Saturday, July 05, 2025

Source: Labor Notes

Nine thousand blue-collar workers who make Philadelphia run went on strike July 1. After sacrificing through the pandemic and years of bruising inflation, they say they’re on strike so they can afford to live in the city they serve.

Already, uncollected garbage is piling up as the workers, members of AFSCME District Council 33, defend their strike lines.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought the term “essential worker” into widespread use, but many experienced a gap between how they were talked about and how they were treated. They were called essential, but regarded as disposable.

In June 2020, at the height of the pandemic, hundreds of Philadelphia sanitation workers and other DC 33 members rallied to demand hazard pay and personal protective equipment. It was a sign that these workers from one of Philadelphia’s largest unions, who are underpaid and do exceptionally dangerous work, understood their real worth to society.

Five years later, AFSCME DC 33 is on strike for a contract that reflects the sacrifices they’ve made for the public. The strike could cause a major disruption to the city’s Fourth of July festivities planned for this weekend.

ESSENTIAL BUT MISTREATED

It’s hard to leave the house without experiencing the work that DC 33 members do. The union represents blue-collar city workers in a wide range of departments, including sanitation workers, water department employees, school crossing guards, police dispatchers (911 operators), and many more. The union’s slogan, “Philadelphia Works Because We Do,” is more than just rhetoric.

Despite their essential role for the city, the average salary for DC 33 members is only $46,000, and many are eligible for public assistance. “It’s been increasingly difficult for our members to find affordable housing inside the city of Philadelphia,” union president Greg Boulware told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Unlike police officers or firefighters, DC 33 members are required to live inside the city limits.

The city’s measly starting offer of 2 percent annual raises would do nothing to address this problem, amounting to only an extra $925 per year. The mayor gave herself a 9 percent raise on a salary that’s already over five times the average salary of a DC 33 member.

CITY SEEKS CONCESSIONS

As of Monday, the city had only moved slightly to propose a three-year deal with annual raises of 2 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent. They’re also seeking concessions on the union’s shop-floor power, like weekend and overnight work without paying overtime.

The union is pushing for meaningful yet modest gains that would improve the lives of its members. DC 33 is demanding an 8 percent annual raise, along with a $5,000 lump-sum payment for members who worked during the pandemic. Altering the residency requirement to allow workers to live outside the city after five years of service is another key issue.

Members had been working under a one-year contract extension that offered a 5 percent raise. The union maximized its leverage for that contract by threatening to strike in coordination with Transport Workers Union Local 234.

AFSCME DC33 has a history of taking militant action, along with serving as a power base for Philadelphia’s black working class (the union is majority black). In the 1960s, sanitation workers organized slowdowns to protest the use of money set aside for the Streets Department to grant wage gains to the Fraternal Order of Police.

Credible strike threats and actual strikes led to historic economic gains for DC33 members in the 1970s and ’80s. Philadelphians still talk about the 1986 citywide strike, where 45,000 tons of “stinking, maggot-laced garbage” piled up across the city for twenty days. All of this took place under the union leadership of the controversial Earl Stout, who some argued was the most powerful black man in the city.

Black workers are disproportionately found in unionized public employment, which continues to be a haven for job stability. Municipal unions like AFSCME DC33 are a perfect example of this, and these public sector union fights are vitally important for furthering racial justice.

RALLIED WITH TRANSIT WORKERS AND TEACHERS

As the strike deadline approached, DC33 escalated pressure with a rally outside the negotiation site, followed by a strike sign-making event. On Monday, with only seven hours remaining before contract expiration, the union held a solidarity rally at city hall alongside the Transport Workers Union and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

As COVID-era federal stimulus funding dries up, more urban areas might see similar labor fights in the years to come. It’s important that we mobilize public support for city workers and push back against the narrative that there’s just no money to be found.

“The city of Philadelphia has balanced their budgets and their books on the backs of our members for years,” DC 33 president Boulware said in a recent press conference. In a city where the University of Pennsylvania enjoys a $20 billion endowment without paying property taxes, there’s no reason this has to continue.

