Kahanism Won. Israel Is Now Closing in on a Right-wing, Religious, Authoritarian Revolution

Charles Keener

Kahanism Won. Israel Is Now Closing in on a Right-wing, Religious, Authoritarian Revolution - Haaretz Editorial -

PODCAST: Does Kahanism expose what Israel tries to hide? - +972 Magazine

Benjamin Netanyahu is set to return as Israel’s prime minister, with Tuesday’s election results showing his Likud Party and far-right allies winning enough seats to form a parliamentary majority. This includes far-right lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir, who openly supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, vows to crack down on the LGBTQ community and was once convicted of racist incitement against Arabs. “This is going to be a whole new level of power for the extreme right in the government,” says Natasha Roth-Rowland, editor and writer at +972 Magazine, who studies right-wing Jewish extremism.

Re: Against voting for Democrats


My proposal for dealing with this dilemma is that the left must first declare that there is no solution to our country's problems within our current undemocratic constitutional system and that we will not endorse any candidate who does not call for a new democratically elected constitutional convention. That will draw a clear line of demarcation between us and the leadership of the Democratic Party. However, drawing this political line of demarcation should not rule out using the Democratic Party primary system or ballot line (or Republican for that matter if the situation should arise) for our candidates. Operating within this forced electoral arrangement is not automatically debilitating as long as we stick to our principles. Sticking to a clear democratic political position will highlight the hypocrisy and double-talk of those Democrats who claim they are defending democracy. In order to do that we cannot identify ourselves simply as members of the Democratic Party but must establish an identity separate from the Democratic Party leadership. I have suggested something like a "Democratic Constitution Group or Caucus" as a name, but the name is secondary to the ideology. As for voting for Democrats vs. Republicans, I think that is pretty much a non-issue. I follow Lenin's logic in his advice to the British Communist Party vis a vis the Labour Party: The Labour Party leadership was bourgeois and imperialist, but to wean away its working class following within a first-past-the-post electoral system meant that the Communists could not abstain from or split the vote at that time. That would be left-wing sectarianism and counterproductive. We find ourselves in a similar situation Voting for Democrats does not mean endorsement of the Party leadership. It is a purely tactical necessity forced upon us because millions of genuinely honest democratic voters see no alternative yet. We have to take the anti-authoritarian sentiments of these voters seriously and work with them however we can to promote consistent democratic values, policies, and constitutional transformation.  

On the Actual Relevance of the Fraud by Vernik and Others

Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001@...>

Zakhar Popovych
Dear friends, as some of you are interested in my participation in the
Workers’ Resistance group
( two decades ago, I
should confirm it. It is true that I had tried to be simultaneously a
member of all Trotskyist Internationals. It was due to my deeply wrong
ultra-left position of the time that all Trotskyist organizations
should either join one true International or are not “true” Trotskyist
by themselves. The outcome was opposite to reunification – growing of
mistrust and degeneration of meaningful discussion among effected
Trotskyist organizations and discreditation of Trotskyism in Ukraine.
This behavior was the consequence of our political and geographical
isolation, the lack of political and life experience (most of us were
twenty years old or younger), naivety, marginalization of the whole
society. But I don't want to defend this rough political and personal

You can’t reunify small Marxist sectarian groups by just convincing
them with good arguments and exposing them to the objective reality.
It’s not how it works. Moreover, there are some structural problems in
almost all these organizations that make them not interested in what
is really going on in other countries and often disconnected from
grassroot movement even in their own. Unconscious postcolonial way of
building the “International” where central leadership in some
imperialist country of the Global North “knew better” what is going on
in your country is unfortunately very typical. This is now becoming
obvious in discussion about Ukraine among people who never visited it,
never attempted to learn the language, never study situation on the
ground in any detail, but have the “true” geopolitical analysis that
states mainly that struggle of Ukrainian workers is not that important
and could be sacrificed for maintaining the opportunistic belief that
their political position was generally right, and they can safely
continue to do nothing.

The support Workers’ Resistance obtained from some international
groups 20 years ago was composed of material donation in value of
around $7K was very small and was almost entirely and immediately used
to support day to day activities of the organization. And activities
were unfortunately turning more and more from grassroot Ukrainian work
towards deep dive into meaningless inter-sectarian discussions. And of
course, I spend much of my personal funds to support the Workers’
Resistance and never obtain any financial benefits from it.
My reflections on the political mistakes of early 2000s persuaded me
that true grassroot internationalism should be built on the bases of
honest, transparent and respectful political discussion and true
desire to hear the voice of the grassroots of all countries, and first
of all voices of the working class on the Global South that is
suffering the most from imperialist aggression and exploitation.

14 comments , 4 shares.

Michael Pugliese

Re: Against voting for Democrats

Mark Baugher

On Nov 4, 2022, at 8:28 AM, anthonyboynton@... wrote:

The Democratic Party is an enabler of neo-fascism because of its core principles of defending the anti-democratic Constitution and the anti-Democratic two party system.
This sounds "Third Period" to me.


