Uri Avnery discusses new right-wing bills up for passage in Israel.

Nicola Nasser discusses recent bombings in Palestine.

Jonathan Schell discusses Nick Turse’s book on Vietnam.

Annabelle Bamforth discusses a new report on drone deaths.

Ivan Eland discusses the Afghan war.

Lew Rockwell discusses how the presidents are our enemies.

George H. Smith discusses psychological egoism.

Sharon Presley discusses libertarian feminism.

Mikalya Novak discusses feminist and Austrian critiques of mainstream economics.

Binoy Kampmark discusses the Jewish nation-state bill in Israel.

Uri Avnery discusses the situation in Israel.

Brian M. Downing discusses Iran vs the Islamic State.

J.D. Tuccille discusses the core of government.

Jesse Walker discusses Eric Garner’s death.

Zaid Jilani discusses Democratic Party complicity in police militarization.

Chris Floyd discusses refugees and the paucity of money to support them.

Chris Floyd discusses the plight of a Gitmo prisoner.

Chris Floyd discusses drone strikes and state terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the new defense chief.

Patrick L. Smith discusses the Russia-Ukraine debacle.

James Carden discusses why grand strategy is bunk.

Rob Urie discusses police violence and the idea of race.

Michelle Renee Matisons discusses class, race, gender, and U.S. policing.

Mike Caccioppoli discusses Darren Wilson.

Kelly Vlahos discusses the loss of a champion of civil liberties in Congress.

Dan Fromkin discusses 12 things to keep in mind when reading the torture report.

Esam Al-Amin discusses how Egypt’s coup leaders are a criminal syndicate.

The famous Samuel Reshevsky loses to Rafael Vaganian.

Thomas Ernst defeats Ferdinand Hellers.

This criticism is made all the more easier when you are not present within the nation that is being governed. An outsider’s perspective, where only the bad news makes headlines, and only the tragedies live long in the memory. This is the position I find myself in currently with more news reaching us in the UK of the atrocious manner in which Obama and his administration continues to conduct business.

The hope that Obama was a bright new future for the American people faded almost as soon as he was inaugurated. His policies at home and abroad, no matter what he may say and feel personally, prove that he is only a continuation of a long line of puppets. Away from the bright lights of the oval office sit the real masters, and they have Obama dance a similar tune to that of the previous President.

The importance of this show cannot be overstated. The US is the world’s only superpower, as much as Russia would hate to admit it. With its position within the world, the US lays at the centre of a tangled web of international geo-politics and decisions. Phonecalls cannot be made in Germany without the US listening in, papers cannot be signed in the UK without its nod of approval, and rockets cannot be fired in Israel without the supply arriving from North America.

The US appears to be at the centre of most things. The doctrine of “follow the money” inevitably leads you back to those in and around the White House. It is because of the US’s global position, and because of its impact, that if real change is to be made in this world, it needs to begin within the United States.

The war crimes committed by Israel recently are simply another offence to add to the rap sheet of that criminal state. UN resolutions have been continuously broken, economic blockades have been put in place, human rights have been violated, and illegal settlements are springing up at an alarming rate.

Palestinian resistance to this is often no more than throwing rocks at tanks and bulldozers as they roll through their towns and villages. The futility of that action is not just evident by the fact the rock causes no damage to the tank, but also that the tank is the wrong target.

Israeli action in Palestine is a direct result of decisions made above the White House. They say that the White House is the “highest office in the land”, but I can assure you there are many who look down upon on Obama. The real enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Israeli oppressor, but is in fact the people who support, fund and defend Israeli action. Attacking Israel is attacking the effect, and it is vital that you get to the cause.

With Gazan Twitter users sending advice to those Americans in Ferguson, it is this realisation that struck me. Though one is based in Palestine, fighting an Israeli oppressor, they both face the same enemy. Palestine’s struggle against Israel will never end in victory unless the people of the United States partake in a similar struggle against their own oppressors, the US government.

As disgusting as the events of Ferguson are, the real disgust should come in the knowledge that this is not an isolated incident. These scenes and these actions are relatively common on US soil, and each one further reinforces the fact that the US government views its own people as enemies.

