Tuesday, March 17, 2026

 

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Donald Trump, in all his hubris and idiocy, and in response to Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu, launched an illegal and unconstitutional war on Iran beginning on February 28, 2026.  It was not provoked by Iran, and it clearly was not well planned for by the United States or Israel.

Trump, who has suffered from delusions of adequacy throughout his political career, had certainly gotten full of himself.  Thinking he had been elected “God,” not to the presidency, he has been asserting US power around the world blatantly; he’s not even lying about it.  His attack on Venezuela went extremely well for him, capturing the president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife and political leader on her own account, Celia Flores, without any US casualties.  (And obviously not worried about the Cuban and Venezuelans his invading force killed.)  Hey, isn’t this fun!

Obviously watching the world’s reaction to his kidnapping of Maduro and Flores, and seeing nothing being done to counter such, and under pressure from Netanyahu, Trump decided to attack Iran, thinking they’d give in as apparently Venezuela’s leadership quickly did.  [What’s not recognized by many is that the US has basically been at war with Venezuela since 1999; their economic sanctions have caused much death, sickness, and emigration, among everything else; according to the British medical journal Lancet (November 2025), US sanctions over all (not just Venezuela) have caused 564,258 deaths annually between 1971-2021, as compared to 106,000 battle deaths during the same period; by my math, that’s over 28 million killed by US sanctions in the 50 year period.]

But Iran is not Venezuela:  knowing the threat of nuclear-armed Israel to Iran, the Iranian leaders have been preparing for foreign attack for many years, including by working on nuclear arms themselves; the 2016 agreement with the Obama Administration limited Iranian efforts for 15 years; thinking he could arrange a better deal, Trump had withdrawn from that in his first term.  After Trump’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities last June, Iran apparently restarted its efforts. (For a good explanation, see “Trump’s Claim About Obama Nuclear Deal and Iran’s Nuclear Development” by Saranac Hale Spencer, March 12, 2026.)

However, Iran’s missiles to date cannot reach the United States; they can, however, reach Israel.  And Netanyahu apparently was worried since his on-going genocidal war against the Palestinians is continuing….  And so, Bibi basically played Trump into the war.

And while some Americans compare this current attack on Iran with W’s on Iraq in 2003, or any one of a number of “events” initiated by the United States, such as the invasion of Grenada in 1983 or Panama in 1989, many around the world think the proper comparison is with the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 or Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But Trump apparently thought that the Iranians would bow down once attacked and beg for relief.  Oops!

The problem—among many others—is that Trump and his sycophants currently at the top of the US government know nothing of history.  Let me explain.

We can divide all the countries of the world into two categories.  The first are  imperial countries (commonly referred to as the “developed,” “first world,” countries or, “the West”).  (If one wants to get more precise, there are the “traditional” imperialist countries of Western Europe and Japan, and then there are the “settler white colonies” of the US, Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and South Africa.)  In general, the traditional imperialist countries invaded these countries, stole the raw materials, natural resources, land, and sometimes people from the countries they colonized, and without any consideration of what effects they had on their victims, brought these resources back to the respective home country to develop it, while maintaining continued control of each victimized country and its resources for as long as possible.  The settler white colonies permanently stole the land from the indigenous peoples who populated them, often providing work and/or land for other white immigrants, and then afterwards engaged in imperialist theft to develop these former colonies; the US being the most “successful” of all of the white settler countries.  This is why the US and Canada, the countries of Western Europe, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia live at a qualitatively higher standard of living than the other countries of the world:  being more militarily vicious over the last 500 years, they stole these resources, supplementing the value created by and stolen from workers in capitalist countries.  

The other countries of the world have each been colonized by the imperial countries in the past or even remain colonies today; see Puerto Rico and Palestine as examples of continuing colonies today!  This means each has been victimized; their people killed, and harmed in multiple ways, their raw materials and natural resources stolen, etc.  Every country in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East—formerly called the “third world”—had been colonized by at least one of the imperial countries by 1940, except for two:  (1) Thailand (formerly Siam) which served as a buffer state between the French and English empires in Southeast Asia, and (2) Iran (Persia).