LL Cool J refuses to perform at Philadelphia’s 4th of July concert until workers’ strike ends


 

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

In recent years, India has made a notable and somewhat controversial pivot in its foreign policy, notably deepening defense ties with Israel. This strategic shift raises serious concerns, particularly regarding India’s long-standing relationships with Iran and the broader Muslim world. India, which historically sought to balance its interests in the Middle East with its growing ties to Israel, now faces a diplomatic dilemma. As its partnership with Israel strengthens, India risks alienating key regional players, especially Iran, and undermining its position as a neutral actor in global diplomacy.

The Growing Indo-Israeli Defense Partnership: Adani-Elbit Ventures and the Shift in Regional Power Dynamics

The Indo-Israeli defense relationship has evolved dramatically over the past two decades. One of the clearest symbols of this shift is the joint venture between Israeli defense giant Elbit Systems and India’s Adani Group, focused on the production of Hermes drones. These drones have become crucial to Israel’s military strategy, particularly in its ongoing confrontation with Iran. According to Israeli news outlet Ynetnews, the Hermes drones have allowed the Israeli Air Force to carry out airstrikes with unprecedented precision, even enabling Israel to carry out “up to two or three strikes a day targeting Tehran.”

This capability represents a seismic shift in regional military dynamics. The drones have not only helped Israel neutralize critical Iranian air defenses but also facilitated daily airstrikes on Tehran—an operation that could drastically alter the balance of power between the two nations. For Israel, the drones have proved to be game-changers, offering advanced military technology that enhances their offensive capabilities. However, this military partnership also raises concerns for India’s diplomatic standing, particularly as it becomes more integrated into Israel’s defense infrastructure.

While India has long been a consumer of Israeli military technology, it is now an active participant in the production of such weapons, with domestic manufacturing of Hermes drones. This partnership places India in a unique position: it is now directly contributing to Israel’s military operations, including those targeting Iranian assets. Given India’s historical role as a non-aligned power, this marked departure from neutrality is both surprising and troubling. By aligning itself so closely with Israel’s military operations, India risks entangling itself in the regional conflicts that have long been Israel’s concern, particularly those involving Iran.

India’s Silent Stance: A Disconcerting Diplomatic Shift

India’s growing relationship with Israel has not gone unnoticed on the global stage. A recent incident underscored this shift when India, for the first time, refrained from supporting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) condemnation of Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military installations. While other SCO members—such as China and Russia—condemned Israel’s actions, India chose to remain silent. This decision, while diplomatically convenient in the short term, signals a deeper shift in India’s foreign policy approach, one that increasingly aligns with Israeli interests, particularly those against Iran.

India’s silence on this matter is not just a neutral position; it is a clear signal that India is prioritizing its growing defense ties with Israel over its long-standing relationship with Iran. This stance challenges the diplomatic principles that India has long championed, including its efforts to maintain a balanced relationship with both Israel and Iran. In the past, India could maintain its position as a neutral actor, but as its defense ties with Israel deepen, it faces the uncomfortable reality of having to choose sides in a region that has long been a focal point of its foreign policy.

India’s quiet endorsement of Israel’s actions against Iran demonstrates a significant departure from its historical non-alignment. The decision to abandon its traditional diplomatic neutrality in favor of closer ties with Israel should raise concerns about the country’s evolving role in the Middle East and its broader strategic interests. While such alignment with Israel may seem beneficial in the short term, particularly in terms of access to advanced military technology, it risks compromising India’s ability to play a constructive and impartial role in the region.

The Iranian Dilemma: Chabahar Port and the Strait of Hormuz

India’s relationship with Iran has historically been shaped by mutual economic interests, most notably in energy security and regional connectivity. Despite U.S. sanctions that have significantly curtailed India’s oil imports from Iran, the strategic importance of Iran remains clear. India has long relied on Iran for its access to Central Asia, particularly through the development of the Chabahar Port, which allows India to bypass Pakistan and secure vital trade routes to Afghanistan and beyond. Chabahar has become a cornerstone of India’s connectivity strategy in the region, and its importance cannot be overstated.

Additionally, the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran controls, remains a crucial artery for global energy trade. India, as a major energy importer, depends on the free flow of oil through this strait for its energy security. Any disruption in the security of this passage could have severe consequences for India’s energy supplies. As such, India’s strategic interests in Iran are not limited to the economic sphere but are deeply tied to its broader regional security strategy.

