and anti-racists accuse him of justifiably.

On the obsession with “borders” and “security” and the use of the inflammatory “Stop the Boats” slogan, it is hard to separate Labour and Tory policies. The far right will always want to go further and quicker, and they have seized their opportunity on the streets. An Establishment consensus, backed by right-wing media, has echoed far-right talking points on migrants and refugees and, for the last 10 months, demonised pro-Palestine protests. This further legitimised, strengthened and emboldened the far right.

However, if, in the 1970s, the British far right was a very centralised top-down entity, today it is much more fragmented. Tommy Robinson — an irritant, chancer, opportunist and showman — can pull off occasional events that bring the fragments together in huge numbers in central London spaces, but he doesn’t have a coherent ideological programme or any branch structure.

We should be more worried by the 14 per cent of the electorate — more than four million votes — that Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party received in the 600-plus seats in which it stood candidates, taking votes both from former Tory and Labour voters.

Reform UK does have an embryonic right-wing populist ideological programme and it will be identifying their significant clusters of support. Farage and his closest associates within his party move within the ideological circles where those who hold hard-right and far-right political positions and conspiracy theories can happily converse and coalesce. Unlike the late 1970s when across Europe there were mainly social-democratic governments, today the further-right/National Conservative tendencies are getting stronger in many countries.

The anti-racist and anti-fascist movement will eventually succeed in discrediting Robinson — or he will do enough to discredit himself — but the more serious battles against the hard-right/far-right politics that Reform UK is building will pose a tougher challenge, and will be quite different to the battles with the NF of the 1970s.

An authoritarian right-wing Labour government that combines austerity economics with a failure to build a principled politics opposed to racism and nationalism will make those battles much harder. We have to build movements from below that can simultaneously oppose racism and nationalism and fight for social and economic justice.

David Rosenberg is an anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigner active in the UK Jewish Socialists’ Group.  


Tom Robinson Band (TRB) documentary - 1978



 Tom Robinson Band Full Concert 06 01 79

 Capitol Theatre OFFICIAL

 

TOM ROBINSON BAND 2022 JAPAN

Digital Apartheid in Gaza: Big Tech Must Reveal Their Roles in Tech Used in Human Rights Abuses
August 18, 2024
Source: EFF


Image via EFF



This is part two of an ongoing series. Part one on unjust content moderation is here.

Since the start of the Israeli military response to Hamas’ deadly October 7 attack, U.S.-based companies like Google and Amazon have been under pressure to reveal more about the services they provide and the nature of their relationships with the Israeli forces engaging in the military response.

We agree. Without greater transparency, the public cannot tell whether these companies are complying with human rights standards—both those set by the United Nations and those they have publicly set for themselves. We know that this conflict has resulted in alleged war crimes and has involved massive, ongoing surveillance of civilians and refugees living under what international law recognizes as an illegal occupation. That kind of surveillance requires significant technical support and it seems unlikely that it could occur without any ongoing involvement by the companies providing the platforms.

Google’s Human Rights statement claims that “In everything we do, including launching new products and expanding our operations around the globe, we are guided by internationally recognized human rights standards. We are committed to respecting the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its implementing treaties, as well as upholding the standards established in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and in the Global Network Initiative Principles (GNI Principles). Google goes further in the case of AI technologies, promising not to design or deploy AI in technologies that are likely to facilitate injuries to people, gather or use information for surveillance or be used in violation of human rights, or even where the use is likely to cause overall harm.”

Amazon states that it is “Guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” and that their “approach on human rights is informed by international standards; we respect and support the Core Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

It is time for Google and Amazon to tell the truth about use of their technologies in Gaza so that everyone can see whether their human rights commitments were real or simply empty promises.
Concerns about Google and Amazon Facilitating Human Rights Abuses

The Israeli government has long procured surveillance technologies from corporations based in the United States. Most recently, an investigation in August by +972 and Local Call revealed that the Israeli military has been storing intelligence information on Amazon’s Web Services (AWS) cloud after the scale of data collected through mass surveillance on Palestinians in Gaza was too large for military servers alone. The same article reported that the commander of Israel’s Center of Computing and Information Systems unit—responsible for providing data processing for the military—confirmed in an address to military and industry personnel that the Israeli army had been using cloud storage and AI services provided by civilian tech companies, with the logos of AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure appearing in the presentation.

This is not the first time Google and Amazon have been involved in providing civilian tech services to the Israeli military, nor is it the first time that questions have been raised about whether that technology is being used to facilitate human rights abuses. In 2021, Google and Amazon Web Services signed a $1.2 billion joint contract with the Israeli military called Project Nimbus to provide cloud services and machine learning tools located within Israel. In an official announcement for the partnership, the Israeli Finance Ministry said that the project sought to “provide the government, the defense establishment and others with an all-encompassing cloud solution.” Under the contract, Google and Amazon reportedly cannot prevent particular agencies of the Israeli government, including the military, from using its services.

Not much is known about the specifics of Nimbus. Google has publicly stated that the project is not aimed at military uses; the Israeli military publicly credits Nimbus with assisting the military in conducting the war. Reports note that the project involves Google establishing a secure instance of the Google Cloud in Israel. According to Google documents from 2022, Google’s Cloud services include object tracking, AI-enabled face recognition and detection, and automated image categorization. Google signed a new consulting deal with the Israeli Ministry of Defense based around the Nimbus platform in March 2024, so Google can’t claim it’s simply caught up in the changed circumstances since 2021.

Alongside Project Nimbus, an anonymous Israeli official reported that the Israeli military deploys face recognition dragnets across the Gaza Strip using two tools that have facial recognition/clustering capabilities: one from Corsight, which is a “facial intelligence company,” and the other built into the platform offered through Google Photos.
Clarity Needed

Based on the sketchy information available, there is clearly cause for concern and a need for the companies to clarify their roles.

For instance, Google Photos is a general-purpose service and some of the pieces of Project Nimbus are non-specific cloud computing platforms. EFF has long maintained that the misuse of general-purpose technologies alone should not be a basis for liability. But, as with Cisco’s development of a specific module of China’s Golden Shield aimed at identifying the Falun Gong (currently pending in litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), companies should not intentionally provide specific services that facilitate human rights abuses. They must also not willfully blind themselves to how their technologies are being used.

In short, if their technologies are being used to facilitate human rights abuses, whether in Gaza or elsewhere, these tech companies need to publicly demonstrate how they are adhering to their own Human Rights and AI Principles, which are based in international standards.

We (and the whole world) are waiting, Google and Amazon.



Paige Collings is the Senior Speech and Privacy Activist at EFF. As a lawyer, digital policy activist and community organiser, she works to dismantle systems of oppression and advance collective liberation. Paige focuses on highlighting how state surveillance and corporate restrictions stifle marginalized communities and perpetuate historic injustices and harm. She has worked with activists across the globe to facilitate systemic change by speaking truth to power and creating spaces for alternative imaginations for justice for all. Paige is a board member of the European Digital Rights (EDRi) network. Paige holds a Master’s degree in Law, Master’s degree in Political Science, and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics and History.
Student Protesters Were Suspended With No Chance to Defend Themselves. Will Courts Return Them to Campus?