So, Trump is trying to intimidate a country of 90 million people that has never been conquered in something like 5,500 years and, for some strange reason, they aren’t giving in to the global punk and bully.  (And, unfortunately, US service people with others in the Gulf States and Israel are the ones going to be hurt, not our global fascists, Trump, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, or Bibi Netanyahu.)  The US didn’t do well in Iraq, with its approximately 24 million people, so I’m wondering how they expect to subjugate 90 million in Iran with this understanding…?

And there has been all-but-no planning on what to do after the initial air attacks in a war that has already cost the US over $11 billion in the first week alone….  How are they going to conquer the Iranians?  And I’ll give everyone a clue:  it will not be done by air power alone, no matter how sophisticated or technologically advanced our’s might be:  no war in human history has ever been won by air power alone.  

Plus, the Iranian military technology seems pretty sophisticated from what I’ve seen to date, and the US might not get its way as it expected.  They have done a significant amount of damage to a number of targeted countries, including Israel, which has seen successful in their attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa.  They also have done a lot of damage to US facilities and bases in the Gulf States.

And Trump, in his imperial arrogance, didn’t even bother to present his case to the American people.  He had the State of Union, where he had a significant audience, and he failed to make his case, to rally Americans behind his imperialist war.  Talk about chickenshit.  

But what can we expect from one who hid behind his daddy’s money and connections to avoid even being eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War?  Many veterans—I enlisted in the USMC in 1969 for four years, not an astute career move at the time, and eventually attained the rank of Sergeant, although fortunately was never deployed overseas, and “turning around” while on active duty—call him “Commander Bonespurs,” with extreme contempt.

And most Americans don’t support this war.  And that’s before we see serious price rises, inflation increases, and body bags come home.  And these things will increasingly impinge upon the national consciousness.

The reality is that the US Empire is dying.  The economic foundation of the empire—which is absolutely crucial to its existence—is fast falling.  As of March 13, 2026, the National Debt is at $38.8 trillion, and increasing fast: it was less than one trillion dollars (actually $908 billion or $ .9 trillion) when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981:  it has grown approximately $37 trillion in the 45 years since then.  (The $ .9 trillion debt took 192 years to accumulate.)  This debt is approximately 120% of Gross National Product, which means even if every American didn’t get paid or investments realized, we could not eradicate it in a year!  This also means that any economic growth we’ve had since 1981 has been based on writing “hot checks,” not substantive economic production:  it’s bullshit.

The reality is that we cannot take care of Americans, or good people in the world, no matter what we’re told.  Capitalism has failed, and it’s not coming back.  We have to reject imperialism in all of its manifestations and create a new economic system that takes care of all of us around the globe while rejecting domination in all forms.

But while the situation has been presented, we need to also consider how the press has covered the war.  To that, I now turn.

Press Coverage of the War

Understanding how the press covers the war is important.  Most Americans have not traveled outside the country, and especially not into any of the colonized or formerly colonized countries of the world.  Therefore, we are dependent on the press to accurately present what is going on.

But the media is not this neutral institution that “objectively” covers the news, as it likes to project.  The problem—which is almost never acknowledged—is that each media outlet has its own interests when presenting the news:  while they might be accurate in some situations, the decision as to how to cover an issue such as the war is shaped by how that particular news outlet perceives its own interests.  Each media outlet—whether the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, MS NOW, or even Democracy Now!, as well as each other outlet—perceives developments from recognizing its own interests.  Period.  And that is why we get extremely contradictory views of the news; and why people understand the world according to the media they watch.  It’s not magic; each media outlet presents its view of the world according to its own interests, and this shapes how their news consumers see the world differently than some other outlets’ audiences.