However, India’s increasing military collaboration with Israel, particularly its involvement in the production of weapons used in Israeli operations against Iranian assets, presents a clear risk to these vital interests. Iran may perceive India’s growing ties with Israel as a betrayal, undermining decades of partnership built on mutual interests. Moreover, any further deterioration in India-Iran relations could jeopardize India’s investments in Chabahar and its ability to maintain security in the Strait of Hormuz.

The strategic investments India has made in Iran are too significant to ignore. As the geopolitical landscape shifts, India’s growing alignment with Israel could push Iran to reassess its relationship with India, potentially undermining India’s access to Central Asia and disrupting its energy security. The question, therefore, is whether India’s pursuit of closer ties with Israel is worth the risk of alienating Iran—a country with which India has substantial strategic and economic interests.

Risks to India’s Role in the Muslim World

India’s growing proximity to Israel also has broader implications for its standing in the Muslim world. India has long sought to be seen as a leader of the Global South, championing the causes of developing countries, many of which are Muslim-majority nations. Over the years, India has developed strong ties with Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, who are not only key economic partners but also play important roles in regional and global politics.

However, these Gulf states have long been wary of Israel’s military actions and policies, particularly with regard to Palestine. India’s increasingly close ties with Israel could undermine its relationships with these Muslim-majority nations, especially if they perceive India’s stance as tacit support for Israel’s actions in the Middle East. This risk is particularly acute as India’s strategic relationship with Israel continues to deepen, potentially souring its diplomatic relations with key Arab partners who may view India’s actions as an endorsement of Israeli policies in the region.

Pakistan, India’s traditional rival, is likely to capitalize on India’s growing alignment with Israel, using it as a means to galvanize anti-India sentiment in the Muslim world. This could further isolate India in a region where it has long sought to maintain a neutral and constructive role. The risk, therefore, is that India could find itself at the center of a broader regional divide, caught between its growing defense ties with Israel and its aspirations to maintain strong relationships with key Muslim-majority countries.

A Dangerous Path Forward

India’s growing alignment with Israel presents a fundamental shift in its foreign policy, one that has far-reaching implications for its regional and global standing. While the defense partnership with Israel offers clear advantages, particularly in terms of military technology, it also comes with significant diplomatic and strategic risks. India risks alienating Iran, a key regional partner, and jeopardizing its investments in vital infrastructure such as Chabahar and its energy security in the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, India’s increasingly close ties with Israel could complicate its relationships with Muslim-majority countries, undermining its role as a leader of the Global South.

As India continues to deepen its relationship with Israel, it must critically assess the long-term consequences of this strategic shift. The benefits of advanced military technology and closer security cooperation must be weighed against the risks of diplomatic isolation and the potential loss of vital regional partnerships. The path forward is fraught with uncertainty, and India’s ability to navigate this new geopolitical reality will determine its future as a global power.Email

Ajay Chaudhary is an Indian American freelance journalist focusing on transregional politics and the shifting dynamics between the U.S. and South Asia. His work often examines how American foreign policy, economic strategy, and legal norms influence political developments across the Global South--particularly in India, where questions of democracy, governance, and institutional independence are increasingly shaped by international pressure and alignment. He previously worked as an Assistant Editor at the Pioneer, one of India's oldest national dailies.


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Hinduism Is Fascism

Source: Africa Is A Country


Graffiti on top of the parking ramp that Winston Smith was killed at on June 3rd, 2020.


Much of what we accept as global “progress” today rests on invisible systems of extraction, debt, and control. Beneath the surface of development promises lie patterns of engineered poverty, intentional designs masked as economic aid. I wanted to understand how entire nations rich in resources, like Congo, the Philippines, and many others across Africa and the Middle East, were left in ruin. How economies were engineered to starve.

Reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins gave language to what I had always sensed but couldn’t yet name. The book didn’t just explain what’s happening or why it happens—but showed how it works. How the trap is set. How countries are offered loans under the promise of development, and then, when the economy inevitably fails to meet those projections, the debt becomes a tool of leverage. A means of control.