Robert David Steele, a former marine and member of the CIA, recently presented a paper which was based on the findings from his latest book. He told the gathered audience “that all the major preconditions for revolution… were now present in the United States”. With everything in place, there needs only to be a spark to ignite the flames of revolution. A revolution which is long overdue, and much needed.

Hamas is wrong to fire rockets at civilians (though few hit their targets), even considering that the villages those civilians live in were once Palestinian villages that Zionist/Israeli forces seized during the 1947-48 ethnic cleansing. The rocketing, however, is a sign of weakness versus Israel, not strength, and must not permit us to overlook this background of brutality against Palestinians. This year Hamas agreed to join the Palestinian Authority’s coalition government (after the Israeli government, again, made a mockery of “peace talks”) signaling an endorsement of the PA’s agenda — including recognition of Israel. Was this a welcome step for the Israeli government? No. It immediately set out to punish the Palestinians for this new unity — it prefers a divided Palestinian community and a Hamas it can demonize. (Years ago, the Israeli government nurtured the emergence of Hamas precisely because it could serve as a religious rival to the popular secular Fatah.)

Hamas, it is true, maintains a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel, but that has not kept it from issuing statements over the years — joining the coalition is only the most recent — indicating a willingness to accept Israel as part of a two-state solution. It is Israel that has broken truces with Hamas. Its soldiers have often killed and injured Gazans minding their own business on their own side of the fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, while Hamas leaders have been assassinated by the Israeli government following offers of a truce. It is clear that Israeli leaders do not want a Hamas they can make peace with, just as they don’t want an Iran with which they can have normal relations. They need the specter of an “existential threat” to maintain their iron rule. In particular, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must push this intransigent line especially hard to keep the members of his coalition government who are further to the right than he is (yes, further) on the reservation.

Israeli leaders and spokesmen continually say that their only goal in this war is “peace and quiet” for the people if Israel. Maybe a decent goal would include justice for the long-suffering Palestinians. This is not about Hamas, an organization that endangers the innocent people it claims to champion with futile yet criminal activities like the rocket fire. This does not let the Israelis and their brutal response — underwritten by American taxpayers and supporter by their rulers — off the hook, however. Ont the contrary, since Israel created and maintains the open-air prison, it is responsible for all the evils that go on inside. Its hard-line policies embolden the most extreme elements and undercut the moderate voices. Has the “peace process” even slowed the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank?

No, it’s not about Hamas; it’s about the Palestinians, who do not deserve this punishment at the hands of the Israelis.

For further discussion of the larger context, see Ramzy Baroud’s “Ravaging Gaza: The War Netanyahu Cannot Possibly Win.” Also worthwhile are Nathan Thrall’s “How the West Chose War in Gaza” and Neve Gordon’s “On ‘Human Shielding’ in Gaza.”

“Lembrem-se de que não havia Palestina como estado,” diz Newt Gingrich, atual concorrente com maior probabilidade de ser indicado como candidato do Partido Republicano à presidência dos Estados Unidos (“Gingrich Descreve o Povo Palestino como ‘Inventado,’” Fox News, 10 de dezembro). “Ela era parte do Império Otomano. E acho que temos tido um povo palestino inventado …”

Primeiro, crédito a quem merece: Gingrich está certo.

Ao longo da história registrada, a região conhecida como Palestina tem sido uma bola de futebol chutada entre impérios (egípcio, assírio, babilônio, persa, romano, bizantino, vários califados, os otomanos), geralmente negada a seus habitantes qualquer coisa parecida com “identidade nacional.”

Isso começou a mudar no início do século 20. Líderes árabes locais, reagindo a sucessivas ondas de aliyah judaica (“ascensão,” retorno ao lar histórico) e na esperança de tornar o território um novo estado em vez de aquiescer em absorção por estados árabes já existentes, tentaram contrapor uma identidade nacional palestina ao incipiente Israel.

Houvessem aqueles regimes árabes já existentes sido bem-sucedidos em suprimir o novo estado judaico, teria sido provavelmente a última vez que teríamos ouvido falar de “palestinos” (exceto no sentido em que a palavra era usada antes de 1948 — referindo-se aos judeus nascidos na região). Aqueles árabes ter-se-iam tornado jordanianos ou sírios ou egípcios, gostassem ou não, e isso teria resolvido a questão por muito, muito tempo.