Now, while I haven’t done a formal study, it has been very surprising to me how much the US media has challenged the Trump administration’s projection of the need for war and the war itself.  Other than Fox—whose views are ideologically right-wing, as opposed to conservative, and impossible for this analyst to watch—almost every other media outlet has rejected or at least challenged the Trump perspective.  They might not understand a lot, but they get the smell of bullshit and don’t like it.  They are certainly not convinced of the necessity or the righteousness of Trump’s attack on Iran.  

And they have been reporting on the economic consequences of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the impact on ordinary Americans, especially at the gas pump; this is an attack on Trump’s followers, who have probably been hurt economically more than anyone else.  This will soon be augmented by cutting off fertilizer—something like one-third of all which comes through the Strait—which will increase the price of food as time goes on.

This certainly distinguishes the media coverage from the fawning lies and support for George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq; of which, Democracy Now! was a notable exception.

But the mainstream media’s understanding is, nonetheless, extremely limited.  First of all, they insist on bringing former US military commanders on air to comment on the military developments.  Since the US record on wars in Asia since World War II has been pathetic—I score them at 0-3-1 (with the “tie” being in Korea in the early 1950s)—I don’t see why these generals have such legitimacy.  

But the bigger problem is that while they may understand the military aspect of the war, they don’t know much, if anything, about the politics of the war, and the politics are always much more inclusive and broader than any military aspects.  It is said the US never lost a major conflict with the Vietnamese liberation forces during the US invasion of their country; I don’t know if this is true or not, but when I visit or work in Vietnam, it’s the (North) Vietnamese flag I see waving over the country, not that of the South or the US!

The other problem that I recognize is that the history  of Iran is incomplete, if not completely missing.  At best, I see them referring (incompletely) to developments in 1979, when the Mullahs and the students rallied the people in what has been called the Iranian Revolution to overthrow the Shah of Iran.  That, supposedly, is when the wheels feel off the train in Iran.  (The part that is missing on that angle is that after the Revolution, the Mullahs turned on the students and executed something like 10,000-13,000 if my memory is correct; that gave the religious leaders almost total control over the country.)

But what is almost never recognized is who put the Shah into power: where did he come from?

In 1953, the CIA, operating under Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy’s grandson, and the British MI-6, led an operation that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossedegh, replacing him with the Shah, Rezi Pavlevi.  He was a bastard, and his SAVAK—internal security agency—was recognized as truly vicious; and they had been trained by CIA operatives.  (For a recent account, see Alfred W. McCoy’s Cold War on Five Continents, published earlier this year by Haymarket Books, pp. 149-162).

In other words, the problems with Iran have overwhelmingly developed from the actions by the United States!  The US government said they knew how to run the country—or so they thought—but it appears they didn’t know as much as suggested!

But my main argument is this:  if the media only goes back to 1979, it is lying.  It’s giving the American people a false story; it is propaganda and must be challenged.  We cannot allow Americans to continue to not think about the impact of the operations of “our” CIA.

One other thing to think about when considering press coverage of this war:  why are there almost no pictures of damage from Iranian attacks from Israel?  We know, from alternative sources such as Al-Jazeera and independent political analysts, that Iranian missiles and drones have hit targets in Israel; in fact, an oil refinery in Haifa was severely damaged.  Yet no pictures:  how come?  According to former US Army colonel, Larry Wilkerson—one of the few former military officers who has some idea of what’s really going on—speaking on Democracy Now!, Israel has officially banned photographs from being taken of the damage!  This suggests that their missile defenses have been considerably less successful in protecting Isreal and its population than claimed.

And this gets to a larger issue:  in wartime, especially, every US government lies.  (I won’t comment on foreign governments, as they almost certainly do as well, but that is outside of this focus on US-based media.)  We can document this back to World War II (at least) and it involves every subsequent administration since, both Democrat and Republican.  The press has ignored this reality, and thus present comments by Trump and his cronies as if they can be trusted; they cannot.