"The suspensions happened immediately and it was without any due process.”

August 18, 2024
Source: Intercept


April 24, 2024 - Texas State Troopers are violently dispersing a peaceful Palestine solidarity protest on the campus grounds of University of Texas at Austin. | Image credit: @RyanChandlerTV

Amid the brutal police crackdowns at more than 100 campus protests against the war in Gaza the spring, one university in California stood out for its especially harsh treatment of student protesters. The school effectively eliminated any due process for the students by suspending them without making specific allegations of misconduct or allowing the students to respond to vague charges.

Last month, student protesters at University of California, Irvine sued the school regents and chancellor for suspending them without any notice or a chance to present evidence in their defense. On Tuesday, plaintiffs in the suit filed a motion to ask the Superior Court of California to step in.

The five students are asking the court to force the school to halt the suspensions and allow students to resume their studies, register for fall classes, go back to campus jobs, and regain access to campus housing.

More than 3,000 people were arrested during brutal police crackdowns on campus protests this year, according to a protest tracker developed by The Appeal. UCI is still an outlier — it’s one of the only schools in the country that issued interim suspensions banning students from campus before they had a chance to respond. The university’s approach was, a representative for the students said, unprecedented.


“That’s outrageous — that’s not how due process is supposed to work.”

“That’s outrageous — that’s not how due process is supposed to work,” said Thomas Harvey, an attorney representing the students in the suit. “They seem to be punishing our clients with a method that not only is unprecedented in UCI’s use in terms of responses to protests or student conduct issues, but also it stands out as unusual among the entire UC system.”

Tom Vasich, a spokesperson for UCI, said, “The university does not comment on lawsuits.”

At least two of the students were prohibited from graduating in the spring because of the suspensions. They will eventually have to take and pay for another semester of classes but are still barred from registering for courses for the upcoming fall semester.

The UCI chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine also received an interim suspension. SJP chapters at schools around the country have been targeted under bans and suspensions in crackdowns on campus protests. SJP at UCI was also told as a result of the suspension that the club could not post on their own Instagram page.

Students suspended at UCI this spring received notices from the school that listed no specific allegations against them but said they were present at protests where the school claimed that violations of campus policy had allegedly occurred.

The students said they were not given an opportunity to have a hearing on the claims against them or to present evidence in their defense before the suspension went into effect. Students who received the suspension notices were told that they could not attend classes in person or online, access student housing, or be on campus at all, effective immediately.

Interim suspensions have never been used in this way at UCI or at any other schools in the UC system, said Harvey, the plaintiffs’ attorney.

“You think about the draconian ways they cracked down on dissent at UCLA, and UCLA still hasn’t used interim suspensions to punish their students,” he said. “They’re not saying, ‘You can’t come on campus indefinitely until we resolve your student conduct hearing,’” he added. “They’re not issuing the punishment in advance of the hearing, which is what they’re doing at UCI.”

Students are hurting emotionally, financially, and otherwise. But the suspensions haven’t discouraged them from speaking out against the war on Gaza.

“This is nothing but a scare tactic to intimidate and shake our resolve,” one of the student plaintiffs, who requested anonymity to avoid reprisals, told The Intercept. “The university hopes to shift our attention away from our demands for divestment. But these suspensions are not going to deter us from fighting for the liberation of Palestine. If anything, it’s strengthening our resolve.”
No Due Process

When a student at UCI is accused of violating school policy, they go through a student conduct process before any kind of punishment is meted out.

In this case, however, students were punished with interim suspensions before any evidence against them was presented, according to Harvey and another faculty member who supported the students. None of the suspended students have yet been adjudicated to have violated any student conduct rules. That decision is pending and will be made at the resolution of ongoing student conduct processes. While that proceeds, the students are stuck in limbo.

Students who received suspensions notices were notified that they could appeal their suspensions by setting up a meeting with a school administrator. Students met with the chancellor to appeal their suspensions but were not presented with specific evidence against them, according to Harvey and two members of the UCI faculty who spoke to The Intercept. After the meetings, the vice chancellor issued decision letters upholding their suspensions.

Students were told they’d get an update on the process at the beginning of the summer, but said they have not gotten any information on where the process stands.

The UCI faculty senate and graduate student body have sent signals to the administration that their treatment of student protesters is unacceptable. In June, the UCI Associated Graduate Students passed a vote of no confidence against the chancellor.

School faculty also proposed a resolution to censure the chancellor for calling 22 different law enforcement agencies to confront students during protests, which violates UC policies on what circumstances justify calling in outside police.

The resolution narrowly failed, but another motion to launch an independent investigation of the handling of the police response did pass. And a motion criticizing how the administration has handled interim student suspensions, demanding an investigation into the suspension process, and calling for the suspensions to be lifted also passed.

“The suspensions happened immediately and it was without any due process. In my view, the chancellor clearly violated UCI procedures and UC procedures,” said Cecelia Lynch, a professor of political science at UCI who is part of an ad hoc faculty group, Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, that organized after October 7 to support students facing disciplinary action for participating in peaceful campus protests. “The students however, had no due process and were all charged in the student conduct hearing with the same evidence — were all given the same evidence — which is not according to procedure.”

“I would just draw attention to that irony,” she said, “of the chancellor not taking any responsibility and not having any punitive action against him. But the students have already had severe punitive action, including being made homeless temporarily. And now they’re facing additional charges as well as potentially criminal charges. So it is quite a contrast in terms of accountability.”


“Almost all of the UCs have reacted badly and several of them extremely violently. Our campus was apparently the worst, unfortunately.”

Hundreds of faculty members attended three meetings that each spanned more than two hours. There was widespread disagreement about the encampments and the school’s response. However, faculty were aligned in their concerns about the ramifications for speech on campus and transparency of the administration’s decisions, said Annie McClanahan, associate professor of English, chair of the Irvine Faculty Association, and part of FSJP.

“On the interim suspensions and the issue of the student conduct process, there was really near unanimous agreement,” she said, citing agreement with an ACLU of Southern California amicus brief in support of the students on Wednesday.

While none of the UC schools handled the protests well, said Lynch, UCI’s response has been particularly noteworthy. “Almost all of the UCs have reacted badly and several of them extremely violently,” she said. “Our campus was apparently the worst, unfortunately.”
History of Crackdowns

UCI has a history of cracking down on protests, including the Irvine 11, a group of students who interrupted a campus speech by the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. in 2010. The students were arrested and later charged and convicted of conspiracy to disrupt a public meeting.

The school has also tried to break up other protests, including those in solidarity with the United Auto Workers strike. UCI’s treatment of protests in support of Palestine, however, stands out for its brutality, the suspended student said.