Foi a vitória de Israel na guerra de 1948 que possibilitou a uma identidade nacional palestina surgir e enrijecer-se no exílio, fomentada por “líderes” árabes que haviam perdido sua oportunidade de absorver e esmagar aquela identidade e agora descobriam nela útil instrumento de propaganda.

Todas as identidades coletivas desse tipo são inventadas, não no menor dos graus a de Israel, que seus cidadãos automontaram em menos de meio século, atuando a partir do sonho do jornalista austro-húngaro Theodor Herzl.

Os “estadunidenses” eram colonos ingleses em busca dos “direitos de ingleses” até, no segundo ano da revolução, Thomas Paine convencê-los a inventarem-se de modo diferente.

Alemanha e Itália só vieram à existência como nações coesas depois de unificadas pela força por homens como Bismarck e Garibaldi no século 19.

Olhem para quaisquer das linhas imaginárias traçadas no chão por políticos em todo o mundo — “fronteiras” — e descobrirão que tais linhas começaram com identidades inventadas, sobre as quais buscadores de poder engaruparam suas pretensões. A Índia de Gandhi e o Paquistão de Jinnah, a Gran Colômbia de Bolívar — o que quiserem. As nações inventam-se constante e espontaneamente, depois do que são tolhidas e têm sua energia drenada por suas próprias classes políticas em surgimento.

Condenar Gingrich por notar esse fato é tanto deixar escapar o ponto substantivo quanto minimizar a real falta de imaginação e caráter dele.

Na maioria das descrições da declaração de Gingrich é minimizado o fato de ele apoiar o acréscimo ao mapa de mais uma nação-estado westfaliana — baseada, como todos os estados da espécie, na exploração parasitária da identidade inventada.

Essa exploração parasitária, o estatismo, não é solução para as enfermidades sociais. Na verdade, exacerba essas enfermidades e impede que aqueles que se identificam uns com os outros encontrem soluções reais.

O governo político inibe o processo constante e natural de invenção e reinvenção, ao tentar congelar estaticamente identidades sociais e étnicas e canalizar a energia delas para benefício de parasitas. Parasitas como, numa palavra, Gingrich.

O primeiro passo rumo à paz — na Palestina e em todos os outros lugares — é a extinção do estado.

Artigo original afixado por Thomas L. Knapp em 12 de dezembro de 2011.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

The Holy Land Five need our urgent solidarity. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in late October whether their final appeal will even be heard. The Holy Land Five are five Muslim charity leaders wrongly imprisoned due to U.S. government political repression. They are being punished for publicly sending charity to Palestinians, at a time when U.S. domination is being challenged in the Middle East.

The first Holy Land trial ended in a hung jury, but a second one — using secret witnesses who were never identified to the defense, hearsay evidence and a ‘shock video’ showing protesters in Palestine burning an American flag — contributed to prejudicing the jurors. The result is that five men, who did nothing wrong, are suffering long sentences, between 15 and 65 years.

The lead prosecutor who used these dirty tricks in court is Barry Jonas. Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas is now in Chicago, conducting the ongoing investigation of 23 Midwest anti-war and international solidarity activists. Jonas is a pro-Israel ideologue, politically motivated and willing to trample on people’s rights.

As thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters learned this past year, the U.S. is becoming a more repressive place. For more than ten years now, hundreds of Arabs and Muslims have faced and are facing unjust prosecutions. Many are already behind bars. Help us turn this injustice around!

This is naked political repression by the state, and amounts to nothing less than the criminalization of compassion and solidarity.   To learn more, visit http://freedomtogive.com/

First, credit where credit is due: Gingrich is right.

Throughout recorded history, the region known as Palestine has been a football kicked between empires (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, various Caliphates, the Ottomans), its inhabitants usually denied anything resembling a “national identity.”

That began to change in the early 20th century. Local Arab leaders, responding to the succeeding waves of Jewish aliyah (“ascent,” return to their historic home) and hoping to cut a new state out of the territory instead of acquiescing in absorption by existing Arab regimes, attempted to counterpose a Palestinian national identity to incipient Israel.