This model of empire does not rely on visible occupation. Instead, it enlists economists, consultants, and development agencies to do the work of colonization. These actors, knowingly or not, maintain the illusion that what is being offered is progress. But the progress is selective. The wealth often stays in the hands of a small elite, while the rest of the population are left to deal with the consequences: famine, poverty, crumbling health care, and rising debt. These aren’t just economic outcomes. They shape people’s lives, bodies, and futures in deeply uneven ways.

We’ve seen this strategy unfold before. In Vietnam and Iraq, the pattern repeated. First come the economic hit men offering loans too large to repay, tied to development projects designed to benefit foreign companies. If leaders resist, the CIA-backed forces are sent in—coups, assassinations, destabilization. And if that fails, the military steps in under the banner of liberation and democracy. Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction. It was about reshaping an entire economy: rewriting oil laws, enforcing sweeping privatization, and funneling reconstruction contracts to US corporations. None of it was accidental. The script is clear: seduce, threaten, invade. Always in the name of democracy, progress, or humanitarian concern, which, as Perkins notes, “is almost laughable given how these missions unfold in the most brutal, inhumane ways imaginable.”

In places like Sudan, the tools have shifted—less about development banks, more about proxy wars and resource deals. Gold is smuggled out while militias are armed by Gulf powers, and economic collapse becomes the backdrop for a new kind of control.

Think about Gaza. In 2023, while the world watched in horror, something else moved beneath the rubble. Gaza, long portrayed as poor and dependent, sits on rich offshore gas reserves. But Palestinians have never had real control over them. Deals were made—with British companies, with Israeli conditions, with foreign hands—but never with Gaza itself. And when economic pressure failed and resistance held, the narrative shifted: terror, security, retaliation. Then came the force. In a moment of global energy crisis, Gaza’s gas mattered again. This wasn’t just war. It was extraction—without consent, without sovereignty.

The book is not perfect. It is shaped by the personal guilt of the author, whose perspective as a former “economic hit man” is at times self-centered. Still, the structural pattern it reveals aligns with decades of postcolonial (“if we can even call it that while colonization is still ongoing”) and economic critique. It confirms what many in the Global South have long argued: that underdevelopment is not a natural condition, but the product of external manipulation.

As I read, I kept thinking about the systems I tried to understand, each time a new report on Al Jazeera News came talking about the refugee crisis, or the poor conditions of third-world countries. It came with every question I asked about how people could suffer so deeply simply for being born in the “wrong” place and time. And then I started seeing it more clearly: the geopolitics of extraction. The role of multinational corporations. The way development is explained through numbers that often hide more than they reveal. I thought about how hard it is to talk about all this with people who’ve only seen empire as something civilizing or good. How words like “growth” and “stability” are used to disguise control.

What I learned broke something open. The world isn’t broken. It was built this way. Intentionally. Precisely. Systematically.

The clarity I gained was not comfortable. It rarely is. But it did affirm something essential: that the chaos and inequality we witness are indeed not accidents but part of a broader logic, a system maintained by those who benefit from it, and enforced through institutions that present themselves as neutral.

Understanding this is not enough. But it is necessary. Because without it, we risk mistaking symptoms for causes. We risk believing the narrative that some countries simply failed, that some peoples are perpetually in crisis, that some lives are less valuable than others.

This is what I return to now. Not only the desire to know, but the responsibility that comes after. To look beyond the surface. To make visible what was always meant to remain hidden. Not for the sake of knowledge alone, but because clarity, real clarity, disrupts. And from the disruption, there may still come the possibility of justice. If this is the part they allowed us to know, what’s still hidden?Email

Jwan Zreiq is a Palestinian writer based in Amman exploring systems of power, exile, and resistance through personal and political essays.

 

Source: Palestine Chronicle

The controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which oversees the US-backed Israeli aid distribution scheme in Gaza, is to be dissolved in Geneva, Swiss public broadcaster RTS reported Wednesday.

The Swiss Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (FSA) “ordered the formal dissolution” of the Geneva-based organization, RTS reported, adding that the organization has been the subject of controversy for months.

The foundation set up its office earlier this year as an alternative attempt by Israel to bypass the aid distribution in Gaza through United Nations channels. Since late May, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and almost 4,000 injured trying to access food from distribution points, according to humanitarian organizations who have called for the GHF to be shut down.