“We’ve seen student encampments happen throughout history as well, and it’s always been in the form of anti-war and it’s always been pro-people. And it’s always been challenging the university as an imperialist institution. Particularly with the UC system, we’re seeing a mass militarization across all the UCs,” they said. “It’s in particular because this is so pro-Palestine. And in terms of UCI history, this is not the first time they’ve done something like this to repress student voices speaking up for Palestine.”

Student protesters expected this kind of crackdown and haven’t been distracted from their goal, they said.

“All the students did not go into the encampments thinking they would be safe from the university,” the student told The Intercept. “They understood that whatever we face, it’s nothing compared to what Palestinians are facing on the ground.”
Want to Support Palestinian Liberation? Boycott Chevron.

From California city councils to Uber drivers, people are backing the BDS movement’s call.
August 19, 2024
Source: Truthout


Image via viacampesina.org

In the eastern reaches of the Mediterranean Sea lie vast reserves of natural gas. For more than a decade, Israel has generated billions of dollars in revenue for state coffers by plundering the depths of the Tamar gas field; in 2019, fossil fuel companies also began producing gas at the larger, nearby Leviathan field. But it is a United States-based company that operates the bulk of Israel’s extraction activities: Chevron.

This January, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) — the largest Palestinian-led coalition at the helm of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement — renewed calls for a global boycott of the fossil fuel company. “Chevron’s extraction activities generate billions of dollars in revenue for apartheid Israel and its war chest, helping to fund the ongoing genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza,” the BNC wrote in a statement.

The BDS movement had called for divestment from Chevron before, after the company took over as the primary owner and operator of Israel’s largest natural gas fields in 2020. Now, those efforts have expanded to include a consumer boycott of Chevron gas stations and its affiliates, including Texaco and Caltex.

The push to boycott Chevron is an excellent case study of how the BNC strategizes and organizes to achieve global BDS wins.

Not every company that is complicit in Israeli apartheid is an official BDS target, because, as the BNC explains on its site, “that would make it impossible to achieve concrete results.” For a company to be added to the BDS list, the BNC looks at a set of criteria, including measuring the potential target’s “level of complicity” and “the potential for forming a broad, cross-movement coalition against the target.” As the BNC explains, they’re looking to target companies where they will have a higher likelihood of success.

The result is a tightly curated list of companies whose ties are woven deep into Israel’s apartheid regime. This is why, for instance, Starbucks and McDonald’s are not on the official BDS list, though they are currently wildly popular targets of consumer boycotts. The BNC has nevertheless expressed its support for the organic grassroots movements against them.

But Chevron is a different beast. As a major economic partner of the state, it is directly implicated in Israeli genocide and apartheid. Chevron-operated pipelines and Chevron-extracted natural gas fuel the Israeli Electric Company (IEC), which supplies power to Israeli military bases, prisons and police stations. After Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, the IEC took over the Palestinian power grid, supplying electricity to illegal settlements while denying power to some Palestinian communities.

As the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization dedicated to advancing peace and nonviolence, has noted, “The supply of electricity across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory is used as a tool of subjugation, collective punishment, annexation, and dispossession […] Some Palestinian communities inside Israel and across the Occupied Palestinian Territory are banned from connection to the grid, some are provided subpar services, some are charged differently than neighboring Jewish-Israelis, and many suffer punitive power cuts as a form of collective punishment. This is energy apartheid.”

In Gaza, power is also often used as a tool of collective punishment. Israel cut off its electricity supply to Gaza shortly after Hamas’s October 7 attacks — a potential violation of international humanitarian law. Even before Israel’s current assault on Gaza began, Palestinians in the Strip suffered from rolling blackouts of up to 16 hours per day.

Gaza has its own natural gas reserves less than 20 miles off its shore, but the Gaza Marine field has remained dormant since its discovery in 2000. For more than two decades, Israel prevented Palestinians from extracting the 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, even as the state embarked on its own drilling frenzy. In June 2023, Israel finally gave the green light for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to begin developing the field, but the legal relevance of the decision is unclear, as the PA has not controlled Gaza’s waters since it was ousted by Hamas in 2007.

This past October, about three weeks after launching its genocidal war, Israel announced that it was allowing a handful of foreign and Israeli companies concessions for natural gas exploration in areas within Gaza’s maritime borders. This is why, as the BNC wrote, “Chevron is implicated in Israel’s policy and practice of depriving the Palestinian people of their right to sovereignty over their natural resources.”

After the BDS movement made its call for a Chevron consumer boycott, the political utility of focusing on targets with cross-movement potential was immediately on display: The International Alliance of App-Based Transport Workers (IAATW), a coalition of 100,000 drivers and couriers from 20 countries, announced in March it would boycott all gas stations linked to Chevron.

“Inspired by the 1987 oil embargo against Shell for its role in South African apartheid, as app-based workers for companies such as Uber, Deliveroo, JustEat, Free Now, Glovo, Lyft, Grab, DoorDash, Grubhub, Amazon, Ola, Gojek, Didi, Bolt, Careems, we join the global boycott of Chevron-owned petrol and gas stations,” the IAATW said in a statement.

#BoycottChevron has also picked up divestment wins in several California cities. In January, the city of Hayward, in San Francisco’s East Bay, became the first in the country to divest its shares from four companies on the BDS list: Chevron, Caterpillar, Hyundai and Intel. The city council for nearby Richmond, California, followed suit in May, voting to divest from all stocks and mutual funds involving companies with ties to Israel. And the city council for Alameda, also near Oakland, announced in July it would restrict its investments in “fossil fuels and weapons of any kind.”

The city council votes in Richmond and Alameda also underscore how the global cause for Palestinian human rights is intricately linked to environmental justice. Richmond is home to a 2,900-acre Chevron petroleum refinery, which spilled 600 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay in 2021. Chevron agreed to pay $200,000 in a settlement for the spill and has also settled to pay another $550 million to the City of Richmond in lieu of a special refinery tax. Chevron is the largest source of air pollution in Richmond, and children in the area are admitted to the hospital for asthma at three times the rate of the rest of California.

“Ending the Gaza genocide is a climate issue,” said Olivia Katbi, North America coordinator for the BDS movement, in a statement. “Companies like Chevron help to fuel climate chaos and apartheid. Global grassroots struggles for indigenous land and resource rights, sustainability, and against the climate catastrophe brought on by corporate greed are intrinsically linked with the Palestinian struggle for liberation. There can be no end to climate colonialism without an end to settler colonialism.”

We know that consumer boycotts can work: Recently, Starbucks sales have plummeted in part due to the pressure of the grassroots movement against the chain, and this month, its CEO was ousted. For the 243 million licensed drivers in the United States, the Chevron boycott is an important way to show solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian liberation. It is also an incredibly urgent call: Earlier this month, Chevron and its partners announced plans for a $429 million expansion in the Leviathan natural gas field.

