Tuesday, May 06, 2025

 

United States - Vets Mobilize vs. DOGE

by EARLY SteveGORDON Suzanne

ON MARCH 14, a much-decorated former Capitol police officer was on his way to the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to join a protest against down-sizing of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by the Trump Administration.

Among the thousands gathered there were more than a few American flag wavers, decked out in camo and other forms of apparel favored by military veterans. The mere sight of them gave Harry Dunn a “PTSD moment.” As he explained later, “the last time I saw a crowd like this, they were beating the shit out of me and my co-workers at the Capitol.”

What Dunn encountered was not a re-union of now pardoned January 6 rioters, but an increasingly common sight outside VA hospitals and other federal buildings around the country: military veterans, their families, and VA care-givers rallying against Trump-Musk attacks on the nation’s largest public healthcare system.

These reinforcements are a welcome addition to the ranks of “Save Our VA” campaigners from Veterans for Peace and Common Defense, who have been sounding the alarm about VA privatization threats for years. In early March, Vietnam veteran Paul Cox was visiting a terminally ill friend at a VA facility in St. Louis. Afterwards, he ran into a woman in the hospital parking lot, who handed him a leaflet.

“VA workers are being fired,” it said. “This can hurt your care. This is an assault on the VA. Call or email your Senators and Representatives as soon as you can.”

Cox is a leading member of VFP long active in its Save Our VA (SOVA) committee; so, he has distributed similar appeals on many occasions. When the longtime VFP activist asked the lone hand biller whether she belonged to any labor or veterans’ groups, he found she was acting entirely on her own.

Reading about President Trump’s mass firing of federal employees, she became very worried about the impact on local VA care for her husband. She had typed up the flyer herself, taken it to a copy shop, and began hand billing other patients, staff, and family members.

Several weeks later, at the same location, hundreds of demonstrators gathered to denounce Elon Musk and his tech industry underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

As one vet attending that protest told the press: “We’re not going to stand quietly by while the VA is dismantled, and benefits are taken away…They just come in and start pulling strings and wires on the wall to see what happens. But this isn’t X. It isn’t Twitter. It’s not me losing a tweet. It’s guys dying.”

Hundreds of vets turned out March 14th in Washington, D.C. to oppose the dismantling of their vital healthcare system. They also participated in the April 5th Hands Off rallies.

 VA Headquarters Leak

This growing backlash began in response to the indiscriminate dismissal of 2,400 VA probationary workers, including many former service members. That group — along with new hires in five other federal departments — got a temporary reprieve, in the form of a March 13 reinstatement order issued by U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup in San Francisco. [On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Judge Alsup’s reinstatement order. —ed.]

However, as Alsup warned the union plaintiffs in this case, the VA and other agencies still have the ability to downsize based on future Reduction in Force (RIF) plans that are “done right.”

A March 4 headquarters memo revealed that new VA Secretary Doug Collins plans a RIF from 480,000 employees to 399,957, starting in August. This return to the agency’s headcount six years ago will, according to that leaked document, “eliminate waste, reduce management and bureaucracy…and increase workforce efficiency.”

In an opinion piece for The Hill, Collins pledged to do this “without making cuts to healthcare or benefits” and warned critics that “we will be making major changes. So get used to it.”

Others on the Hill, and their constituents, are not happy with that response. “The VA,” warns Mark Takano (D-CA) “is on the precipice of destruction” from “a senseless reduction in force.”

According to this ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the VA-run Veterans Health Administration (VHA) will be seriously disrupted — particularly for those among its nine million patients who have service-related conditions due to past toxic exposures in combat zones or on U.S. military bases.

The VA has had a big influx of disability benefit claimants since Congressional passage of the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act in 2022.

Nearly a million vets have since qualified for VHA care, due to medical conditions acquired while serving near burn-pits in the Middle East or on military bases in the U.S. with poisoned soil or water. They join older vets whose health was damaged by Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam or other forms of chemical contamination during the first Gulf War.

With VA workforce cuts of nearly 20% now looming, advocates for veterans fear that PACT Act implementation will be disrupted, even with a projected 10-year allocation of $280 billion to fund its expanded coverage. As NY Times investigation has confirmed, the VA’s initial job cuts in early 2025 and its DOGE-driven cancellation of hundreds of agreements with outside contractors has already had a chaotic, ripple effect.

Longer term, the VHA’s role as a medical research powerhouse, leading provider of clinical education for healthcare professionals, and backup public hospital system during pandemics or other emergencies will be jeopardized. And veterans who have filed tens of thousands of disability claims with the VA-run Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) will face longer delays getting them approved.

 Labor-Management Uncertainty

One regional VA administrator we interviewed (who asked not to be identified) described the widespread uncertainty among his/her colleagues about how to submit plans, demanded by VA headquarters in Washington, for further staffing cuts.