‘Noncompliant’

The FSA reportedly ordered the closure after determining the GHF no longer had a Swiss representative or address and had made no effort to correct the issue. The Home Affairs Department confirmed the decision, RTS noted.

In early June, the Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed to the Anadolu news agency that the legal status of the controversial Geneva branch of the GHF is assessed to be “inactive” and “noncompliant” with legal requirements.

Concern over the GHF led to the resignation of its Swiss director, while Swiss NGO TRIAL International has filed two complaints with federal authorities, seeking transparency regarding the foundation’s operations.

NGOs Urge Shutdown

More than 130 humanitarian organizations, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty, have called for immediate action to shut down the “deadly” aid distribution scheme in Gaza.

“Israeli forces and armed groups – some reportedly operating with backing from Israeli authorities – now routinely open fire on desperate civilians risking everything just to survive,” the organizations said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

The organizations urged “the existing UN-led coordination mechanisms” to be utilized in the enclave and for Israel’s blockade on aid and commercial supplies to be lifted.

They pointed out that the 400 aid distribution points operating during the temporary ceasefire across Gaza “have now been replaced by just four military-controlled distribution sites, forcing two million people into overcrowded, militarized zones where they face daily gunfire and mass casualties while trying to access food and are denied other life-saving supplies.”

‘Starve, or Risk Being Shot’

“Today, Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families,” they said.

The organizations highlighted that weeks following the launch of the Israeli distribution scheme “have been some of the deadliest and most violent since October 2023.”

They urged the restoration of “a unified, UN-led coordination mechanism—grounded in international humanitarian law and inclusive of UNRWA, Palestinian civil society, and the wider humanitarian community—to meet people’s needs.”

Source: Truthout

The last time I tried to get food aid in Gaza, I nearly died.

It was early morning in Rafah, and I hadn’t eaten properly in days. I woke before the sun rose, stomach aching, body weak, and met up with my friend Abu Naji. We planned to walk five kilometers to a zone near al-Alam — “the Flag,” as people call it — where humanitarian aid was rumored to be distributed. Word on the street said it would open at 10:00 am, and we were desperate enough to believe it.

We passed destroyed buildings, endless lines of makeshift tents, and the slow shuffle of others just like us — starving, exhausted, and hoping for a few cans of food. We arrived around mid-morning. There were no signs. No aid workers. No water. No shelter. Only thousands of people crowding together under the eye of Israeli surveillance drones, waiting in silence. The zone wasn’t marked, but people knew where to go — because they’d seen others try it. And seen some of them die trying.

Just before noon, Israeli soldiers fired gunshots into the sky. That was the signal: Move forward. The crowd surged as one. There were no organized lines, no distribution points — just scattered supplies thrown from trucks or dropped by parachute. People climbed over each other to grab whatever they could before it was gone. I wished I were stronger. Not a writer. Not a program coordinator. I wished I had the muscles to fight my way through, to claim a small box of pasta or a can of tuna. But my body has been malnourished for months. None of us in Gaza have eaten properly in nearly two years. I watched people push forward. I saw a man I knew step a few meters outside an invisible boundary — one no one had explained, one that didn’t exist on any map — and get shot in the chest. He collapsed onto the sand and didn’t move.

The soldiers never shouted warnings. There were no fences. Only live fire enforcing invisible borders. And hunger enforcing risk.

I turned around and walked away. I didn’t get any food. But I survived. That was my first and last time attempting to reach humanitarian aid in Rafah.

The truth is, what’s being called a “humanitarian operation” in Gaza is something else entirely. It’s not simply broken. It’s being used as a weapon. Hunger here isn’t accidental — it’s managed. It’s enforced. And now, it’s being militarized.