AW RE: [jplo-olpj] Gideon Levy: After More Than 50 Years of Supporting Israel’s Occupation, What Exactly Did the Israeli Left Think Would Happen?

abraham Weizfeld PhD

JPLO :  The choice of identity given to Zionism of ‘Jewish Supremacy’ is faulty if not Antisemitic because 1) it adopts the Zionist designation of the Zionist State of Israel and 2) it adopts the fascist and Nazi and Christian stereotype for a Jewish national objective to control the world. 


Is this not evident. Journalists only consider the readership and what they would comprehend and the euphemism in Israel for Zionism is Jewish, so as to lend the term credibility and rationale amongst the Jewish Israeli electorate.


Gideon Levy as ex-Zionist still adopts such terminology without considering the international context in which we the Jewish People are living. As such the Antisemitic tendency in the Palestinian solidarity movement gleefully adopt the same term that Levy uses here of a misnamed and slanderous term of ‘Jewish’ Supremacy. At best this would be an ambiguity, one that is fatal to the actual meaning of opposing the Zionist State and its Occupation and Exile of half the Palestinian People.


Such obliviousness to the existence of Jewish people other than in Israel is not only the ethno-centrism of the local residents in Israel, it is a common even endemic collective neurosis of the majority of Jewish people living elsewhere than in Israel.


By adopting the terminology of the Zionist Right does not Gideon Levy conceal the nature of the State lending it back-handed support !


abraham Weizfeld Phd





On Behalf Of Jennifer Loewenstein (via jplo-olpj Mailing List)
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 11:06 PM
To: Jennifer Loewenstein <sarinj111@...>
Subject: [jplo-olpj] Gideon Levy: After More Than 50 Years of Supporting Israel’s Occupation, What Exactly Did the Israeli Left Think Would Happen?


Excerpts: Fifty years of almost wall-to-wall Israeli support, from the Zionist left and right, for the occupation, could not end any other way than with Ben-Gvir as the popular hero. A never-ending occupation could only lead to the Benjamin Netanyahu-Itamar Ben-Gvir government. For if you’re going to have an occupation, then you need to embrace its genuine version, the one that is not the least bit abashed about it – the Ben-Gvir version. … 


Yesterday, Israel awoke to the dawn of a new day, in which all the stammering and euphemisms have become a thing of the past. From now on, the occupation is just that, and the same goes for Jewish supremacy in Israel. From now on, Zionism will be promoted to the level of overt racism. …


For years, Israelis have been about the Chosen People, about the Holocaust after which anything is permitted, about the Arabs who want to throw us into the sea, about our right to the land because of the biblical stories, about the IDF as the world’s most moral army, about David versus Goliath, about Israeli Arabs as a fifth column, about the whole world being against us and that anyone who criticizes us is an antisemite. What did we think would arise out of all that? Ben-Gvir actually took his time. 


After More Than 50 Years of Supporting Israel’s Occupation, What Exactly Did the Israeli Left Think Would Happen?


The aftermath of the elections have shown that Israeli society has become partly religious and largely racist, with hatred of Arabs being its main fuel, with no one to stand against it


Gideon Levy

Nov 3, 2022


What did you think would happen? What was the Zionist left, which sank into a coma after the Oslo Accords, thinking? That it was possible to return to power out of a coma? Empty-handed? Without an alternative and without leadership? Solely on the basis of hatred for Netanyahu? Aside from that, it had nothing to offer.


No one should be surprised by what happened. It could not have been otherwise. It began with the occupation – pardon the annoying and clichéd mention of that – but that is where it really began, and it had to culminate in a government of racism and transfer. Fifty years of incitement against the Palestinians and scare tactics about them cannot culminate in a government of peace. 


Fifty years of almost wall-to-wall Israeli support, from the Zionist left and right, for the occupation, could not end any other way than with Ben-Gvir as the popular hero. A never-ending occupation could only lead to the Benjamin Netanyahu-Itamar Ben-Gvir government. For if you’re going to have an occupation, then you need to embrace its genuine version, the one that is not the least bit abashed about it – the Ben-Gvir version.


It was simply impossible to continue with the illusions – Jewish and democratic, an enlightened occupation, a temporary occupation – and that whole tired repertoire of phrases. The time for truth had arrived, and that is what Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are going to tell us.


Yesterday, Israel awoke to the dawn of a new day, in which all the stammering and euphemisms have become a thing of the past. From now on, the occupation is just that, and the same goes for Jewish supremacy in Israel. From now on, Zionism will be promoted to the level of overt racism. 


Yesterday, the death of the Green Line was also officially declared: The occupation is here, everywhere. Anyone who thought that what happens in Yitzhar stays in Yitzhar was only fooling themselves. Anyone who thought that Yesha is there and not here was mistaken. For a long time now, Yesha has been taking great strides closer to Israel, with its ingrained nationalism and fundamentalism, and in all these years, no one arose to stop it. Now it is too late. Two days ago, the move was completed.