“Are we following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules, or the rule of law, which requires that we follow certain guidelines, for example, people with the most seniority are the last to go, employees who are veterans are the last to go, employees with high performance ratings ditto?”

To share information and get answers to personnel questions like these, nearly 20,000 people have joined a Reddit group called VeteransAffairs. It’s moderated by a VHA pharmacist and Tennessee community college teacher David Carson, a former VBA claims processor.

A combat vet with PTSD, Carson was fired in 2017 — in part because of a Facebook post he had written with the hashtag #AssassinateTrump, which some of his co-workers, and management, found to be threatening.

Learning from that experience, Carson is now trying to “create a safe, helpful, and respectful [online] community” where others can get the benefit of his experience helping vets qualify for VA benefits and fight unfair dismissals. As one grateful subreddit user in Salt Lake City told The Times, “it just gives you an idea of what other people at the V.A. are going through, that you’re not alone.”

Among career employees like these, there is little confidence that Republican political appointees — eager to impress DOGE and the White House by meeting their staffing cut quotas — have any real understanding of who is “mission critical” at the VA and who is not. For example, many employees illegally fired by the first Trump Administration, under the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Act of 2017, were house-keepers and food service workers considered easily disposable.

As one VHA manager asks now, who is going to feed hospitalized veterans and keep facilities clean when you lay-off and don’t replace such support staff members? Who is going to change the sheets on their beds or sanitize a room to prevent the spread of serious hospital acquired infections like MRSA or Clostridium difficile (C-Diff)?

Another VA official pointed out the adverse safety impact of Collins’s recent abrupt cancellation of multiple contracts with needed private sector vendors. One contract — since restored — was with an outside firm supplying radiation safety officers for VHA oncology and imaging departments (a position outsourced because of difficulty hiring inhouse staff to fill this role).

 No More Phoning It In?

A well-documented strength of the VHA is its telehealth services in areas like nephrology and kidney care. This consultative capacity is critical, one staffer told us, for veterans in rural states like Alaska, Montana or Wyoming and isolated places like Guam or even Hawaii, where there are very few nephrologists.

Yet Secretary Collins — an Air Force Reserve Colonel, Baptist minister, and former congressman with no healthcare experience — insists that such care delivery is easily reproducible in the private sector.

Many veterans with mental health conditions, also rely on VHA telehealth sessions with their therapists, who are in very short supply in many parts of the country. These patients suffer from depression, substance abuse, and a higher risk of self-harm than the general population.

The VHA has a major advantage over alternative providers of therapy, via telehealth, who also operate on a multi-state basis. In the private sector, if a doctor, nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or therapist cares for an out-of-state patient, they must be licensed in both their own and that other state.

The VA has been uniquely empowered to establish national standards of practice for its health care professionals that enables them to work remotely, from home, while caring for patients, without regard to state licensing requirements (which remain a legal obstacle to other healthcare systems’ wider use of telemedicine).

Such advantages are little valued by right-wing operatives like Collins, who has now ordered mental health providers to return to work in VHA facilities — even if the only space available for them to conduct virtual psychotherapy with patients is cubicles in a large open office space, set up like a call center.

As new VA spokesman Peter Kasperowicz, a former Washington Examiner and Fox News reporter, informed The Times, on March 24, “Under President Trump, V.A. is no longer a place where the status quo for employees is to simply phone it in from home.”

Clinicians interviewed by the newspaper warn that such work location changes “will degrade mental health treatment, which already has severe staffing shortages” and trigger “a mass exodus of sought-after specialists like psychiatrists and psychologists.”

The result will be more costly referrals to private sector providers and longer wait times for appointments, particularly in rural areas and any part of the country with a shortage of mental health services for patients unable to pay out of pocket.

 Claims Processing Delays?

Even before the arrival of DOGE cost cutters, VBA staff members faced the challenge of processing new PACT Act-related claims based on 23 medical conditions, ranging from bronchial asthma to various rare cancers, which are now considered presumptively related to either burn-pit exposure and other chemical exposures in the military.

VHA staffers fear that impending job cuts will make it harder for veterans to get medical exams enabling them to join registries maintained for victims of Agent Orange, Gulf War syndrome, burn-pit and asbestos exposure.

survey of several thousand VA staffers conducted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) two years ago found that a majority of VBA respondents were experiencing unmanageable claims processing workloads. Even then, this was causing more than 60% to consider leaving their jobs.

A similar large majority of VHA participants in this survey said their facilities needed more frontline and administrative/support staff. But vacancies were not being filled, nor was sufficient recruitment of new staff underway. More than two-thirds reported that beds, units or programs in their facility had been closed due to local staffing shortages and budget deficits, even in places with continuing patient demand.

 Life and Death Stuff

Three years later, VHA managers — not just union members — foresee such conditions getting much worse, not better. They express a particular concern about how cuts to research and direct care will adversely affect patients undergoing cancer treatment.