The so-called aid zone we walked to that day wasn’t managed by any recognized relief organization. There were no UN workers or Red Crescent staff. Instead, the operation was linked to an entity calling itself the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). According to lawyers and watchdog groups in Switzerland, GHF has no medical or aid personnel on the ground. Instead, it has partnered with a U.S.-linked private security firm named Safe Reach Solutions. This company isn’t made up of aid workers — it’s made up of contractors. Former U.S. military, intelligence officers, and data analysts, many earning up to $1,000 a day. Some are deployed in the very zones where civilians like me go to collect aid. Their real job isn’t just “security.” According to investigations by TRIAL International and the Alliance of Lawyers for Palestine, the GHF contractors are tasked with collecting visual and behavioral intelligence on Palestinians. They use quadcopters and surveillance drones to track people’s movements, scan their faces, and monitor their behavior — building profiles in hopes of identifying “targets.” In the process, people are dying.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed trying to reach aid, while thousands more have been injured and several others remain missing.

These are not accidents. This is not poor planning. This is a system that weaponizes food and fear at the same time. One that invites you to risk your life for a bag of flour — then kills you when you step the wrong way. This is a system where every hungry child becomes a potential data point. Where every grandmother in a food line is scanned from the sky. Where every facial expression could place you on a kill list.

What’s worse is that these operations are invisible to much of the world. Foreign journalists haven’t been allowed into Gaza for nearly 20 months. Israel has killed more than 200 Palestinian journalists, and rejected thousands of visa requests from international media. What Gaza has is just overlapping shell organizations with unclear responsibilities and zero accountability. GHF, despite presenting itself as a Swiss humanitarian group, is also registered in the United States. Several Swiss lawyers have filed legal complaints demanding investigations into the group’s nonprofit status and its ties to militarized operations. Meanwhile, other actors — like Nathan Mook, former CEO of World Central Kitchen — have appeared in parallel efforts tied to projects like the U.S. floating pier and entities like the Maritime Humanitarian Aid Foundation, which also operate without clear oversight.

In a recent interview on CNN Türk, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state described the situation in Gaza as one where “the people are hostages.” That wasn’t a slip. That was a policy. When food becomes bait, civilians become bargaining chips. And as journalist Rasha Nabil replied during that same interview, “This is injustice. The world has become a jungle.”

Israel continues to justify its military assault as a mission to retrieve hostages. But for most of us in Gaza, that justification feels like a cruel illusion. The war has gone on for over a year and eight months. Hospitals have been flattened. Neighborhoods erased. Our water systems bombed. Some Palestinians, desperate for any end to the violence, have called for the release of Israeli captives —unconditionally — hoping it might take away Israel’s last excuse for its brutal campaign. But that desperation only reveals the divide between civilians and the political factions that claim to speak for them. For Hamas, the hostages are a bargaining chip. But for Israel, the people of Gaza are the same.

I do not support Hamas. I do not support any group that plays with lives. But I also do not support a system where international aid is a tracking device. Where relief is distributed by men with guns and drones. Where death and data are delivered in the same package.

Aid must never be a weapon. It must never be bait. It must never be a tool to punish an occupied people. Humanitarian relief must return to the hands of real humanitarian organizations — neutral, transparent, and protected by international law. Private military contractors have no place in our hunger. Governments that fund or support them — including the United States and Switzerland — must investigate the systems they’ve helped build and the lives they’ve helped destroy.

We are not numbers. We are not “risks.” We are not enemy targets because we are hungry. We are people — grieving, broken, surviving — and the world is watching as we are starved, shot at, and turned into data.

And sometimes, it watches in silence.

 

Source: Middle East Eye

For three months, Israel enforced a total blockade on Gaza, denying food, water, medicine and fuel to over two million Palestinians. Since the end of May, it has introduced a cruel system of aid distribution that is in fact a death trap used to exterminate starving Palestinians.

Even now, when Israel’s sadistic lust for extermination has unleashed unimaginable suffering, and you can smell the burnt flesh of Palestinian children in western capitals and hear their screams of pain as they starve to death, Germany’s elites remain silent.

The country where the smell of burning people and their starving to death once stood for one of the greatest crimes against humanity now remains steadfastly on the side of those whose heinous crimes spread that same smell and suffering again.

“Do you condemn the Zionists for their massacres of innocent Palestinian children?” one is tempted to ask these elites.

Their answer, however, would be little more than a variation on their favourite hollow refrain: “Israel has the right to burn children alive in the tents it forced them into, and the right to starve them to death.”