Had those existing Arab regimes succeeded in quashing the new Jewish state, that’s likely the last we’d have heard of “Palestinians” (except in the sense in which the term was used prior to 1948 — referring to Jews born in the region). Those Arabs would have become Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians whether they liked it or not, and that would have settled the question for a long, long time.

It was Israel’s victory in the 1948 war which allowed a Palestinian national identity to emerge and harden in exile, nurtured by Arab “leaders” who’d missed their chance to absorb and crush that identity and now found it a useful propaganda instrument.

All collective identities of this sort are invented, not least that of Israel, which its citizens self-assembled in less than half a century, operating from the dream of Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl.

“Americans” were British colonists seeking “the rights of Englishmen” until, in the second year of their revolution, Thomas Paine convinced them to invent themselves differently.

Germany and Italy didn’t come into existence as cohesive nations until they were forcibly united by men like Bismarck and Garibaldi in the 19th century.

Look at any of the imaginary lines drawn on the ground by politicians around the world — “borders” — and you’ll find that those lines started with invented identities, upon which power-seekers piggybacked their pretensions. Gandhi’s India and Jinnah’s Pakistan, Bolivar’s Gran Colombia — you name it. Nations invent themselves constantly and spontaneously, after which they’re boxed in and drained of their inventive energy by their own emerging political classes.

To condemn Gingrich for taking notice of this fact is to both miss his point and gloss over his real failure of imagination and character.

Minimized in most accounts of his statement is the fact that Gingrich supports adding yet another Westphalian nation-state — based, like all such states, on parasitic exploitation of invented identity — to the map.

That parasitic exploitation, statism, is no solution to social ills. In fact, it exacerbates those ills and prevents those who identify with each other from finding real solutions.

Political government inhibits the constant, natural process of invention and re-invention, attempting to freeze social and ethnic identities in place and channel their energy for the benefit of parasites. Parasites, like, in a word, Gingrich.

The first step toward peace — in Palestine as everywhere else — is abolition of the state.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Newt Gingrich e a Invenção da Política.

Israel has blockaded Gaza since Hamas gained control of the area in 2007. Israeli authorities allow only a limited amount of food and medicine into Gaza, causing economic stagnation and harm to those who cannot afford expensive smuggled items. It also severely impairs construction of vital infrastructure, including that destroyed during Israel’s 2008-2009 attack on Gaza. Denouncing the importation of supplies as support for Hamas, Israeli officials have said the navy will divert the ships.

This doesn’t mean that Hamas are good guys either. An organization full of religious extremists that makes deliberate attacks on civilian centers doesn’t get to be the hero.

Of course, Jews and Muslims are not fated to be hostile toward one another. As Jason Adams notes in “Nonwestern Anarchisms,” Palestinians and Jewish immigrants in the early 20th Century were involved in an anarchist movement that called for the peaceful coexistence of individuals of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. More recently, Anarchists Against the Wall and the International Solidarity Movement have engaged in international action against Israeli policy. It is in establishing and maintaining government, forcibly institutionalizing the statuses of superior and inferior, that violence becomes necessary.

Rather than argue through the United Nations bureaucracy and international power games, the activist flotilla is engaging in direct action. They are directly moving to effect changes without asking permission from officials. Doing such a huge public action raises awareness of what is happening and may force concessions from state leaders.

One could also engage in direct action that is underground, not public. The smuggling tunnels into Gaza might offer a clue into this kind of activity. But the tunnels are problematic from an anarchist perspective – smuggling is used to raise tax revenue for Hamas and bring in prison building materials. But they do allow the economy to function, which will raise the demand for services that poor Gazans can provide.

The long-term solution is to abolish all states and wannabe-states, and the monopolies and privileges that they enable. But in the meantime, people have to eat nutritiously, hospitals have to be built, and infrastructure needs to be maintained to enable the improvement of life. Direct action might not immediately get the goods, but it does force the hand of politicians, show that people can act regardless of the political obstacles placed in their way, and give teeth to demands that politicians cannot dismiss with parliamentary wand-waving.