Patients on clinical trials or even undergoing traditional cancer treatment at the VHA can’t just switch providers overnight. If there is no longer sufficient staff to provide care, their clinical trial will be ended, with no guarantee of its continuation outside the VHA. Outside the veterans healthcare system, there can be much longer waits for an appointment with an oncologist.

“This is life and death stuff,” a VHA medical center administrator told us. “We don’t treat cancer because it’s benign, we treat it — and right away — because it can kill you right away.”

One 50-year old Army veteran well aware of the need for that kind of timely treatment is Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense. On March 6, his group held a national emergency Zoom call on saving the VA with more than 350 participants from around the country.

Many on the call were surprised to see Vasquez lying in bed and dressed in a hospital johnny. “I am coming to you live from the Manhattan VA,” he explained. “I’ve just had surgery for pancreatic cancer and the idea that the Trump Administration would want to cut 83,000 positions and fire that many people from VA facilities is ludicrous. The VA just saved my life.”

“It’s getting real,” he warned. “They’re coming after our veterans’ benefits but we’re not going down without a fight” — a message echoed by other vets on the call. They pledged to rally their fellow vets and bombard politicians and the press with their own stories of life-changing experiences with VA programs and services.

One Common Defense activist already doing that is Vedia Barnett, a disabled vet who has received VA care for 25 years, including rehabilitation from a major stroke. As she told readers of Time earlier this year:

“I am not just concerned for myself — I am terrified for our senior veterans, those with severe combat injuries, survivors of military sexual trauma (MST), and those battling PTSD. They will all bear the brunt of this cruel decision… leaving our most vulnerable without the care they desperately need and deserve.”

Steve Early & Suzanne Gordon


P.S.

• Against the Current No. 236, May/June 2025:
https://againstthecurrent.org/atc236/vets-mobilize-vs-doge/


The future of USAID after DOGE 

The Wall Street Consensus under Trump


by GABOR Daniela


We often hear that the new Trump administration inaugurates the age of technofeudalism. Just look at Elon Musk, pontificating about so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) democracy from the Oval Office while undemocratically occupying the US Treasury payment system. But is the administration simply using bullying as a mode of power, as Adam Tooze recently diagnosed it, destroying institutions without measure or plan?

The smashing of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) makes a good case for both. For American liberals, USAID stands as a beacon of progressive values—a vehicle for delivering essential public investments in sexual and reproductive rights, climate resilience, or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the global South. The many voices defending it from the DOGE onslaught have described it as a force for good, even as, or precisely because, it quietly advances US soft power objectives. This view is widely shared. As Bernie Sanders put it, “Elon Musk, the richest guy in the world, is going after USAID, which feeds the poorest people in the world.”

But this was not smashing without a plan. We learned in early February from Bloomberg that the Trump Administration planned to shift some USAID funding to the US International Development Finance Corp (DFC). Created during the first Trump administration, the DFC deploys public money to leverage or mobilize private investment overseas, in partnerships with institutional investors. As Bloomberg summarizes it: “The new approach would see reduced humanitarian assistance and a greater role for private equity groups, hedge funds, and other investors in projecting economic might as the US competes for influence and strategic projects overseas with China.”

At first glance, this looks like the privatization of foreign aid: a shift from public provision to market solutions. But there’s a larger story at play. The new Trump Administration is turbo-charging the lesser known but increasingly dominant agenda within USAID: “mobilizing private capital.” This approach, which I have termed the Wall Street Consensus, is a decade-old international development paradigm that has been promoted by the World Bank, the United Nations, and rich countries’ development agencies, including the USAID under the Biden Administration.

The Consensus reimagines the role of the state as a facilitator of private investment through various subsidies to investors that are often described as “derisking.” Development is no longer a public good to be directly financed by states, but a market opportunity to be unlocked through the alchemy of public-private partnerships (PPP) into “investible,” privately-owned projects.

USAID and the Wall Street Consensus

In its pre-Trumpian formulation, adherents of the Wall Street Consensus championed a vision of what it termed “investible development.” State and development aid organizations, including multilateral development banks, would escort the trillions managed by private finance into SDG asset classes, be those education, energy, health, or other infrastructure. The state derisks by using public resources—official aid or local fiscal revenues—to improve the risk-return profile of those assets, often described as bankable projects. In the energy sector, it commits to purchase private power at predetermined prices and/or predetermined quantities that guarantee a reliable cash flow for investors. A similar process takes place in investible health. In Turkey, for example, the Ministry of Health ended up spending around 20 percent of its budget on guaranteed payments for PPP hospitals co-owned by the French asset manager Meridiam, with an average cost per bed twice that of a public hospital. In water, public money for private water typically reduces universal access by imposing user fees on poor populations.