“Chevron is pleased to partner with the State of Israel,” Jeff Ewing, managing director of Chevron’s Eastern Mediterranean Business Unit, said in a statement to the Jerusalem Post. “We look forward to supporting the country’s strategy to develop its energy resources for the benefit of the country and the region.”
Leaked Israeli Docs Reveal Effort to Evade Foreign Agent Lobbying Law

Former general counsel of Democratic National Committee secretly advised the Israeli government on how to avoid FARA registration of its U.S. propaganda program.


August 20, 2024Z
Source: Lee Fang


Amichai Chikli, Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs who oversees distributing Israeli propaganda in the US (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)



This investigation was reported in collaboration with The Guardian. This reporting builds on our June 24th and July 11th investigations on covert Israeli government influence.

The Israeli government sought legal advice on a US federal law requiring the disclosure of foreign-backed lobbying campaigns, out of concerns that mounting enforcement of the law could ensnare American groups working in coordination with the Israeli government, leaked documents reviewed by the Guardian suggest.

Emails and legal memos originating from a hack of the Israeli justice ministry show that officials feared Israeli advocacy efforts in the US could trigger the US law governing foreign agents. The documents show that officials proposed creating a new American nonprofit in order to continue Israel’s activities in the US while avoiding scrutiny under the law.

A legal strategy memo dated July 2018 noted that compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) would damage the reputation of several American groups that receive funding and direction from Israel, and force them to meet onerous transparency requirements. A separate memo noted that donors would not want to fund groups registered under FARA.

FARA requires people working on behalf of a foreign government to register as foreign agents with the US Justice Department.

In listing reasons for avoiding FARA, the memo says that the law compels registrants to “flag any piece of ‘propaganda’ that is distributed to two or more parties in the US, with a disclaimer stating that it was delivered by a foreign agent and then submit a copy of the ‘propaganda’ to the US Department of Justice within 48 hours.”

To prevent FARA registration, and the stigma and scrutiny associated with it, the legal advisors suggested channeling funds through a third-party American nonprofit.

Liat Glazer, then a legal advisor to Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, writes that even though the nonprofit would not be formally managed from Israel, “we will have means of supervision and management” – for example, through grant-making and “informal coordination mechanisms” including “oral meetings and updates.”

The discussions around circumnavigating FARA focused on a “PR commando unit” formed by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs in 2017 to improve Israel’s image abroad. The group, a private-public partnership, was originally known as “Kela Shlomo” (which translates to “Solomon’s Sling”) before being rebranded as “Concert” in 2018 and “Voices of Israel” in 2022. Its initial mission was to undermine the BDS movement targeting Israel with boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns in protest of its policies towards Palestinians.

Over the course of its history, the group has supported American nonprofits advocating for anti-BDS laws and coordinated campaigns to push back against pro-Palestinian activities on US campuses.

The emails and documents were released by Distributed Denial of Secrets, or DDoSecrets, a US-based nonprofit responsible for disseminating a number of high-profile hacks in recent years. The original source for the documents was a group calling itself “Anonymous for Justice,” a self-described “hacktivist collective” which announced in April that it had infiltrated Israel’s Ministry of Justice and retrieved hundreds of gigabytes of data.

Amnesty International’s security lab analyzed the data set and “determined the files are consistent with a hack-and-leak attack targeting a series of email accounts.” The group said “it was not possible to cryptographically verify the authenticity of the emails, as critical email metadata was removed by the hackers during a pre-processing step before release.”

They added: “technical indicators in other files from the leak, including a sampling of PDFs and Microsoft Word documents reviewed by Amnesty International did not show obvious signs of having been tampered with.”

Previous reporting in the Guardian on the hacked archive revealed Israeli government attempts to thwart discovery in a lawsuit brought by WhatsApp against the infamous spyware company NSO Group. Following the leak, Israel imposed a gag order to prevent the documents from being publicized.

Earlier this year, the Guardian exclusively reported that Voices of Israel was rebooted shortly after the outbreak of the Gaza war following the 7 October 2023 terror attacks by Hamas. Amichai Chikli, the Likud minister of diaspora affairs who oversees the latest iteration of the project, informed the Knesset that the group was set to go “on the offensive” against American students protesting the Gaza war.

The heightened concern over FARA around 2018 was sparked in part by a series of enforcement actions against Trump administration officials for unregistered lobbying for foreign interests.

The July 2018 Israeli legal memo noted that “in the past, FARA was applied to countries hostile to the US,” such as Russia and Pakistan. Glazer warned that the new atmosphere of enforcement, given the ties between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump, could lead to a formal investigation by the US Department of Justice.

In response, the documents show, the Israeli government retained Sandler Reiff, a prominent election and campaign law firm in Washington, DC, to analyze the FARA risks posed by Concert and other Israeli advocacy efforts to shape American policy and opinion. The two primary contacts for the engagement were Joseph E. Sandler, the former in-house general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and Joshua I. Rosenstein, a widely-cited expert on FARA.

Another memo from 2018, which summarized a discussion led by then-deputy attorney general Dina Zilber, noted increased public attention to FARA due to “the investigation into Donald Trump and officials in his government suspected of operating as ‘foreign agents’ for the Russian government.”

The document notes advice from senior Israeli advisors who assert that “donors are not interested in donating to groups registered under FARA.” The memo recommended creating a new American nonprofit which Kela Shlomo / Concert could funnel money through, thereby providing distance between US nonprofits and the Israeli government – though the head of the nonprofit would also serve in Kela Shlomo’s leadership.

It also notes potential downsides of creating such an American intermediary: both weaker Israeli government control over any such group, and a mechanism that could be interpreted for what it was: an attempt to sidestep FARA.

The documents reference concerns on the part of US groups over triggering FARA enforcement, concerns that officials say hindered their ability to conduct advocacy in the US.

In 2018, the news outlet The Forward reported that several Jewish American organizations had rejected funding from Concert due to concerns over FARA risk.

In Glazer’s December 2019 email, she noted that if it became public that Israel sought legal advice on FARA, this could “raise claims that the state of Israel wants to unacceptably interfere in US matters and spark a public debate on a sensitive issue in Israel-US relations.”

To avoid the potential public relations fallout, Glazer urged secrecy surrounding the Israeli government’s hiring of Sandler Reiff, the American law firm engaged to study the issue. “Exposing the name of the law firm could thwart the entire relationship,” she cautioned, “as I understand it was agreed with them that the engagement with [Israel] would not be revealed.”

Multiple memos and emails show that Sandler Reiff analyzed FARA-related questions from 2018 through at least 2022. Mr. Sandler and Mr. Rosenstein did not respond to requests for comment.

Brig. Gen. Sima Vaknin-Gill, a former intelligence officer and former chief military censor for the Israel Defense Forces who was intimately involved in the creation of Kela Shlomo, was copied on many of the emails and named in key documents concerning how to avoid FARA.