There is no point in pursuing a blame campaign now – Yair Lapid siphoned off Labor votes, Labor didn’t merge with Meretz, Balad didn’t go with the Joint List. These things would have amounted to temporary pain relievers for a terminal illness. Even if all that would not have happened, nothing about the overall picture would have been different: The society that has arisen here is partly religious and largely racist, with hatred of Arabs being its main fuel, and there was no one to stand against that.


What happened two days ago did not begin two days ago. Maybe Golda Meir started it, maybe Shimon Peres, but in any event, none of their successors tried to go another way to stem the tide. Did you really think that Yair Lapid, a moderate and hollow rightist, filled with good intentions, was capable of offering an alternative to Ben-Gvir? What alternative? To kill gently? To embrace Emmanuel Macron? Now Israel has decided it prefers not to be gentle when it comes to killing. The next government will at least avoid the self-preening.


For years, a rudderless left and center that lacks leadership and lacks courage has desperately attempted to grovel to and look like the right. It just had to end with Ben-Gvir and with the nationalist Shas. There was no other possible outcome.


For years, Israelis have been about the Chosen People, about the Holocaust after which anything is permitted, about the Arabs who want to throw us into the sea, about our right to the land because of the biblical stories, about the IDF as the world’s most moral army, about David versus Goliath, about Israeli Arabs as a fifth column, about the whole world being against us and that anyone who criticizes us is an antisemite. What did we think would arise out of all that? Ben-Gvir actually took his time. 


He could well have made his big splash a long time ago. That’s what happens when you have a Bolsonaro and no Lula facing him. That’s what happens when cries of “Death to the Arabs,” which will now be drilled at morning assembly in schools, were not met with a single cry of “Freedom for the Arabs.” That is where it began, this is where it ends.









قائمة مؤتمر المصالحة

since 1994  by the JPLO

Jewish   People’s  Liberation  Organization

End  Zionism  &  Judaeophobia

abraham Weizfeld Phd  moderator-founder  SaaLaHa@...


political declaration   JPLO   ( a Bundist chapter )

the books

Sabra and Shatila  (1984)  2009

The End of Zionism :  and the liberation of the Jewish People  1989

Nation, Society and the State : the reconciliation of Palestinian and Jewish Nationhood  


The Federation of Palestinian and Hebrew Nations  (Hbk)



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Against voting for Democrats


A week or so ago, there was a little discussion on this list about “tactical voting”. The League for the Revolutionary Party had written, and posted on this list a document arguing for a “tactical vote” for the Democratic Party in next week’s elections.


I think the LRP is making a big mistake, drinking the Kool-Aid of defeatist reformism as has most of the old left in the United States. I am not arguing with them, or others who think like them, that the extreme right currently led by Trump is not extremely dangerous, but I am arguing that the Democratic Party is in no way an obstacle to the rise of the right.


The Democratic Party is an enabler of neo-fascism because of its core principles of defending the anti-democratic Constitution and the anti-Democratic two party system.


The LRP’s argument boils down to the idea that electing a Democratic Congress will do two things, it will protect us against the full onslaught of Trumpist neofascism, buy us time to organize and defend ourselves, and protect our voting rights.  


Here is what they wrote,


“Unlike the Republicans, however, the Democrats generally rely on the votes of people of color in order to have a chance of winning power. And so they can, if only for that reason, be expected to oppose attacks on voting rights, which underpin all other legal protections. For that essential reason, in the absence of a realistic working-class electoral alternative, socialists must favor a Democratic victory in the coming elections in order to keep the Republicans out of power.”




“A Democratic victory will therefore not vanquish the far-right menace, but it will provide working-class and oppressed people a greater opportunity to organize and defend themselves. Leading Democrats have provided one focus for such post-election struggle by promising that if they maintain control of the House and expand their control of the Senate, they will override the Senate filibuster rule that requires a super-majority to pass legislation, in order to make abortion-rights protections the law of the land. Such an effort would open the possibility to demand that the Democrats do the same for voting rights and more. And if the far-right Supreme Court majority continues to thwart the will of the people and overturn established rights and legal protections, the Democrats could be pressured to expand the number of justices so that a new democratic majority can be appointed.”




“A significant number of Democrats, including Biden, have declared that this is a life-or-death election in which fundamental democratic rights are at stake. These politicians can be held to that standard and, as we have noted, they can be called on to end the Senatorial filibuster, enact federal voting and abortion rights legislation that overrides recent Supreme Court decisions and even alter the makeup of the Court. They can also keep open the January 6 committee to expose the attempted coup.”


A brief look at history shows that the Democratic Party has NEVER defended anybody’s democratic rights until, and only, the rise of mass working class movements threatened the system and the Democrats own control over working class voters. In the 20th century this happened twice: in the 1930’s and the 1960’s. All of the New Deal concessions were made to appease the rising trade union and working class movements. Similarly, ALL of the concessions made by LBJ’s Democrats were made to appease the mass youth movement, and especially the ghetto rebellions against racism and war.