“Leveraging” or “mobilizing” private investment is code for granting public subsidies to privately owned social infrastructure. This involves a new distributional politics that shifts public resources to private investors. The for-profit logic at the core of this development paradigm curtails universal access to social infrastructure and is fertile ground for human rights violations. For example, Bloomberg reports that development aid-funded private hospitals in Africa and Asia have detained patients and denied care on a systematic basis.

USAID has also promoted “derisking private investment,” a fact celebrated by its former leader Samantha Power when she said late last year that: “USAID over the last four years has increased private sector contributions to our development work by 40 percent. For every dollar of taxpayer resources that we have spent, we have brought in $6 in private sector investment.” 

When the Obama Administration made national security a primary focus for USAID programs, it launched Power Africa, a USAID energy initiative ostensibly aimed at improving energy access across the continent. On the now defunct USAID website, Power Africa presented several of its success stories, including the 450 MW Azura-Edo power plant in Nigeria and the Lake Turkana Wind Project and Kipeto Wind Project in Kenya, two of the largest renewable projects on the continent. If these projects, to some extent, represent important steps in closing the critical energy gaps blighting the continent, they nonetheless illustrate a familiar Wall Street agenda: USAID created opportunities for private financiers while imposing significant fiscal burdens on African governments and stunting opportunities for autonomous industrial upgrading. They have effectively worked as an “extractive belt,” channeling scarce fiscal resources of global South countries to global North investors.

Nigeria’s Azura-Edo natural gas powerplant is perhaps the most striking example of USAID-supported extractivism through derisking. The first privately-financed power project in Nigeria, the World Bank described it “as an example of how we have attracted private sector investment in the power sector.” To do so, the Bank, alongside official development institutions from the US (DFC), Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, organized and financially derisked bank lending to the project. But the fiscal derisking terms that Azura—now majority owned by the US private equity fund General Atlantic—extracted from Nigeria have been the subject of ongoing controversy. 

The Nigerian state, via its state-owned Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading, signed a $30 million-a-month take-or-pay agreement. Since Azura’s installed capacity could not be easily absorbed by the dilapidated Nigerian energy grid infrastructure, the Nigerian state ended up paying for energy in excess of what it can actually use. In a cat-and-mouse game, Azura has been threatening the Nigerian government to trigger the World Bank’s partial risk guarantee, a derisking instrument meant to discipline Nigeria into meeting its payment obligations to international investors. A triggered risk guarantee becomes a loan to Nigeria, as the de-risking state always pays, thus affecting its sovereign rating. As one Nigerian government official put it in 2024, “the agreement was a big mistake.” Lacking the resources to keep paying the exorbitant fees to Azura, he summarized that “this agreement is killing us.” Predictably, USAID celebrates the Azura deal quite simply as a “success.”

Another success story is the Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP) project. According to USAID, the agency “is creating an enabling environment for renewable power in Kenya by supporting a Grid Management program to help Kenya with grid management of intermittent renewables.” Private sector partners notably include Aldwych, working alongside the Standard Bank of South Africa, the African Development Bank and Nedbank committed financing and insurance, as well as the US Treasury Department.

The main equity owners included various Nordic public entities and Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer. These then sold their stakes to Anergy Turkana Investments, a state-owned South African asset manager, and Blackrock’s Climate Finance Fund. On the fiscal side, the Kenyan state entered a twenty-year power purchase agreement (PPA) that commits the state-owned Kenya Power and Lightening to purchasing the wind power generated. This fiscal derisking of demand was so generous to the LTWP owners that the World Bank withdrew its backing for the project; it stressed that the take-or-pay provision (like in the Azura case) would force the Kenyan state to pay for power it could not use. Even if the Kenyan grid could absorb it, the twenty-year contract locks Kenyan taxpayers into paying a Sh16/kWh price, now nearly three times higher than the Sh5.8/kWh market price. The Kipeto windfarm, now owned by the French asset manager Meridiam, is a similar take-or-pay arrangement, committing Kenya Power to compensate Meridiam in US dollars, thus taking currency risk from private investors.


Figure 1: Lake Turkana Wind Project: ownership and fiscal derisking

The derisking extractivism became so controversial that in late 2024, a Kenyan parliamentary committee asked the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to probe the role of state employees in the signing of the power purchase agreement between Kenya Power and LTWP. The Kenyan government ultimately imposed a moratorium on PPAs in the energy sector, but the implications of the agreement were not only fiscal. High energy costs undermine public efforts to strengthen the manufacturing capacity of the Kenyan economy and create new sources of political conflict between foreign-owned energy producers, the Kenyan state and local manufacturers.

USAID worked both as an instrument for humanitarian assistance and for extractivist derisking. In that domain, it placed emphasis on visible outcomes like infrastructure and investment while obscuring the long-term economic and social costs for those on the receiving end.