In 20 months of genocide, nothing has changed for Germany’s ruling class. They supported Israel when the genocidal regime let newborn babies freeze to death or suffocate in incubators. They willingly accept that the Israeli army deliberately and purposefully kills Palestinian children, and they look the other way when they are left to starve and die of thirst.

This is today’s Germany: a country without a moral compass or conscience, infected with an elite whose silence in the face of Israeli crimes has long crossed into the obscene.

But while it may appear that Germany’s elites are simply waiting for the genocide to end in the hope that everything will return to normal, their Faustian pact with the Zionist regime has already made them all accomplices. Having sold their souls to a genocidal government, they are now silent in the face of its orgy of extermination.

However, this silence on the part of the elites inadvertently reveals what the country has tried so carefully to conceal for decades.

Unconfronted past

Germans grow up believing that their country is the most committed defender of human rights and international law.

From an early age, they are told that Germany is a good country – a model democracy that emerged after World War Two, with educated citizens who understand their regrettable past and do everything they can to prevent its recurrence.

And they believe it, fervently.

But this self-image is one of the nation’s greatest self-deceptions. Denazification was superficial at best. Re-education was conducted by the wrong teachers. And as for confronting the country’s settler-colonial legacy, that has never been on the agenda.

Prosecuting a few high-ranking Nazis at Nuremberg does not amount to the wholesale denazification of society or its institutions. As we know, far more continuity followed fascism than Germany is willing to admit. 

Even the much-vaunted US-led “re‑education” programme was deeply flawed. As political scientist David Michael Smith has shown, American “democracy” was built on the genocide of millions of Indigenous people – an atrocity that inspired the Nazis and now serves as a model for the Zionists.

It is worse still when it comes to the concealment of Germany’s own settler-colonial crimes, including genocide. The white supremacist worldview that dehumanised others and inspired Nazism has never been meaningfully addressed.

These truths remain excluded from Germany’s collective memory, from its official discourse, and even from its commemorative rituals. They are unspeakable.

And yet what is repressed eventually erupts – or remains as the constant background music to everything a people pretend to be and do.

In the 1930s, the Nazis unleashed the repressed sadism it had brought back from the German colonies. Today, the decades-long repression of historical truth and contempt for non-white life resurfaces in the genocide being carried out by Germany’s murderous friends.

As Israel’s campaign of annihilation continues, Germany’s elites are forced to peer into the abyss of their own corruption – and still they defend, fund and promote the crime.

What is revealed is the ugly truth: the enduring force of Germany’s white-supremacist settler-colonial mindset, now embodied in the elites’ celebration of Palestinian death. If denazification, re-education and democratisation had truly succeeded, the language and actions of the Zionist regime today would set off alarm bells.

Announcing a Greater Israel; bombing and invading neighbouring countries; waging total war to annihilate another people; declaring a “final solution” in Gaza; calling human beings “human animals”; letting an entire population starve and die of thirst – all of this should remind Germans and their elites of their own history, of what their country once did to others. If only they were willing to face it.

If Germany’s elites possessed the slightest sense of responsibility – a conscience worthy of the name – then the mass death in Gaza, and the destruction in the West Bank, LebanonYemenSyria, and now Iran, would confront them with the unbearable weight of history. The suffering would haunt them as a nightmare and deprive them of sleep.

Instead, they sleep soundly and abide by Germany’s glorification of Zionism. They remain the “loyal subjects” described by Heinrich Mann more than a century ago. 

Little has changed. Germany’s elites remain submissive, fearful, and obedient.

Political theatre

With Friedrich Merz’s election as chancellor, the obscenity of German support for Israel’s genocide has reached new heights.

When Merz hosted the president of the Zionist settler colony, Isaac Herzog, as his first official foreign guest, they posed before a giant photograph inside the Chancellery. The image showed what Israel now calls Livni Beach – a place they had agreed to visit together soon.

Of course, what the German public is not told is that Livni Beach sits atop the ruins of the Palestinian village of Hiribya, destroyed and ethnically cleansed by Zionist militias during the Nakba of 1948.

Merz will soon stand on that beach admiring the sun, without giving a moment’s thought to those who were murdered or expelled from there.

And even now, as the Zionist regime wages an illegal war of aggression against Iran, this chancellor does not speak of a clear violation of international law. Instead, he praises the western colony and declares that Israel is “doing the dirty work for all of us” – by which he means the West, of course.