Even if some Democrats sincerely believe they should do something nice, something good, something to defend democratic rights, they won’t because they can’t. The can’t because they are part of a party designed to make change as slow and difficult as possible. Don’t ask whether Joe Biden sincerely wants to end the filibuster. Ask whether Joe Manchin does. Don’t ask whether Biden wants to enact federal voting and abortion rights legislation, override recent Supreme Court decisions, or even alter the makeup of the Supreme Court … ask whether Joe Manchin does.


The LRP had been among the last holdouts among the various self-styled Marxists in the United States who defended, at least in the abstract, the idea that revolutionaries should struggle to form an independent political party of the working class. Nevertheless, that struggle is still alive, but barely, in the electoral vehicles thrown up in past struggles: principally the Peace and Freedom Party in California, and the Green Party nationally. It is alive here and there in independent socialist electoral campaigns like the one that elected Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council.


More important, the working class movement is growing in the pores of United states society through the mass demonstrations of Black Lives Matter and the Women’s movement, through the new wave of unionization, and in ways unseen through the blinkered lens of the mass media.


The LRP like most of the other remnants of the Old New Left will not influence this election, but they can slow down the formation of an independent working class political party by causing confusion among however many activists they influence.


What should be done? First of all we should counter all illusions in the Democratic Party rather than feed them. Second of all we should organize. Third of all, we should run independent socialist and working class candidates. It’s an old formula that hasn’t worked yet, but supporting the Democrats is an old formula that has proven results: cooptation of ambitious movement leaders into the Democratic Party and demobilization of mass movements.



No African American players on a World Series roster isn't a surprise to many

Dennis Brasky

"I don't think that's something that baseball should really be proud of. It looks bad," Astros manager Dusty Baker Jr. told the Associated Press. "It lets people know that it didn't take a year or even a decade to get to this point."

NYTimes: The Israel We Knew Is Gone

Dennis Brasky

Ask the Palestinian people about this absurd falsification of history! The Naqba (The Catastrophe) of land theft and ethnic cleansing displacement in 1947-48 were predominantly carried out by the “socialist” Zionists like Ben-Gurion (who declared it “a miracle”!), Rabin, Meir and their followers. Today’s racist apartheid state has not changed - it has simply chosen to remove the "liberal" mask!  

Plan Dalet as a blueprint for the de-Arabization/Zionization of ARAB Palestine


A New History Lesson in Israel – NY Times – August 2, 2007


Unfortunately, the official textbook for Jewish Israelis in the same grade does not offer this Arab view, but sticks to the Israeli version of 1948 history as a moment of Jewish valor and national rebirth.


Using mostly Israeli official sources, (historian Ilan Pappe) methodically recounts the entire process that started in the minds of pre-state Zionist leaders who knew they would have to forcibly expel the Palestinians to create a Jewish state in Palestine - given that well over 90 percent of the land was Palestinian in the early 20th Century, and by 1948, the Jewish minority in Palestine owned just 5.8 percent of the land. He describes in detail the planning before 1948 - including files on every Arab village and its inhabitants - which would allow the Jewish militias in 1947-48 to start attacking, terrorizing and driving out Palestinians as soon as the British mandate ended.


'Plan Dalet' or 'Plan D' was the name given by the Zionist High Command to the general plan for military operations within the framework of which the Zionists launched successive offensives in April and early May 1948 in various parts of Palestine. These offensives, which entailed the destruction of the Palestinian Arab community and the expulsion and pauperization of the bulk of Palestine Arabs, were calculated to achieve the military fait accompli upon which the State of Israel was to be based."


Re: New Left Review, Ernest Mandel on "Ukraine's war of national self-defence"

Richard Fidler

This can be read as an answer to Marv’s statement below that Ukraine “is emphatically not resisting but seeking to more fully integrate itself into the camp of the major imperialist power.”



From: sp-canada-discussion@... <sp-canada-discussion@...> On Behalf Of Marv Gandall
Sent: November 3, 2022 12:14 PM
To: Socialist Project <sp-canada-discussion@...>; Marxmail <>
Subject: Re: New Left Review, Ernest Mandel on "Ukraine's war of national self-defence"


We proceed from different and irreconcilable premises. Ukraine is resisting Russian aggression - whether the latter can be truly described as imperialist or not is a maatter of debate - but it is emphatically not resisting but seeking to more fully integrate itself into the camp of the major imperialist power. If there were the slightest indication that a genuinely left-wing anti-imperialist tendency was making headway - ie. becoming “objectively rooted”, as Mandel would say - in the Ukrainian working class, I would gladly modify my position. But at present there is no such evidence and this is just wishful thinking on the part of some Marxists to justify their support of one warring capitalist state against another.