DOGE and foreign aid

This title of this piece is not my original turn of phrase. It hails from a blogpost by two Trumpist financiers: Jon Londsdale, a Peter Thiel mentee, and Ben Black. The latter, the son of Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black, was nominated by the Trump administration to head the DFC in its repurposed role as a more aggressive instrument of US economic power. As Bloomberg reports, the DFC would become Trump’s sovereign wealth fund, with its overall funding cap raised to $120 billion from its current $60 billion investment cap—already larger than USAID’s $40 billion budget.

A Harvard trained lawyer, Black heads the private equity firm Fortinbras, unironically named after Shakespeare’s character whom Hamlet describes as possessing “divine ambition,” his mark of greatness fighting for his family’s honor. The son of an asset stripper, he has now been tasked himself with stripping USAID of its commitments to humanitarian assistance—that’s what it means to DOGE.

Somewhat ironically, the two financiers’ diagnosis of USAID echoes that of Bernie Sanders, albeit while denouncing the politics that apparently drive it. Under Biden, they argue, USAID became a “dependency program for foreign nations,” an “absurd mission drift” wasting taxpayer money into virtue signaling projects like climate or gender equality, “pandering to the interest group-driven issue of the moment.” Alas, nothing on how USAID operations have been benefiting their tribe.

Instead, they propose to reorganize foreign aid with the purpose of “securing access to critical resources, building strong market economies, and promoting pathways for private capital to invest … backed by DFC financing, American mining, shipping, and resource-dependent businesses could step in, bringing capital and expertise” to strategic geopolitical interests like Greenland.

The DFC operations in 2023 offer a snapshot of its derisking activities. That year, it committed around $10 billion, $1.2 billion of which was earmarked for Ukraine, with no disclosed information on the specific programs. Its largest twenty investments are all over $100 million. The largest, totalling $747 million, committed to Gabon’s debt for nature swap. At first glance, such projects seem a win-win scenario: indebted nations like Gabon receive debt relief in exchange for commitments to environmental conservation. The problem, however, is that these swaps outsource environmental policy to external actors—in this case the US Nature Conservancy—and create profit opportunities for financiers—US Bank of America New York arranged the issuance of blue bonds. All the while, they do little to address the root causes of debt accumulation, such as exploitative trade relationships or volatile global financial markets.

Several of the DFC’s other large commitments illustrate its role at the intersection of US geopolitical priorities and US corporate interests. The DFC provided a $300 million guarantee to Goldman Sachs designed to underwrite potential derivative obligations arising from the company’s contract with PKN ORLEN, the Polish oil giant, as it sought to hedge its risks from imports of US liquefied natural gas. It committed $150 million to the private equity fund I Squared Climate Fund for infrastructure investments in India, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Malaysia, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Peru, and Brazil. In another derisking operation, the DFC committed $100 million to private equity Global Access Fund, which privatizes water infrastructure via PPPs.

If the second Trump administration is chaotic in presentation, parts of its agenda are nonetheless coherent. The new government will turbocharge the extractivist derisking of USAID via the DFC—“feeding into the woodchipper,” as Elon Musk put it, the aid part of the US development agenda. It is the Wall Street Consensus on steroids, run by private equity titans for private equity.


Daniela Gabor

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.


 

Against all odds, Israelis and Palestinians mark 20th joint Memorial Day ceremony

by +972 Magazine

    Facing both October 7 and Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza, bereaved families sought to make space for shared grief — and insist on a different path forward.

    This year marks the 20th Joint Israeli-Palestinian Memorial Ceremony, held annually on the eve of Israel’s Memorial Day. Organized by Combatants for Peace and the Parents Circle – Families Forum, the ceremony brings together bereaved Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost loved ones to mourn together — and to call for an end to bloodshed, war, and occupation.

    What began as a small, contentious gathering in 2006 has grown into one of the most important and largest grassroots joint peace initiatives. Yet over the years, the event has faced growing resistance. Israeli authorities have routinely blocked West Bank participants from attending (including last year), and the ceremony has long been targeted by Israeli groups who reject any form of shared grief. This year, right-wing protesters broke into a synagogue in the Israeli city of Ra’anana that was hosting a screening of the memorial, throwing stones and setting off fireworks.

    At the same time, some pro-Palestinian voices have also criticized the event, arguing that it draws a false equivalence between the occupier and the occupied, and obscures the fundamental asymmetry of the conflict.

    In 2025, the challenges facing the organizers and participants of the Joint Memorial Day Ceremony are more daunting than ever. In the wake of October 7 and Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza, the space for shared mourning has all but collapsed. The families taking the stage, some of whom have lost relatives in recent months, face enormous personal and political pressure: they are choosing to speak publicly even as calls for vengeance and dehumanization dominate the mainstream.