In short, this war is a disaster:  my bet is that Trump will be thumped by the Iranians.  The economic impact of the war is broad and getting more so.  The people most hurt by these economic consequences are those of Trump’s base.  And Trump is not in control, no matter what Pete Hegseth, etc., says.

We on the left need to recognize the global nature of the war specifically, but also US imperialism:  we cannot confine our analysis to just the US or even North America but must take a global perspective.  The overwhelming threat to the well-being of people around the world is the US Empire.  We need to use this situation to confront not only Trump and the Empire, but the Democrats acquiescence and projection of this.  We can either stand with the people of the world, or the Empire:  there is no alternative.Email

avatar

Kim Scipes, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Purdue University Northwest in Westville, Indiana. He has published four books and over 280 articles and book reviews in the US and 11 different countries. A free copy of his book on the KMU in its entirety is available on his website at https://www.pnw.edu/personal-faculty-pages/kim-scipes-ph-d/publications just below the pictures of his books, along with links to many of his articles. Scipes has been an industrial worker (a printer), high school teacher, and office worker over the years, and has been a member of the Graphic Communications International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association, and is currently a member of the National Writers Union; all but the NEA are affiliated with the AFL-CIO. His newest book, tentatively titled Unions, Race and Popular Democracy: Learning from the CIO to Rebuild a Progressive US Labor Movement in the Mid Twenty-first Century, will be published in late 2025 or early 2026.

 

Source: The Conversation

Over the ten days of the renewed conflict in the Middle East, Beirut’s southern district of Dahiyeh has been targeted by Israel, which is looking to deal a knockout blow to Hezbollah. It’s not the first time the area has been bombarded. Dahiyeh was bombed by Israel during its 2006 war with Hezbollah, again in 2014 and yet again in 2024 and 2025. Now the Israel Defense Forces is bombing the area again.

The attacks mark the return of a strategy first developed by the Israeli armed forces in Dahiyeh before becoming a military doctrine, bearing the name of the suburb. The Dahiyeh doctrine is a military strategy that calls for using overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian infrastructure in areas controlled by hostile armed groups in order to deter attacks on Israel. It has repeatedly put into practice in Gaza. Now the Dahiyeh doctrine is once again being enacted in the place where it was first conceived.

Dahiyeh is a Hezbollah stronghold. It became the main urban centre of Lebanon’s Shia population in the middle of the last century when poor Shia families from Baalbek and south Lebanon migrated to Beirut’s suburbs.

During the civil war between 1975 and 1990, Hezbollah established its urban base in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Dahiyeh – the word means “suburb” – is the heart of Hezbollah’s political, social and service networks. Which is why it has become a target for Israel’s military.

Byword for mass urban destruction

The doctrine was developed in the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon war between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel’s military leadership realised that Hezbollah had stalled their advance in urban combat.

To respond to this, the director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Gabi Siboni, a former senior IDF officer, wrote a paper in the INSS journal in October 2008, arguing for the use of overwhelming force against both fighters and the urban environment in which they operated and lived.

This was developed by the IDF into a working strategy. As Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army’s northern division, explained at the time: “What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.”

The primary goal of the doctrine was punishment and deterrence. The idea was to disrupt civilian life and make reconstruction almost impossible to afford. The doctrine’s architects hoped that its outcome would force the civilian population to rebel against the armed groups sheltering among them.

Siboni had made clear in his paper that this strategy was also applicable to Israel’s conflict in Gaza. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge targeted civilian infrastructure, including private houses as well as water, sanitation, electricity and healthcare facilities. Again, after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, the IDF has applied the Dahiyeh doctrine in the Gaza Strip, this time destroying between 80% and 90% of its civilian infrastructure.

Critics argue this violates international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL demands that states and groups make a clear distinction between civilians and combatants. It is necessary for armed groups to take all precautions to avoid acts of extreme destruction in heavy civilian residential locations.

Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has warned that the blanket evacuation orders directed at Dahiyeh’s population risk violating international humanitarian law, saying they risk amounting to “prohibited forced displacement”. While Israeli strategists defend the doctrine as a means to defeat groups like Hezbollah, critics describe it as a template for handing out indiscriminate punishment to combatants and civilians alike.

What this means for Lebanon

The attacks on Dahieyh come at yet another fragile moment for Lebanon. The power-sharing government, led by the prime minister, Nawaf Salam, with the president, Joseph Aoun, as head of state, is still trying to implement economic reforms after the catastrophic 2019 financial collapse (estimated by the World Bank to be among the top three most severe economic crises globally since the mid-19th century). The latest round of conflict will severely set back the Lebanese government’s attempts to rebuild the economy.

The brunt of Israel’s assault on Lebanon is being felt in Dahiyeh. UN officials had estimated that the latest Israeli evacuation orders have forced at least 100,000 people to leave the area for shelters across Lebanon.

So far the Lebanese government’s response is to try to pull Hezbollah back from yet another drawn-out war with Israel. On March 2, Aoun formally banned Hezbollah from engaging in military activities and ordered the group to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese army. The government has also postponed the legislative election scheduled for May 2026 by two years.

The Lebanese government has put forward a four-point plan and called for an Israeli ceasefire to allow negotiations to proceed. The plan calls for “establishing a full truce” with Israel, the disarmament of Hezbollah and direct negotiations with Israel “under international auspices”.

But the international community seems incapable of applying any pressure to change the situation in Lebanon. As of March 9, by UN estimates, nearly 700,000 people had been forced from their homes, including 200,000 children. Meanwhile, the IDF continues to carry out strikes in Dahiyeh.

The Dahiyeh doctrine is so effective for the IDF because it is designed to move faster than the often glacial workings of international diplomacy. It can accomplish a military objective before the international community can craft an agreed and workable plan. This is not the only time residential districts have been bombed or civilian infrastructure targeted. Far from it. Modern warfare is full of examples of bombing civilian districts and Hezbollah has also launched attacks against residential areas in Israel.

But in the years since the doctrine was first articulated, it has been observed at work in both Lebanon and in Gaza, where Israel’s approach to operating in civilian areas was was criticised by the UN after Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 as an official military strategy “designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”. As such, it’s a chilling illustration of the horror of modern warfare as waged in the Middle East today. And once again it appears to have come home to Dahiyeh.

 

Source: Middle East Eye

Afew days ago, I was walking with a friend through the tents in al-Mawasi, southern Gaza. We were heading to a small cafe I have frequented since my roof became fabric. 

The ground beneath us was mud, the winter air heavy, and the faces around us heavier still. We were talking about the formation of the US-led “Board of Peace”, in a phase of the so-called ceasefire that is supposedly defined by stability and reconstruction. 

At that exact moment, the sound of an explosion tore through the air. We stopped talking, and I found myself asking: how is this a ceasefire? How can peace be declared while explosions still echo above our heads?

Since the Gaza “ceasefire” was announced, I have wondered what this word actually means. For Palestinians in the enclave, it was supposed to mean at least a brief moment of stability. Instead, very little has changed.

The first thing I imagined when I heard the word “ceasefire” was leaving our tent. In Mawasi, thousands of displaced families are still unable to return to their homes, amid the ongoing presence of the Israeli occupation in nearby communities. 

Many people believed a ceasefire would be followed by an Israeli withdrawal. That has not happened.

Some houses are partially intact and technically habitable, but they sit near Israeli “yellow zones” – areas marked by daily violations. Families are afraid to return; the threat of a sudden strike or incursion outweighs the comfort of concrete walls. 

Many families have chosen a cold tent sinking in rain, rather than a home overshadowed by danger. Mine is one of them.