Friedman: "The Israel we knew is gone"

John Reimann

When Thomas Friedman of all people comes out swinging against the latest Israeli administration, you know something's up. In fact, Israeli capitalism is showing its true colors as its fascist roots are returning. It's only the Israel that Friedman and friends knew in the sense that it maintained a pretense, a mask, before - one behind which US capitalism could also hide. Now, that mask is gone entirely. Friedman implicitly is warning of a similar danger here in the US. Here's his full column:
Thomas L. Friedman
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Imagine you woke up after the 2024 U.S. presidential election and found that Donald Trump had been re-elected and chose Rudy Giuliani for attorney general, Michael Flynn for defense secretary, Steve Bannon for commerce secretary, evangelical leader James Dobson for education secretary, Proud Boys former leader Enrique Tarrio for homeland security head and Marjorie Taylor Greene for the White House spokeswoman.
“Impossible,” you would say. Well, think again.
As I’ve noted before, Israeli political trends are often a harbinger of wider trends in Western democracies — Off Broadway to our Broadway. I hoped that the national unity government that came to power in Israel in June 2021 might also be a harbinger of more bipartisanship here. Alas, that government has now collapsed and is being replaced by the most far-far-right coalition in Israel’s history. Lord save us if this is a harbinger of what’s coming our way.
The coalition that Likud leader Bibi Netanyahu is riding back into power is the Israeli equivalent of the nightmare U.S. cabinet I imagined above. Only it is real — a rowdy alliance of ultra-Orthodox leaders and ultranationalist politicians, including some outright racist, anti-Arab Jewish extremists once deemed completely outside the norms and boundaries of Israeli politics. As it is virtually impossible for Netanyahu to build a majority coalition without the support of these extremists, some of them are almost certain to be cabinet ministers in the next Israeli government.
As that previously unthinkable reality takes hold, a fundamental question will roil synagogues in America and across the globe: “Do I support this Israel or not support it?” It will haunt pro-Israel students on college campuses. It will challenge Arab allies of Israel in the Abraham Accords, who just wanted to trade with Israel and never signed up for defending a government there that is anti-Israeli Arab. It will stress those U.S. diplomats who have reflexively defended Israel as a Jewish democracy that shares America’s values, and it will send friends of Israel in Congress fleeing from any reporter asking if America should continue sending billions of dollars in aid to such a religious-extremist-inspired government.
Netanyahu has been propelled into power by bedfellows who: see Israeli Arab citizens as a fifth column who can’t be trusted; have vowed to take political control over judicial appointments; believe that Jewish settlements must be expanded so there is not an inch left anywhere in the West Bank for a Palestinian state; want to enact judicial changes that could freeze Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial; and express contempt for Israel’s long and strong embrace of L.G.B.T.Q. rights.
We are talking about people like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was convicted by an Israeli court in 2007 of incitement to racism and supporting a Jewish terrorist organization. Netanyahu personally forged an alliance between Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party and Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the Religious Zionism party, which turned them (shockingly for many Israelis) into the third-largest party in the country — giving Netanyahu the allies Likud needed to win a parliamentary majority in this week’s election.
Smotrich is known for, among other things, suggesting that Israeli Jewish mothers should be separated from Arab mothers in the maternity wards of Israeli hospitals. He has long advocated outright Israeli annexation of the West Bank and argued that there is “no such thing as Jewish terrorism” when it comes to settlers retaliating on their own against Palestinian violence.
Netanyahu has increasingly sought over the years to leverage the energy of this illiberal Israeli constituency to win office, not unlike how Trump uses white nationalism, but Netanyahu never actually brought this radical element — like Ben-Gvir, who claims to have moderated because he has told his supporters to chant, “Death to terrorists,” instead of, “Death to Arabs” — into his ruling faction or cabinet. As more of Netanyahu’s allies in Likud split with him over his alleged criminal behavior and lying, however, Bibi had to reach further and further out of the mainstream of Israeli politics to get enough votes to rule and pass a law to abort his own trial and possible jail time.
Netanyahu had fertile political soil to work with, the Yediot Ahronot Israeli newspaper columnist Nahum Barnea explained to me. There has been a dramatic upsurge in violence — stabbings, shootings, gang warfare and organized crime — by Israeli Arabs against other Israeli Arabs, and Israeli Arab gangs and organized crime against Israeli Jews, particularly in mixed communities. The result is that, “like in America, ‘policing’ has become a huge issue in Israel in recent years,” said Barnea — and even though this upsurge started when Netanyahu was previously prime minister, he and his anti-Arab allies blamed it all on the Arabs and the national unity Israeli government.
One election billboard summed up Netanyahu’s campaign. It was, as Haaretz reporter Amos Harel reported, a “gloomy-looking one with the caption: ‘That’s it. We’ve had enough.’ It depicts outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his coalition partner, Mansour Abbas of the United Arab List.”
Abbas is the rather amazing Israeli Arab religious party leader who recognizes the State of Israel and the searing importance of the Holocaust, and who was part of the now-fallen unity government.
As Harel put it: “The ‘had enough’ message seems to have sunk in among supporters of Likud, Religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox parties. It’s likely that the message also helped Netanyahu win Tuesday’s election.” Among the critical factors, Harel wrote, was “hatred of Arabs and the desire to keep them out of positions of power.”
But Netanyahu was also aided by the fact that while the right and the far right were highly energized by both growing fears of and distrust of Arabs — whether Israeli Arab citizens or Palestinians in the West Bank — their centrist and center-left opponents had no coherent or inspiring countermessage.
As Barnea put it to me: “Israel is not divided down the middle,” with 50 percent being pro-Netanyahu and the other 50 percent with a unified message and strategy opposing him. “No, Israel is divided between the 50 percent who are pro-Netanyahu and the 50 percent who are pro-blocking Netanyahu. But that is all they can agree on,” Barnea said. And it showed in this election. And it wasn’t enough.
Why is all of this so dangerous? Moshe Halbertal, the Hebrew University Jewish philosopher, captured it well: For decades members of the Israeli right, a vast majority of whom were “security hawks,” have believed that the Palestinians have never and will never accept a Jewish state next to them and therefore Israel needed to take whatever military means were necessary to protect itself from them.
But Israeli hawkishness toward the Palestinians, explained Halbertal, “is now morphing into something new — a kind of general ultranationalism” that not only rejects any notion of a Palestinian state but also views every Israeli Arab — who make up about 21 percent of Israel’s population, nearly 20 percent of its doctors, about 25 percent of its nurses and almost half its pharmacists — as a potential terrorist.
“What we are seeing is a shift in the hawkish right from a political identity built on focusing on the ‘enemy outside’ — the Palestinians — to the ‘enemy inside’ — Israeli Arabs,” Halbertal said.
Netanyahu’s coalition has also attacked the vital independent institutions that underpin Israel’s democracy and are responsible for, among other things, protecting minority rights. That is, the lower court system, the media and, most of all, the Supreme Court, which Netanyahu and his allies want brought under the political control of the right, “precisely so they will not protect minority rights” with the vigor and scope that they have, Halbertal said.
At the same time, not only is this election a struggle about the future of Israel, he said, but also “about the future of Judaism in Israel. The Torah stands for the equality of all people and the notion that we are all created in God’s image. Israelis of all people need to respect minority rights because we, as Jews, know what it is to be a minority” — with and without rights. “This is a deep Jewish ethos,” Halbertal added, “and it is now being challenged from within Israel itself. But, when you have these visceral security threats in the street every day, it becomes much easier for these ugly ideologies to anchor themselves.”
This is going to have a profound effect on U.S.-Israel relations. But don’t take my word for it. On Oct. 1, Axios published a story quoting what sources said Senator Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who leads the Foreign Relations Committee, told Netanyahu during a trip to Israel in September. In the words of one source, the senator warned that if Netanyahu formed a government after the Nov. 1 elections that included right-wing extremists, it could “seriously erode bipartisan support in Washington.”
That is now about to happen.
I have reported from Israel for this newspaper for nearly 40 years, often traveling around with my dear friend Nahum Barnea, one of the most respected, sober, balanced, careful journalists in the country. To hear him say to me minutes ago on the phone that “we have a different kind of Israel now” tells me we are truly entering a dark tunnel.