    This year, organizers opted not to disclose the location of the main event held inside Israel in order to avoid harassment by right-wing activists. A parallel ceremony was held in Beit Jala in the West Bank to accommodate Palestinian attendees, and the event was broadcast live at dozens of locations across Israel.

    Below are a few excerpts from the speeches that were delivered on stage this evening.

    “Despite the separation wall and the checkpoints that seek to divide us, we are here, on the same land, in the same country,” said Sayel Jabareen, an activist with Combatants for Peace. “As Palestinians, we watch this ceremony with hearts heavy from pain and wounds. Pain is not new to us; it is an old companion, inhabiting our homes and our dreams. But we are here today to affirm that our humanity allows us to recognize the pain of others without turning away from our own suffering.

    “We live in extraordinary times. For more than a year and a half, we’ve been living through a war that threatens annihilation and shows no mercy,” he continued. “Still, we hold on to our shared struggle, because we have no other path. We don’t forget those we’ve lost, and we do not ignore the ongoing injustice. But we open a window of hope toward a future built not on blood, but on justice, dignity, and freedom for all.”

    Mousa Hetawi, a West Bank resident who witnessed his cousin being shot dead by an Israeli soldier, and lost dozens of family members in Israeli bombardment in Gaza, said: “I’m 38 years old, and my life has been filled with loss and pain under the shadow of occupation. My family is scattered between the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, inside Israel, and the diaspora, like most Palestinian families.

    “Despite all the pain, we haven’t lost the ability to dream,” he added. “Even amid destruction, life is born again. This war has taken our loved ones, but not our will to live. We weep, but we do not lose our humanity. We believe this darkness, no matter how long it lasts, will eventually be lifted.”

    Mousa Hetawi speaks at the joint Memorial Day ceremony via video conference, April 29, 2025. (Gili Getz)

    Hetawi continued: “I refuse to let pain be the only legacy we pass on to our children. We’ve paid a terrible price in the blood of our loved ones, and we will not allow this cycle of bloodshed to continue. Occupation is the true root of this tragedy, and its end is the only path to justice and peace — so that our two peoples may live with dignity and security.”

    F., a Palestinian woman originally from Gaza who now lives in the West Bank, lost her mother when she was killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza. Her speech was read on stage by peace activist Amani Hamdan: “I am Palestinian, a daughter of this land, still living under the weight of pain and injustice. But I refuse to let this story define my destiny.

    “Out of all the disasters and violence I’ve endured, a belief was born within me, that my future can look different. I’ve decided to dedicate myself to the work of peace. I joined Combatants for Peace to take part in the joint path of nonviolent resistance to occupation and injustice, and to strive for a better world — despite the pain.

    “With all of this pain and unbearable loss, I am here with you today to say: Our lives are not only sad stories. They are also stories of unbreakable resilience, and of hope rising from the rubble. Let us remember that each day is a chance for a new beginning, and that we are capable of building a better tomorrow.”

    Liel Fishbein speaks at the joint Memorial Day ceremony, April 29, 2025. (Oren Ziv)

    Liel Fishbein, a survivor of the October 7 attack in Kibbutz Be’eri and brother of Tchelet Fishbein, who was killed that day along with her partner, told the crowd: “What brought me here today is a very basic understanding: This pain does not distinguish between us, and no one is born with hate.

    “I’m 27 years old, and in the reality I grew up in, I’m sorry to say, I don’t know my Arab neighbors,” he added. “I don’t speak their language. I don’t know their customs or their history. But I know, with absolute certainty, that when they lose their loved ones, they hurt just like I do.

    “I believe that only by coming closer, by connecting, talking, and accepting each other, can we begin to see one another as human beings,” he continued. “I don’t know what we’ll encounter along the way or where it will lead us. I know it will be challenging. But I’m ready to live with that uncertainty and act from a different place, to create a reality of trust, friendship, and true peace.”

    Liat Atzili, who was taken hostage from Kibbutz Nir Oz on October 7 and lost her husband Aviv Atzili that day, also spoke in the ceremony. “On October 7, my world fell apart. The anchors of my life were ripped away, one after the other,” she said.

    “I’m a teacher, but more than that, I’m a lifelong student. Intellect is my survival mechanism, my tool for seeking truth and understanding the world. I find truth and comfort in the words of Rabbi Daniel Epstein, from the film ‘The Absent God,’ about the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas: ‘Just as I do not mold the other according to my will, I will not change them either. But maybe by changing my point of view, I can draw out the good that must already exist within them, because they are human, like me.’”

    +972 Magazine


    P.S.

    • +972 Magazine. April 29, 2025:
    https://www.972mag.com/20th-joint-memorial-day-ceremony/

    A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

    Our team has been devastated by the horrific events of this latest war – the atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel and the massive retaliatory Israeli attacks on Gaza. Our hearts are with all the people and communities facing violence.