Ongoing restrictions

We still carry the key to my relatives’ apartment. The door stands, and the walls are still there. But when I recently went back, I heard tanks moving, and explosions close enough to feel in my chest. 

Many homes have been bombed since the “ceasefire” supposedly took effect. Around 2,500 more buildings have been razed in that period, which began last October. 

If a ceasefire means returning home, it has not happened. If it means the destruction stops, that has not happened either.

A ceasefire was also supposed to mean freedom of movement – and education was my way out, my narrow opening towards a different future. 

During the war – amid tents, blackouts and universities reduced to rubble – we students clung to our studies as if they were a lifeline. Schools became shelters, and campuses were destroyed, but thousands continued studying online. Education was not a luxury; it was a way to preserve meaning in the midst of erasure.

By the end of 2025, I secured university offers abroad. I believed the ceasefire would bring something concrete: open crossings for students with offers abroad, and for patients in need of urgent medical care. Instead, the crossings continue to operate in a limited and unpredictable manner. 

Restrictions persist. Procedures remain opaque. Scholarships earned through years of work hang in uncertainty, and patients often face life-threatening delays for treatment abroad. Trapped at the border, thousands of people share this suspended reality. 

If even the right to pursue education beyond a war zone remains blocked, what exactly has the ceasefire changed? The war separated us through displacement and danger. At the very least, we hoped the truce would mean the killing would stop.

Stark contradiction 

Issa was a friend from the Rafah neighbourhood where I lived before the war. He was his family’s sole provider. During the famine, he risked going to what people here call “death traps” to get aid, despite sniper fire. He survived bombardment, bullets and hunger.

Then came the ceasefire. He had recently become engaged, and for a moment, life seemed to be cautiously resurfacing. But in January, shrapnel struck his chest during an Israeli strike on a market in Mawasi. We buried Issa during the “ceasefire”.

He is not an exception. Since the ceasefire was declared, more than 400 Palestinians have been killed and more than 1,150 injured. 

The truce did not end death; it merely reduced its pace. The difference between “less” and “stopped” is not rhetorical. It is the difference between life and burial.

During the war, we expected death, took calculated risks, and understood the brutal logic of survival. Now, we are told the war has stopped – yet our lives have not fundamentally changed. Explosions still punctuate the night, homes continue to fall, and friends are still buried. The only thing that has shifted is the international language, not our reality.

The death toll in Gaza has surpassed 72,000 people, and that does not include thousands who are missing. In late January, the Israeli occupation acknowledged that the Palestinian health ministry’s data on this was accurate, after years of dismissal. 

The acknowledgment matters, but recognition is not accountability. It does not rebuild a home. It does not return the dead.

When those responsible for repeated military campaigns and a suffocating blockade participate in frameworks branded as “peace”, the contradiction becomes stark. Peace cannot be declared while structural violence remains intact.

The problem is not simply language; it is the distance between language and lived reality. In Gaza, daily life remains defined by displacement, restriction and loss. We still live under torn canvas, wait at controlled crossings, and count the names of those killed during this “ceasefire”.

A ceasefire is not a media statement; it is the restoration of safety. And when safety is absent – when we cannot return home or move freely, and as we continue to bury our loved ones – then there is no ceasefire in Gaza.

 

Ramzy Baroud, editor of the Palestine Chronicle, which has been the most reliable English language news source regarding the conflict in Palestine since before October 2, 2023 and even more so since that date, writes history from the heart.  His stories of families (including his own) and their lives as refugees, freedom fighters, doctors and more remind the reader that the political history of a people is ultimately the history of people.  In the case of a people under fire, under occupation and under constant pressure to deny their culture and therefore their lives by colonial powers convinced that their oppression and repression will defeat those they oppress, Baroud’s words are in themselves weapons of the struggle.  His most recent book, titled Before the Flood: A Gaza Family Memoir Across Three Generations of Colonial Invasion, Occupation, and War in Palestine, continues this tradition.