“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https: also on Facebook

Russia will only negotiate if it suffers some defeats (Denys Pilash - Green Left)

Chris Slee

Ukraine War: Spontaneous Protests of Soldiers of the Russian Army


Ukraine War: Spontaneous Protests of Soldiers of the Russian Army

Down with Putin’s imperialist war! Money for poor regions – not for killing the Ukrainian people!

Emergency Statement of the RCIT and Socialist Tendency (Russia), 3 November 2022

Re: Vijay Prashad is a member of the Council of the "Progressive International"

Lily (Nao)

John, you are correct on this statement. However, I have encountered the real words of their member Pawel Wargan a hardcore Stalinist who openly seeks to ally with Russia against NATO. On the surface, Lula's PI presents as a pacifist but in fact, the significant people behind politics in Eastern Europe are openly engaged to defend "national states" vs. "globalism", i.e. support the multipolar world promoted by Putin.

Why is it relevant? Lula and other Latin American bourgeoisie leaders are seeking "assistance" from Russia-USA or China-USA conflict to plat on two pianos and get benefits from one camp versus another. It is not an accident that they call for the new "Non-Aligned Movement" which is a clear desire to actually support a conflict-driven world by supporting one side vs. another (typical Stalinist, reformist and nationalist mindset in oppressed countries).

So it is obvious that it is not even a pacifist or anti-war statement but the most pro-war statement and position because it implies that the Great Powers shall engage in conflicts to perform their politics of non-alliance (btw alliance imply the formation of great power camps which fight against each other).

on upcoming u.s. elections

Dayne Goodwin

The Democrats Will Probably Lose the Midterms, Because Our Society Is Falling Apart
by Liza Featherstone, Jacobin, Nov. 2

The Democrats are too beholden to the rich, and they face structural obstacles that are too daunting, to address the profound sense of social collapse that afflicts the US today.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

  .  .  .
...The Republicans have punitive and semifascist appeals to fall back on, but the Democrats are in a bind: they’re supposed to be the party of regular people, but they’re also wholly beholden to the rich.

So, when they can’t get everyone to care enough about the Republicans’ unpopular positions on issues like abortion, they’re screwed. And they may not be able do that this year.