    We are in an extraordinarily dangerous era in Israel-Palestine. The bloodshed unleashed by these events has reached extreme levels of brutality and threatens to engulf the entire region. Hamas’ murderous assault in southern Israel has devastated and shocked the country to its core. Israel’s retaliatory bombing of Gaza is wreaking destruction on the already besieged strip and killing a ballooning number of civilians. Emboldened settlers in the West Bank, backed by the army, are seizing the opportunity to escalate their attacks on Palestinians.

    This escalation has a very clear context, one that +972 has spent the past 13 years covering: Israeli society’s growing racism and militarism, the entrenched occupation, and an increasingly normalized siege on Gaza.

    We are well positioned to cover this perilous moment – but we need your help to do it. This terrible period will challenge the humanity of all of those working for a better future in this land. Palestinians and Israelis are already organizing and strategizing to put up the fight of their lives.

    Can we count on your support? +972 Magazine is the leading media voice of this movement, a desperately needed platform where Palestinian and Israeli journalists and activists can report on and analyze what is happening, guided by humanism, equality, and justice. Join us.

    BECOME A MEMBER


    Haaretz | Opinion

     Israel Doesn’t Actually Care About the Fate of the Druze in Syria

    by LEVY Gideon


      A Druze cleric, left, who crossed from Syria to Israel earlier in the day is welcomed by an Israeli soldier at the Nabi Shuaib shrine compound, in northern Israel on Friday.Credit: Leo Correa/AP

      Sometimes it’s hard to believe what one is reading: Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar is calling on the international community to “fulfill its role in protecting minorities in Syria, specifically the Druze community, from the regime and its terrorist gangs, and to not turn a blind eye to the grave incidents taking place there.”

      Israel long ago established a reputation for insolence, but it seems as though it has outdone itself this time around. The foreign minister is calling on the world to intervene and help a minority being oppressed by a government in another country, while other political leaders are already taking action in this matter.

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given instructions, Israel Defense Forces’ Eyal Zamir has ordered the army to hit specified targets and Defense Minister Israel Katz has already threatened that Israel will respond “harshly”; the IDF has already bombed. A veritable army of salvation defending the oppressed Druze.

      Israel’s foreign minister has no moral right to open his mouth and utter even a single word about the oppression of a nation or minority, certainly not to call on the world to come to their defense. Israel, which is turning a blind eye to Ukraine after doing the same thing during the civil war in Syria, also has no right to call on the world to open its eyes to events in Syria.

      Members of the Israel Druze community stand near the border, as they wait for buses carrying Syrian Druze clerics to cross from Syria in the town of Majdal Shams, in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, on Friday.Credit: Maya Alleruzzo/AP

      The lack of self-awareness of Israel’s leadership breaks all records. When Gideon Sa’ar talks about an oppressive regime and gangs of terrorists, he should first and foremost talk about his own country. There aren’t many countries in the world in which an oppressive regime and terrorist thugs flourish as they do in Israel, tormenting members of another nation. And how does Israel react to calls for the world to come to the defense of the oppressed nation living here? With howls and cries of antisemitism.

      And how would Israel respond to a military intervention by another state or player coming to the aid of the oppressed? This is exactly what Arab countries have said in the past, and what Hezbollah and the Houthis are saying now – they are intervening against Israel in order to protect the Palestinians.

      Just as the local Druze are now demanding that Israel come to the help of their brethren in Syria, so the public in Arab countries is demanding that their governments intervene on behalf of their brethren who are under Israeli occupation.

      And what about the blood brothers of Israeli Arabs, who were massacred in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon? Has Israel ever even considered coming to their aid?

      A man holds a baby saved from under rubble, who survived an airstrike by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo in 2014.Credit: Hosam Katan/Reuters

      In Lebanon, Israel set the Phalangists against the Palestinians. When the Haifa-based Palestinian painter Abed Abadi tried to extricate his sister, who had been born in this country, from the besieged Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria in 2014, Israel refused. But in order to “save the Druze,” Israel is ready to bomb.

      Imagine the French bombing Israeli settlements in the occupied territories because it sees them as “terrorist bases,” from which terrorists emerge in order to harm Palestinians. What an outcry would erupt here!

      The demand is steeped in cynicism. After all, Israel doesn’t really care about the fate of the Druze in Syria, just as it didn’t really care about the victims of the previous Syrian regime. After passing the nation-state law, it’s obvious that the government doesn’t even care about the rights of Israel’s Druze population.

      Druze protest against the nation-state law in 2019.Credit: Tomer Appelbaum

      Mobilizing in the defense of Syria’s Druze is no more than a cynical ruse, another pretext for attacking Syria in its weakness, possibly also a nod to Likud’s Druze voters. Instead of affording the new regime an opportunity, Israel is warmongering. That is the only language it has been employing in recent years: hit, bomb, shell, kill, demolish, as much as possible and in all locations.