Vaknin-Gill is now a board member of the Kansas-based nonprofit Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM). CAM was set up one year after the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, where Vaknin-Gill was director-general, proposed its strategy to mitigate FARA risk by setting up an American nonprofit funded by Concert.

CAM has publicly disclosed that it is a partner of both Concert and Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, but the organization has refused requests from journalists to disclose its funders. When reached for comment, CAM stated that it “was not established by, nor is it influenced by, the Israeli government” and emphasized that CAM is “a global interfaith coalition that unites over 850 partner organizations.”

“If there is a deliberate effort by Israeli governmental officials to influence American policy and/or public opinion on foreign affairs,” noted Craig Holman, a lobbying expert with Public Citizen, “this would constitute a FARA violation not just by the US agents serving the Israeli government, but also by any person or nonprofit organization in the US who is a knowing participant.”

Glazer, the author of one of the FARA memos who helped organize several meetings around the issue, left the government in 2021 and joined Google as one of the company’s lobbyists in Israel. Glazer did not respond to a request for comment through Google.

The secrecy surrounding the Ministry of Strategic Affairs’ US-focused advocacy campaigns was challenged through freedom of information requests by Israeli news outlets, particularly the independent media watchdog Seventh Eye. After years of denied requests, the newsrooms eventually prevailed and obtained a series of Concert-related funding documents from the ministry.

The documents showed Kela Shlomo / Concert grants to several American advocacy groups, including Christian Zionist organizations such as Christians United for Israel and the Israel Allies Foundation. The latter was involved in helping to pass anti-BDS state laws penalizing Americans from engaging in certain forms of boycotts targeting the Israeli government.

In 2018, Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs also approved a $445,000 grant to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), which totaled about 80% of the organization’s reported annual budget. The nonprofit initially disputed the precise amount but conceded Israeli government support when reached by The Forward. FARA includes an exemption for “academic” projects that do not entail political activity.

Last year, Vaknin-Gill, the Israeli intelligence officer involved in the formation of Kela Shlomo / Concert and the discussions about avoiding FARA registration, joined ISGAP as its managing director.

ISGAP has expanded its advocacy role in recent months. The group took credit for influencing the contentious December 2023 congressional hearing with elite college presidents, which preceded Harvard University president Claudine Gay’s resignation. In recent months, ISGAP has met with congressional leaders regularly as the group has urged investigations of pro-Palestinian student demonstrators.

In another email about the issue sent in December 2019, Glazer emphasized the need to find a solution that would alleviate FARA-related concerns on the part of American groups.

“There have already been requests by the US Department of Justice made of a number of pro-Israeli entities in the past,” the email says. “The ministry already faces real challenges in operating with groups in the US, and this could hurt the various groups that are willing to work with the ministry or with [Concert] and ultimately harm the office’s activities in dealing with the phenomenon of delegitimization and boycotts.”
Does Any Other Country Besides Israel Have the Right to Defend Itself?

August 20, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Zahed Al-Kilani, Creative Commons 4.0

Despite the countless atrocities, assassinations and violations of humanitarian and international law, American politicians and the corporate media recite ad infinitum the accepted talking point that Israel has a “right to defend itself.” From their distorted perspective, only the aggressor deserves that prerogative.

Israel’s claim to self-defense is never questioned. Although it has one of the strongest modern militaries (581 aircraft, including F-15, F-16 and advanced stealth F-35 fighter jets), possesses the latest air defense systems, stockpiles 400 nuclear weapons with delivery systems, and has the United States, the world’s largest military power, standing ready to protect it, we are to believe that Israel is in physical danger.

On the other hand, the Palestinians, most in need of defense, are denied that right. They are told to accept colonized lives in the Gaza concentration camp, to accept marginalization, injustice and humiliation forever; that they have no right to resist the Israeli apartheid regime. And the United States and its Western proxies threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and others in the Palestinian Resistance for daring to challenge Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Even though the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestinian Islamic Jihad and smaller groups have no organized modern military, no air force, navy, air defense systems, nuclear weapons and no Western allies to defend them from Israeli terrorism, we are to believe that they are a threat.

In addition, the U.S.-Israeli narrative concerning Palestinians and their regional allies is rife with contradictions. The United States and Israel can choose their allies, while Iranians and Palestinians cannot without controversy.

Israel is hardly the victim it portrays itself to be. Its colonial expansion through the use of force began when it destroyed over 500 Palestinian towns and violently dispossessed over 750,000 Palestinians to establish an exclusive Jewish state in 1948. It broadened with the 1967 Arab-Israel War, which led to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as control over the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights.

The historical record reveals that for many years prior to 1967 Israel intended to seize the West Bank and Golan Heights. There was no military threat or safety concerns. The war was fought out of a desire to demonstrate Israel’s power and to achieve territorial gains.

Israel continues to seize Palestinian land and escalate expansion. Currently, as many as 700,000 Jewish “settlers” live in 150 illegal “settlements” and 128 outposts across occupied Palestine.

The mainstreamed popular Israeli myth of a small David defending against an Arab Goliath was shattered by the Gaza prison break of 7 October. A fantasy President Joe Biden and many in the American political class grew up on and continue to embrace.

The reality of Israel’s brutal siege of Gaza and the West Bank has also forced many Jews in the diaspora to recognize that Israel has not been their defender. To the contrary, the mixing of Judaism with Zionism—religion and bellicose nationalism—has fueled antisemitism.

To become a regional nuclear Goliath, Israel has violated countless international and humanitarian laws. Tel Aviv has yet to confront a law it has been willing to obey or a country’s sovereignty it felt compelled to respect.

The UN Charter of 1945 and the body of international law enshrined in its conventions, treaties and standards were created to govern relations and to usher in comity among nations, and to insure the horrors of the Second World War were never repeated.

The Charter, for example, strictly prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. Israel, however, began violating it soon after it proclaimed statehood and again in its preemptive 1967 War.

As a consequence of the Arab-Israel wars of 1948-49 and 1967, Israel permanently occupied the land it captured and has not allowed the Palestinians made refugees by the wars to return to Palestine and to their homes. Occupation is by definition temporary until conditions are such that the territory can be returned to its original sovereign.

Flagrantly, Israel has violated one of the most important principles established under modern international law: an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to annex or gain sovereignty over any territory under its occupation.

Furthermore, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” and prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportation of protected persons from occupied territory.”

Significantly, two principles of international law regarding the use of force are especially important to weigh with regard to 7 October and its aftermath.

For Palestinians, international law recognizes that resistance, by all available means, including armed struggle, is a legitimate right for people under illegal occupation (Additional Protocol 1 to the 1977 Geneva Conventions).

For Israel, when an occupation is in place, as it is in the West Bank and Gaza, the occupier (Israel) cannot use militarized force in response to an armed attack; it can only use police force to restore order (1949 Geneva Convention, respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land).