There’s no quick fix here. I’d love to credibly argue that the Democrats could address this problem by running more Berniecrats and democratic socialists against Republicans in red and purple districts, and perhaps, again, for president. We have every reason to believe that more democratic socialist policies would produce a healthier, safer society, with a less-anxious public, thus making far-right politics less appealing.

But unfortunately, we don’t have the deep electoral experience and massive local presence that might allow us to say that in the United States as it is currently constituted, the democratic socialist message would win over conservative or swing voters any better than the centrist one. ...

That means that, whatever the outcome on Election Day, there is no magic bullet: the solution is to fight the Right, build working-class institutions, and continue to strive for a mass base for socialism. These are dark times, but we do know what to do.
  #  #  #

Re: On the Actual Relevance of the Fraud by Vernik and Others

David Walters

the most concise set of non-sequiturs I've seen for a while.
Walter queries if there is anyone on this list actually in Ukraine?

Well, yeah, the person whose thread this is about in the first place. I'm wondering why this is important 'cuz everyone who has commented has taken different position. I haven't been to Cuba in 40 years now but I know enough to suggest that U.S. actions toward it are wrong. But I don't live there, my POV invalid?

Yet the nearly unanimous opinion is all out in favor of the war. majority
position of those who've voiced and an opinion are totally and absolutely AGAINST the war. What do you not quite get about "Russia Out of Ukraine Now!"???
No word by these pro-war voices against ANY aspect of US Ukraine policy.
Hmm...well, I can remember a few:
  1. that the U.S. is getting ready to betray Ukraine in it's just fight to defend itself from Russian Imperialism
  2. The U.S. should give whatever Ukraine wants to defend itself in the above mentioned fight.
  3. The U.S. should NOT try to force Ukaine into surrendering territory for "peace".
  4. The U.S. should NOT try to force Ukraine into NATO or (IMO) worse: the EU
  5. That U.S should NOT impose the neo-liberal roll back of workers rights on Ukraine (which it has done already it appears).
I"m sure there are more, maybe others have some stuff to add...
For example, the red carpet for 100,000 Ukrainians as Haitians are shipped back.
So that is not an example of "aspects of US Ukraine policy" but aspects of the U.S. border policy. the problem here, Walter, is that you are engaging in "whataboutism". That YOU counterpoise the compeltely just struggle of Haitian immigrants to that of Ukrainian ones is really...I'm not sure honestly what to call it. What DO you call someone who counterpoises the struggle to immigrate to the US by two different sets of oppressed people fleeing violence and hatred? ALL Ukrainians and Haitians fleeing their home land should be let into the U.S. Yes?


Eric Draitser: Why Many Global South Countries Side with Russia

Charles Keener

I find Eric to be one of the clearest, most helpful voices on Putin's war on Ukraine.


Why Many Global South Countries Side with Russia -

The latest on the war, including:
– Russia’s allies in the Global South
– Why does Ukraine, a former colony, not elicit sympathy from former colonies in Africa?
– Putin’s anti-colonial speech
– Summary of UNHCR report on Russian war crimes in Ukraine from Feb-March 2022
– Sexual violence, summary executions, and unspeakable atrocities carried out by Russian soldiers
– Should Russians be allowed into Europe as tourists?
– How Putin has reorganized the Russian state
– Putin’s “Coordination Council” as a tacit admission of failure thus far

Re: Opinion | My Teenage Years With the Black Panthers - The New York Times

John A Imani

1968 thru 1969, I wasn't in the Panthers but I was in the BSU at LACC and was LACC's representative to the Black Students Alliance (BSA), mother body of all BSUs in the greater LA area. Now the LACC branch was composed of an unlikely alliance of Panthers, (their arch rivals) The US Organization, Nation of Islam adherents, Viet Nam war veterans, assorted hippies, bippies, free spirits and at least one internationalist communist, me.


The BSA, as a whole, was pro Panther and anti-US and yet despite this affinity, the Panthers wanted to subjugate the LACC BSU to its will. We said "Naw" and the Panthers said that they would meet us at SW LA Jr College. So one warm day in '68 there were some 10 or so BSAers in coats waiting on them. I had my roommate's .38 over-under 2 shot derringer with bout 5 other bullets in a pocket. My roommate, fresh out the Marine Corps and given to jumping over bank counters, like most of the other BSA'ers carried either semi-automatic 9mms or .38 revolvers. They never showed and the harassment of the BSA ceased after that. The following winter in early '69 the Panthers and the US Org had a shootout on UCLA's campus leaving LA Panther leaders Bunchy Carter and John Huggins dead.