      If Israel wishes to promote justice anywhere, let it begin at home, where horrific wrongdoing and crimes against humanity are increasingly being perpetrated.

      Even Israel’s plea to the world that it send firefighting equipment to help overcome the wildfires near Jerusalem last week, while it has been preventing food and humanitarian aid from entering Gaza for over two months, is an impudent request that should have been rejected. A country that starves two million people is not entitled to help from the international community – yes, even when fires threaten its communities.

      Opinion | Israeli Incitement to Genocide in Gaza Goes Mainstream

      by LEVY Gideon

        Genocide talk has spread into all TV studios as legitimate talk. From here on, one should say: thou shalt murder. All that remains is to debate who should be murdered and who should be spared

        MK Moshe Saada, earlier this year. Proclaimed on Channel 14 TV that he was “interested” in starving an entire nation. “Yes, I’ll starve Gazans, yes, this is our obligation.”Credit: Sraya Diamant

        It was only to be expected: The discourse has taken on neo-Nazi attributes. Boundaries have fallen and bloodletting has been legitimized.

        Likud lawmaker Moshe Saada proclaimed on Channel 14 TV that he was “interested” in starving an entire nation. “Yes, I’ll starve Gazans, yes, this is our obligation;” a relatively popular singer, Kobi Peretz, is convinced that we are “commanded” to annihilate [the Biblical arch-enemy] Amalek. “I don’t pity any civilian in Gaza, young or old…I have not a shred of pity,” he was quoted as saying on the cover of the daily Yedioth Ahronoth’s weekend magazine.

        The two of them, Saada and Peretz, are but minnows, but the pond is replete with such statements, with some people interested in highlighting them in order to pander to the opinion of the masses. A public figure in Europe, whether legislator or singer who uttered such statements would be labeled a neo-Nazi. His career would grind to a halt and from that day on he would be forever ostracized. In Israel, such statements sell newspapers.

        One should call this phenomenon by name: This is incitement to genocide. To the credit of Saada and Peretz, one could say that they have taken off all masks and removed all filters. What used to be trash talk often found on social media has become standard media talk, raising questions such as who is for and who is still against genocide.

        Saada and Peretz favor mass murder, while others only support the “prevention of humanitarian aid,” which is the same thing, only in more refined wording. It’s the same cruelty, only in polite form; the same monstrosity, only adhering to a supposedly more correct form.

        Palestinians wait to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen, in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, April 24, 2025.Credit: Mahmoud Issa/Reuters

        It’s true that it’s important to expose the neo-fascist tendencies spreading throughout society and to tear away the masks, but this exposure affords this patently illegitimate talk the legitimacy and normalcy it lacked until recently. From here on, one should say: thou shalt murder. Saada and Peretz say that it’s even a commandment. All that remains is to debate who should be murdered and who should be spared.

        Slowly but surely, the long-term damage wrought by the October 7 assault is coming to light. Beyond the horrific personal and national tragedies, that attack totally upended Israeli society. It destroyed, perhaps forever, any vestiges of the camp of peace and humaneness, legitimizing barbarism as a lofty commandment.

        There is no more “permitted” and “forbidden” with regard to Israel’s evilness toward the Palestinians. It is permitted to kill dozens of captive detainees and to starve to death an entire people. We used to be ashamed of such actions; the loss of shame is now dismantling any remaining barriers.

        Perhaps the worst of all is the thought that it pays a cynical and populist media outlet such as Yedioth Ahronoth, dubbed “the newspaper of the country,” which was always attuned to its readers, to give this genocidal talk prominence. Genocide on the cover page not only legitimizes it, know the editors, it also pleases the readers.

        Singer Eyal Golan might be ostracized due to his sexual misconduct, but who will ostracize Kobi Peretz the jihadist? After all, he’s right. “They mutilated our brothers and children,” he said. Now it’s our turn to mutilate.

        It’s not only Yedioth Ahronoth and Channel 14 TV. Genocide talk has spread into all TV studios as legitimate talk. Former colonels, past members of the defense establishment, sit on panels and call for genocide without batting an eye. They aren’t important or interesting, but they are shapers of the conversation.

        When future historians try one day to understand what happened in Israel during those years, they will find these voices as the voice of the people. This will contribute to their insight: This was what Israel was like then.

        This legitimization will end in tears, the tears of the media outlets now promoting this monstrous discourse. Ask anyone wishing to starve two million people, anyone who thinks that a four-year-old toddler deserves to die and that a disabled person in a wheelchair is fair game for being starved, what they think about free press and the freedom of expression, and you’ll find that they are in favor of closing down most outlets and muzzling the media.

        The culmination of this pandering to the extremist right will be that things will boomerang and hit back at the media that promoted such conduct. Peretz, Saada and their ilk don’t just hanker after Arab blood. They want us to shut up as well.

        Gideon Levy


        P.S.