Essentially, international law leaves little doubt—Israel is an illegal occupant. The International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024 said just that. In its advisory opinion it ruled that Israel should end its illegal occupation and that “settlers” be removed from all of occupied Palestine.

Repeated United Nations condemnations, reports and resolutions have not stopped Israel from defying the rules and norms which other members of the international community are bound to observe. The United States and its proxies have enabled it to become the rogue state it is today. And in the process, they have made Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza possible.

Oddly, while Israel escalates its violent behavior in the Middle East, the United States has warned Iran and other Palestinian allies not to escalate.

In addition, in August, Washington approved an additional $20 billion in new arms transfers (F-15 fighter jets, missiles, tens of thousands of mortar and tank shells); thereby, giving Israel the green light to continue its war in Gaza and to regional escalation.

In this and in many other actions, the American administration has made its defense of Israel unequivocal.

Since the assassination late last month of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Beirut and Tehran, Israel has anticipated a retaliatory attack. To mitigate that, the United States initiated on 15 August renewed negotiations for a ceasefire.

To sabotage the talks, Israel escalated the war by bombing Gazans sheltering in ruined schools and living in tents. Provocatively, Israeli ultranationalists marched on the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard, reserved for Muslim worship, in occupied Al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he has done for 20 years, continues to relentlessly pursue his dream of dragging the United States into a war against Iran.

Interestingly, Iran, through its Mission to the United Nations, has stated that it would support a ceasefire recognized by Hamas. It has, however, also maintained its legitimate right to respond to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Chairman of Hamas’ Political Bureau, and to Israel’s violation of its national security and sovereignty. Iran is also keenly aware that if the assassination on its soil is left unanswered, it simply “whets the appetite of the Israeli occupation for more transgressions and aggression.”

It is illogical to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza over the last ten months as defensive. Unfortunately, that is what many in the American corridors of power and Israeli-backed media have been doing.

The narrative has finally begun to shift. Voices have grown increasingly louder demanding that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, to resist occupation and to seek liberation. The worn-out “defense” trope used to protect Israel no longer persuades. It is time for it to be jettisoned.
The Decimation of Gaza’s Academia is ‘Impossible to Quantify’

With thousands of faculty and students likely killed and campuses destroyed, Palestinian universities in the Strip are barely surviving Israel’s scholasticide.
August 17, 2024
Source: +972 Magazine

A Palestinian woman sits in front of the damaged entrance to Al-Aqsa University in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, January 26, 2024. (Atia Mohammed/Flash90 via +972 Magazine)

Dr. Refaat Alareer was a good friend of mine. A poet, writer, and prominent activist for the Palestinian cause, Refaat taught English literature and poetry for many years at the Islamic University of Gaza. He loved the works of Shakespeare, Thomas White, John Donne, Wilfred Owen, and many others, and he was the editor of two books: “Gaza Unsilenced“ and “Gaza Writes Back.”

Refaat is one of at least 105 Palestinian academics killed in Gaza since the start of Israel’s war, according to the Palestinian Education Ministry’s latest statistics. His home institution, the Islamic University, has been completely demolished by the bombing campaign — and all of Gaza’s 19 universities have sustained severe damage or lie in utter ruins, with over 80 percent of university buildings destroyed. The Strip’s nearly 90,000 students who were enrolled in institutions of higher learning before the war have largely been unable to continue their studies.

The annihilation of higher education is particularly tragic for Gaza’s future: this source of learning, economic growth, livelihoods, and community is now gone. But the stories of the teachers and schools we have lost, and the educational opportunities that are now foreclosed, deserve to be told.

Refaat understood the importance of education better than most. He encouraged me to learn English for my work as a journalist, and he loved teaching me new words in both English and Arabic. “Through storytelling,” he would remind me, “we affirm our right to this land. And learning the English language is a means of breaking free from the prolonged siege of Gaza.”

In the Israeli airstrike that took Refaat’s life on Dec. 7, his brother Salah and nephew Mohammad, as well as his sister Asmaa and her three children, Alaa, Yahya, and Muhammad, were martyred alongside him, and other family members were wounded. Three of Refaat’s sons — one of whom was in his first year at university — and his three daughters stayed with their mother in another shelter and survived.

Refaat Alareer. (Palestinian Information Center)

Refaat’s cousin, Muhammad Alareer, said that he believes the Israeli army targeted Refaat precisely because of his scholarship and fluency in English — as well as his work with the “We Are Not Numbers” project, a Palestinian non-profit that Refaat co-founded in 2015. “Before the attack,” Muhammad told +972, “he received many death threats online and via mobile phone from Israeli accounts, demanding him to stop writing and publishing.”

According to Muhammad, Refaat received a phone call from someone who identified himself as an Israeli officer, saying that the military knew exactly where he was located, and that he would be assassinated or detained if he continued writing. This threat prompted Refaat to leave his wife and children at the UNRWA school in Al-Tuffah, northeast of Gaza City. He went to his sister’s house, thinking it would be safer than the school — but he was sadly mistaken.
‘He expected to be targeted’

Among the many Palestinian academics killed in Gaza since Oct. 7 were three university presidents. The 53-year-old physicist Dr. Sofyan Abdel Rahman Taya was serving as the president of the Islamic University of Gaza when he was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Jabalia on Dec. 2 along with his wife, parents, and five children.

+972 spoke to Dr. Taya’s brother Nabil, who described how much Sofyan loved his work and cared deeply about his family and those around him. His research on optical waveguides and biosensors won him numerous awards and honors, including the Palestine Islamic Bank Award for Scientific Research, the Abdul Hameed Shoman Award for Young Arab Scientists, and the Islamic University Award for Scientific Research. In March 2023, Dr. Taya was appointed as the UNESCO Chair for Physics, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences in Palestine. As university president, he had a clear goal: to pursue both scientific research and community service, as the cornerstones of the university’s mission.

Dr. Sofyan Abdel Rahman Taya. (Courtesy)

But in the weeks before he was killed, Nabil told +972, Sofyan “expected to be targeted, especially after many academic and administrative staff at the Islamic University were assassinated before him.” These included Omar Farwana, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, and Dr. Muhammad Shabir, the former president of the university. After Taya and Shabir, Dr. Said Anwar Alzebda, of the University College of Applied Sciences in Gaza, was the third university president killed along with several members of his family on Dec. 31.

Dr. Khitam Al-Wasifi, head of the Physics Department at the Islamic University and vice dean of its College of Science, was another prominent Palestinian academic who was killed along with her husband — also a professor at the Islamic University — and children on Dec. 1. Known by colleagues and friends as the “Sheikha of Physicists,” she published dozens of articles on magnetoelectricity and optoelectronics, and was awarded several honors for her work.