Baroud’s description of the first days and weeks of the genocide brings everything back: the horror, the anger, the frustration and hopelessness. One can feel the fear and despair, the disbelief followed by a nagging voice in your head reminding you that this has always been the Zionists true vision and Washington’s secret hope—decimate the Palestinian population, destroy the idea of a free Palestine and move on to the business of making the land that is Palestine into a colonialist utopia.  Then, the reader is taken back in time to the genesis of the story being told in these pages.  It’s a tale of resistance to colonialism that moves from one generation to the next; one historical moment to the one that follows in the context of a world where the colonizers are primarily of European descent and distinctly related to a perception of the world to its south as something to be dominated. 

Baroud’s text begins by locating its origins in Beit Daras, a town in Palestine that was overtaken and destroyed by Zionist militias during the Nakba.  The reader is introduced to Madallah, a matriarch whose life is representative of the stories being told; whose abilities include being able to communicate transcends this dimension.  From that beginning, the reader finds themselves in refugee camps and on battlefronts; battlefronts which are all too often the places where people live, work, worship and celebrate. The profiles Baroud constructs are of real people, people as real as the reader and their friends and family; the circumstances are considerably harsher and more tenuous because of the occupation and its enforcers.  In his portrayal of these lives, one meets a young man who becomes a petty criminal and a young woman who dies a freedom fighter, killed by a future prime minister of the Israeli government.  The conflict between the occupied and the occupier is not just the common thread that provides a context for all the people and events relayed by the author, it is a fact of life and a reason for living for many if not most of those who appear in these pages.  

More than just a part of the setting of the history being told, the resistance is a living and genuine protagonist in Before the Flood.  From the early battles in the 1930s before the Nakba and the never-ending struggle afterwards, the reader finds instruction on the Intifadas, the wars between Tel Aviv and its neighbors and the recent phase that became an international condemned genocide (that continues today hidden behind a fraudulent ceasefire).  Inside the resistance itself, one reads of class differences that have defined approaches taken by the organizations of the resistance—one ultimately favoring accommodation and potential surrender, the other accepting a history that makes it clear that colonizers do not relinquish the lands that they have conquered without a long and often violent struggle.  Baroud’s depiction discusses the transition from a mostly secular liberation struggle to one with its foundations in what is ultimately a struggle informed by Islam that originated in the previously existing Muslim Brotherhood.  The character of the resistance is a reflection of the Palestinians, from Arafat and Fatah to the PFLP to Hamas.  Its continuation through generations is testament to its necessity and the commitment of its supporters; it is also a reason for its changing tactics and internal struggles.

The current situation in Palestine may be its most difficult yet.  The brazenly illegal and colonialist slaughter and destruction of Gaza led by Tel Aviv and Washington continues as it intensifies in the West Bank; the Nakba seems never-ending. Banks and corporations intent on theft and profiteering hover around Donald Trump and his Gaza designs like flies around manure, hoping for a piece of the real estate fantasy he and his son-in-law are hustling to the world.  Netanyahu and his government of homicidal sociopaths demand a world where all Palestinians are either dead or enslaved, living in medium security prisons disguised as residential zones.  Washington and Wall Street eagerly accommodate this desire, lining up investors and corporations whose pursuit of profits determines their morality.  Ramzy Baroud’s Before the Flood reminds us that humanity comes first; that it is this priority that in the most fundamental way possible is what drives the Palestinian resistance.  It remains for us to remember and repeat this truth.Email

avatar

Ron Jacobs is the author of several books, including Daydream Sunset: 60s Counterculture in the '70s, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, and Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation. He is a frequent contributor to Counterpunch. His articles, reviews and essays have appeared in anthologies and numerous print and online journals, including Jungle World Berlin, Monthly Review, The Sri Lanka Guardian, Vermont Times, Alternative Press Review, and the Olympia, WA-based monthly Works In Progress.