How obscene can the actions of a German chancellor be?

Also in May, on his first overseas trip – which, naturally, took the new German foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, to Israel – he, like many of his predecessors, was not above adopting Israel’s mendacious propaganda.

After completing the obligatory visit to Yad Vashem, Wadephul expressed understanding for Israel’s decision to block humanitarian aid to starving Palestinians in Gaza, citing claims that Hamas might exploit the supplies.

Again, the German public is not told that, like Livni Beach, Yad Vashem was also built on the ruins of the Nakba. As Palestinian anthropologist Honaida Ghanim has documented:

Yad Vashem was built upon the lands of Khirbet al-Hamama, which were public lands that belonged to the village of Ein Karem – one of the largest villages in the Jerusalem district in terms of space and population, home to 2,510 Muslims and 670 Christians. Unlike most other Palestinian villages, its houses and other structures were preserved from demolition – but only after the Arab residents were expelled from their homes, prevented from returning, and their houses were inhabited by Jews in their place.

Still, the message remains the same: because of Germany’s past, its hands are tied. The Palestinians must starve and die of thirst – and the German government, of course, will regret this deeply.

Elite complicity

In May 2025, the Protestant Church in Germany, part of the country’s moral elite, banned a travelling exhibition on the Nakba – not even on the current genocide – from its biennial nationwide convention.

Of course, they had no problem offering the stage to the ousted genocide supporter and denier, Olaf Scholz. Yet to this day, not a single word from the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) on the Zionist genocide.

On 24 May 2025, as children starved – and many had already starved to death – Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany’s leading liberal newspaper and self-styled “opinion leader”, argued that Germany could not criticise Israel as harshly as Canada, France or the UK, lest it be accused of abandoning a “traumatised people”.

In good German tradition, columnist Daniel Brossler made himself the stooge of the crime of the 21st century, repeating the old Zionist propaganda that casts Israel as the victim. This elite journalist is prepared to turn history on its head.

He joins the long line of elites who specialise in “blaming the victims” of Zionist settler-colonial oppression, and declares Israel traumatised, inviting German readers to pity a regime whose Jewish population overwhelmingly supports, and openly demands, the extermination of all Palestinians.

How mendaciously German can one be?

Brossler not only inverts victim and perpetrator, but conceals – and thus justifies – the decades-long traumatisation of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and within 1948 borders.

It is the Palestinians who have endured daily humiliation, siege and brutal war in an open-air prison, culminating in today’s relentless genocide.

And then there are Germany’s academic elites – the obedient heads of its “universities of excellence”, including Ludwig Maximilian University and the Technical University in Munich, and the Free University and Humboldt University in Berlin – who silence anyone who speaks out for the victims of genocide.

Some have even gone so far as to cancel appearances by Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories – a figure who, unlike the German elite, lives up to the responsibilities of her position and speaks out against the silence and lies of the powerful.

What an abysmal disgrace the behaviour of these university presidents is for German science.

New guilt

Pretending not to smell the burning flesh of Palestinian children or hear their cries, Germany’s submissive and fearful elites are doing precisely what Norman Finkelstein has condemned: using the Holocaust not to honour its victims, but to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people.

As he put it: “The biggest insult to the memory of the Holocaust is not denying it but using it to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people.”

By despicably misusing the Holocaust in this way, Germany’s elites have failed utterly.

They have lost all credibility and should never again raise their voices in the name of human rights or humanity. From their mouths, such values will only ring hollow.

These white elites will never raise their voices for non-white Palestinians.

They do not even shudder in the face of infanticide on a biblical scale. Their silence is deafening. Repulsive. Obscene.

This is Germany’s new guilt.Email

Jurgen Mackert is Professor of Sociology at the University of Potsdam, Germany. He was a temporary Professor for the Structure of modern societies at the University of Erfurt, Germany and a visiting professor for Political Sociology at Humboldt University Berlin. His latest books include On Social Closure. Theorizing Exclusion, Exploitation, and Elimination (Oxford University Press 2024). Siedlerkolonialismus. Grundlagentexte und aktuelle Analysen (edited with Ilan Pappe; Nomos 2024).