Many surviving faculty members saw the deaths of these academics as the deliberate targeting of prominent intellectuals in Gaza — and, as a result, many declined to be interviewed for this article, for fear of being assassinated themselves. By killing influential academic figures, according to Salah Abd El Atei, the president of the International Commission to Support Palestinian Rights (Hashd) who spoke to +972 from Cairo, Israel aims “to destroy everything symbolic in Palestinian society so that the people in Gaza do not have figures they can rely on in the future.”
Campuses in ruin

On Oct. 11, Israel bombed the Islamic University of Gaza, razing the entire campus. Among the demolished structures was the university mosque, in contravention of international laws prohibiting attacks on places of worship. The university had been damaged in previous wars, but the scale of the current destruction is unprecedented.

View of the destruction at Al-Aqsa University, Gaza City, February 10, 2024 (Omar Elqataa)

U.N. experts have estimated that 80 percent of schools and universities have been damaged or destroyed since October — amounting, in their view, to “scholasticide.” “It may be reasonable to ask,” the experts wrote, “if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system.”

Al-Azhar University’s main campus in Gaza City and its branch in Al-Mughraqa were laid to waste by repeated Israeli airstrikes in the first few months of the war. Before October, according to Muhammad Al-Wazir, a professor at the university, the university was composed of 12 colleges, collectively offering bachelor’s degrees in 77 majors, 33 master’s programs, and four doctoral programs.

Like the Islamic University, Al-Azhar was repeatedly targeted during previous escalations in Gaza. “Each time,” Al-Wazir told +972, “the university promptly reached out to Arab, Islamic, and international institutions to help repair the damage.” After this war, however, the university will be forced to rebuild from scratch. As Al-Wazir pointed out, the destruction of Al-Azhar University was one of the pieces of evidence South Africa presented during its argument before the International Court of Justice as evidence of Israel’s systematic and intentional destruction of educational infrastructure.

Israa University, the University of Palestine, Gaza University, Al-Quds Open University, and Al-Aqsa University — my alma mater — have all faced similar wreckage. So many staff members have been killed and virtually all students and employees displaced that a full account of the destruction is extremely challenging. “It is not possible to quantify the damage incurred by the university,” said Dr. Imad Abu Kishek, the president of Al-Quds Open University. “Nor can we determine this situation while we are losing the essential element, the human beings — academics, technicians, workers, and students — on a daily basis.”

Al-Quds Open University, November 25, 2023. (Omar Elqataa)

University infrastructure that benefited the Palestinian public has also been destroyed. Israa University was home to a national museum, licensed by the Tourism and Antiquities Ministry — “the first of its kind on the national level,” as Ahmed Juma’a, a lecturer at the university, explained to +972. “It housed over 3,000 artifacts. The occupation soldiers and officers looted them before blowing up the museum building.” There have also been multiple reports that Israeli soldiers used Israa University as a makeshift military base and detention center, before blowing up the remaining buildings in January.

It is not only students and professors who bear the loss of Gaza’s universities, but all Palestinians in Gaza who have been deprived of the benefits of a vibrant academic community — everything from arts and culture to medical care. Esraa Hammad was a dental student at the University of Palestine before October 7. “I studied there for five years and was about to obtain my degree,” she said, “but all of that ended with a decision from the occupation army.”

For Esraa, the most meaningful part of her studies was her work with dental patients in the university’s clinics. “I felt proud of my education and my professors, especially when people would come to thank me for relieving them from tooth pain and helping them return to their normal lives for free.”
‘We insist on continuing students’ education’

Many see the destruction of academic life in Gaza as part of Israel’s aim to ensure that Palestinians have no future in the Strip. According to Abd El Atei, “The army has been seeking to destroy all aspects of life in the Gaza Strip, making it uninhabitable and pushing its residents to migrate to European countries.”

For Dr. Ali Abu Saada, Director General of Higher Education at Gaza’s Education Ministry, the targeting of educational institutions is “part of an effort to strip Palestinians of their essential components of life: thought, culture, and education.” Although university structures may be rebuilt after the war, Abu Saada believes Israel intends to send the message that Palestinians will face a future with “no place for education and no teachers to teach — a reality that helps accelerate migration, which is what the occupier seeks.”

Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza City, February 15, 2024. (Omar Elqataa)

Yet despite the damage, there are still efforts among Palestinians in Gaza to continue teaching and learning. Al-Azhar University has issued a statement calling on students to continue their semesters remotely. Al-Wazir, the Al-Azhar professor, said this “is a way to challenge the reality imposed by the Israeli army’s destruction of universities — so that the academic year does not go to waste for students.”

Dr. Muhammad Hamdan, director of public relations at Al-Aqsa University, confirms that most universities in the Gaza Strip have returned to distance learning, “as a way to insist on continuing students’ education.” At Al-Aqsa, most remote classes focus on more theoretical subjects, for which there are lectures available on the university’s online educational platform. Several lecturers outside of Gaza, Hamdan notes, supervise this platform and hold new remote lectures as necessary.

Distance learning during war, however, cannot happen with consistency. Ayman Safi, a third-year student in Information Technology at Al-Azhar, registered for online classes at his university as soon as they became available. But as he told +972, downloading “academic materials from the platform to the laptop or mobile phone, including textbooks, requires strong internet,” and he is forced to travel more than four kilometers to find a sufficient connection.

“I try to study during the night,” Safi said, as he prepares for his midterm exams, “because during the day I have many other duties: providing water and firewood [for my family], charging the batteries for our phones and laptops, and lighting a fire to prepare food.” On class days, he wakes up early to attend to his family’s needs, before traveling to access the internet. But when he arrives, he admits, “I have a hard time following the lectures or the information in my textbooks.” Despite this, he is “trying to finish this school year in any way possible.”

The College of Applied Sciences at Al-Azhar University, Gaza City, February 15, 2024. (Omar Elqataa)

Universities in Gaza have made it easier to cross-register between different institutions, which Majd Mahdi, a medical student at the Islamic University of Gaza, has taken advantage of. “I persevered in high school in order to study medicine, which was my dream,” she told +972. After her university was destroyed, she was able to enroll in classes at Cairo University in Egypt and An-Najah University in Nablus.

Universities in the West Bank such as An-Najah, with help from the Education Ministry, have opened their doors to students in Gaza who are able to learn remotely, and tens of thousands enrolled for the spring and summer semesters. But while their buildings are still standing, these institutions have faced lockdowns and other disruptions since October 7, while the Israeli military and settlers make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians in the West Bank to move freely between their homes and school.

For Mahdi, continuing her education from a tent in Al-Mawasi, west of Khan Younis, has proved nearly impossible. “We don’t have a source of electricity,” she said, “so every time my laptop runs out of battery, I have to go to one of the charging points and it needs a while to charge.” Even when she is able to resume studying, however, “it is difficult to follow all the lectures and [communicate] with lecturers via WhatsApp, since there is no constant internet connection.”

Mahdi hopes that this war will end as soon as possible and that she will return to studying in person, even if it takes place in destroyed classrooms. “We need the help of doctors, so I hope to finish my studies and join the hospital staff so that I can assist my people.”

But the effects of the war will be felt for years to come. According to Dr. Wissam Amer, dean of the Faculty of Communication and Languages at Gaza University, an entire generation of students at all levels of education have faced significant setbacks in their progress. “Rebuilding the education system in Gaza is not impossible,” he said, “but it will take a long time. The universities have been completely destroyed.”

The IDF Spokesperson responded to our request for comment with the following statement: “The IDF does not deliberately target educational institutions as such, but operates solely on military necessity. Hamas systematically places its operatives and military assets in the heart of its civilian population, and conducts its combat from civilian infrastructure, including educational institutions and universities. The Islamic University of Gaza building and its surroundings were used by Hamas for various military activities, above and below ground, this includes a development and production of weapons and the training of the intelligence personnel in the military branch of Hamas.”

Ibtisam Mahdi is a freelance journalist from Gaza specializing in reporting about social issues, especially concerning women and children. She also works with feminist organizations in Gaza on reporting and communications.

Ibtisam Mahdi is a freelance journalist from Gaza specializing in reporting about social issues, especially concerning women and children. She also works with feminist organizations in Gaza on reporting and communications.

The DNC Fiddles While the World Burns
August 21, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


DNC delegates unfurl banner during Biden’s speech at the DNC | Photo credit: Esam Boraey



An Orwellian disconnect haunts the 2024 Democratic National Convention. In the isolation of the convention hall, shielded from the outside world behind thousands of armed police, few of the delegates seem to realize that their country is on the brink of direct involvement in major wars with Russia and Iran, either of which could escalate into World War III.

Inside the hall, the mass slaughter in the Middle East and Ukraine are treated only as troublesome “issues,” which “the greatest military in the history of the world” can surely deal with. Delegates who unfurled a banner that read “Stop Arming Israel” during Biden’s speech on Monday night were quickly accosted by DNC officials, who instructed other delegates to use “We
Joe” signs to hide the banner from view.

In the real world, the most explosive flashpoint right now is the Middle East, where U.S. weapons and Israeli troops are slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly children and families, at the bidding of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. And yet, in July, Democrats and Republicans leapt to their feet in 23 standing ovations to applaud Netanyahu’s warmongering speech to a joint session of Congress.

In the week before the DNC started, the Biden administration announced its approval for the sale of $20 billion in weapons to Israel, which would lock the US into a relationship with the Israeli military for years to come.

Netanyahu’s determination to keep killing without restraint in Gaza, and Biden and Congress’s willingness to keep supplying him with weapons to do so, always risked exploding into a wider war, but the crisis has reached a new climax. Since Israel has failed to kill or expel the Palestinians from Gaza, it is now trying to draw the United States into a war with Iran, a war to degrade Israel’s enemies and restore the illusion of military superiority that it has squandered in Gaza.

To achieve its goal of triggering a wider war, Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, a Hezbollah commander, in Beirut, and Hamas’s political leader and chief ceasefire negotiator, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran. Iran has vowed to respond militarily to the assassinations, but Iran’s leaders are in a difficult position. They do not want a war with Israel and the United States, and they have acted with restraint throughout the massacre in Gaza. But failing to respond strongly to these assassinations would encourage Israel to conduct further attacks on Iran and its allies.

The assassinations in Beirut and Tehran were clearly designed to elicit a response from Iran and Hezbollah that would draw the U.S. into the war. Could Iran find a way to strike Israel that would not provoke a U.S. response? Or, if Iran’s leaders believe that is impossible, will they decide that this is the moment to actually fight a seemingly unavoidable war with the U.S. and Israel?

This is an incredibly dangerous moment, but a ceasefire in Gaza would resolve the crisis. The U.S. has dispatched CIA Director William Burns, the only professional diplomat in Biden’s cabinet, to the Middle East for renewed ceasefire talks, and Iran is waiting to see the result of the talks before responding to the assassinations.

Burns is working with Qatari and Egyptian officials to come up with a revised ceasefire proposal that Israel and Hamas can both agree to. But Israel has always rejected any proposal for more than a temporary pause in its assault on Gaza, while Hamas will only agree to a real, permanent ceasefire. Could Biden have sent Burns just to stall, so that a new war wouldn’t spoil the Dems’ party in Chicago?

The United States has always had the option of halting weapons shipments to Israel to force it to agree to a permanent ceasefire. But it has refused to use that leverage, except for the suspension of a single shipment of 2,000 lb bombs in May, after it had already sent Israel 14,000 of those horrific weapons, which it uses to systematically smash living children and families into unidentifiable pieces of flesh and bone.

Meanwhile the war with Russia has also taken a new and dangerous turn, with Ukraine invading Russia’s Kursk region. Some analysts believe this is only a diversion before an even riskier Ukrainian assault on the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Ukraine’s leaders see the writing on the wall, and are increasingly ready to take any risk to improve their negotiating position before they are forced to sue for peace.

But Ukraine’s recent incursion into Russia, while applauded by much of the west, has actually made negotiations less likely. In fact, talks between Russia and Ukraine on energy issues were supposed to start in the coming weeks. The idea was that each side would agree not to target the other’s energy infrastructure, with the hope that this could lead to more comprehensive talks. But after Ukraine’s invasion toward Kursk, the Russians pulled out of what would have been the first direct talks since the early weeks of the Russian invasion.

President Zelenskyy remains in power three months after his term of office expired, and he is a great admirer of Israel. Will he take a page from Netanyahu’s playbook and do something so provocative that it will draw U.S. and NATO forces into the potentially nuclear war with Russia that Biden has promised to avoid?

A 2023 U.S. Army War College study found that even a non-nuclear war with Russia could result in as many U.S. casualties every two weeks as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did in two decades, and it concluded that such a war would require a return to conscription in the United States.

While Gaza and Eastern Ukraine burn in firestorms of American and Russian bombs and missiles, and the war in Sudan rages on unchecked, the whole planet is rocketing toward catastrophic temperature increases, ecosystem breakdown and mass extinctions. But the delegates in Chicago are in la-la land about U.S. responsibility for that crisis too.

Under the slick climate plan Obama sold to the world in Copenhagen and Paris, Americans’ per capita CO2 emissions are still double those of our Chinese, British and European neighbors, while U.S. oil and gas production have soared to all-time record highs.

The combined dangers of nuclear war and climate catastrophe have pushed the hands of the Doomsday Clock all the way to 90 seconds to midnight. But the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex. Behind the election-year focus on what the two parties disagree about, the corrupt policies they both agree on are the most dangerous of all.

President Biden recently claimed that he is “running the world.” No oligarchic American politician will confess to “running the world” to the brink of nuclear war and mass extinction, but tens of thousands of Americans marching in the streets of Chicago and millions more Americans who support them understand that that is what Biden, Trump and their cronies are doing.

The people inside the convention hall should shake themselves out of their complacency and start listening to the people in the streets. Therein lies the real hope, maybe the only hope, for America’s future.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers .Donate