Quickly after that there was a police raid on the BSU at Carver Jr High School (sponsored and mentored by an iconic teacher of Japanese descent, Fred Kawano, most oft-clothed in a Mao suit with a Red Book in his jacket pocket). I previously on this list had posted a most similar accounting. The BSA ordered all BSU's out on strike and to close their schools down. LACC was the only successful one where we closed down and held for 2 1/2 days against right wing students backed by the LAPD. Here is what was interesting about that: at LACC there was no nevermind between Panthers and US Organization members. The LACC Union was too strong for that fratricidal bullshit. Prior to that the BSU in alliance with, our closest comrades, the Mexican-Amercian Student Association (MASA soon to be UMAS nee MECHA); along with SDA, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and assorted other hippies and bippies and assorted free spirits, etc had won control of the LACC Student Council, got black and brown studies and teachers and the newspapers ‘The Black Call’ and ‘El Machete’.


The killings at UCLA triggered a power struggle for control of the BPP in LA between Elmer ‘Geronimo’ Pratt and Julius (called ‘Julio’ (Jew-li-o)) Butler who lived in the apartment directly above my mother’s at 2807 Hillcrest 90016.


One time I came to see her and she had a most-worried look on her face and I said “Momma, what’s wrong?” She put a ‘whisper finger’ to her lips saying “Listen. They gonna kill somebody up there.”


I went up the stairs and knocked on the door and Julio opened the peep hole and let me in. I said “Julio, what’s going on?” I turned and saw two young men on their knees on the floor with some blood spots around them and a gun toting, I guess, Panther threatening to hit them again. He said “Imani, I think we got us two US niggers.”


One of them turned and I saw who it was. It was Felix from across the street. Felix was a good ‘red devil’- (seconal barbiturate-) -dropping dope fiend who lived across the street--As a digression, one day looking out my mother’s picture frame window I saw Felix full of ‘stumblers’ literally fall across the street. He started falling on the east side of Hillcrest and kept falling until gravity finally won out over will and he crashed into the bushes in front of our apartment--I snapped I said “Julio, that’s fckn Felix...from across the street. He ain’t no US nigger.” It later came to me that Julio was proving his ‘bona fides’, i.e. toughness to the other Panther. It’s another long story but Julio ended up testifying against ‘Geronimo’ and a murder trial that got ‘G’ a 25 year stay in the pen.


But one last story that brings back the LA Panther’s influence. The LA BPP’s office was at “41st and Central” (later the name of location as title of a documentary about the LAPD's assault on and bombing of the office.) I had ‘jaywalked across Central when I heard the ‘squawk burp’ of a cop car. I panicked and ran into the Panthers’ office. Elaine Brown went out one or two doors to the south to a pool room and came out with 5 or 6 brothers...with pool cues. Cops left.


So I am the first to admit that we made a lot of mistakes. Sometimes we did more harm than good. But there was and is no ‘playbook’ to the making of a revolution but there are lessons that might be learned. First among them is that we cannot become what we are against. Militancy must be subject to ideals and not vice-versa.

Re: On the Actual Relevance of the Fraud by Vernik and Others

Walter Lippmann <walterlx1944@...>

Is there a single person on this list actually in Ukraine? Yet the nearly unanimous opinion is all out in favor of the war. 

No word by these pro-war voices against ANY aspect of US Ukraine policy. For example, the red carpet for 100,000 Ukrainians as Haitians are shipped back.

Walter Lippmann 
Los Angeles 
November 3, 2022

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 4:21 AM John Reimann <1999wildcat@...> wrote:
So I am right about the Progressive International. I would note one thing: So far, what could be called the RT left (influenced by RT), has shown a decided lack of interest in anything that anybody in Ukraine has to say. Now they have found their man. I find it difficult to see how he will not take their position on the war. In that case, he will be paraded around as this bold and brave union organizer. That is, unless they cannot bury his sordid past.

John Reimann

“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https: also on Facebook

Re: FW: New Left Review, Ernest Mandel on "Ukraine's war of national self-defence"

Michael Meeropol

Let's remember that after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the French Communist Party was "all in" with the resistance --- they were so effective and so well respected by the broad French public that they ended up being politically so important when the war ended that the original French government after WW II included communists in the coalition.

they earned their spurs in the resistance ---

YES -- they followed Stalin's policies which I am sure the Fourth International found to be "sell out" but that's another issue ...

It was through their participation in the resistance that they gained political "chops" with the majority of the French population (once the war was over =-- of course -- we all know that the statement that "all of France" was part of the resistance is bullshit....)

Re: Foreign Affairs article on negotiations

Marv Gandall

Another article along the same lines in Foreign Affairs, this one urging US policymakers to prepare the Ukrainian government and people for an eventual peace settlement which will fall short of their war aims.

The overriding US interest, says Washington-based policy analyst Emma Ashford, is to avoid "the twin spectres of a broader war with NATO and of the use of nuclear weapons. The global economic costs of the conflict are already enormous and will almost certainly increase with the onset of winter.”

Concretely, this means the US "should not be irrevocably devoted to the pre-February 24, or even pre-2014, status quo. A more territorially compact Ukraine, shorn of Crimea and some of the Donbas—both of which retain some pro-Russian populations—might be more stable and defensible.” 

Ashford is cognizant that “if Zelensky accepts an unpopular settlement, it could lead to his defeat at the ballot box. In these circumstances, she writes, "a deal in which Ukrainians feel that they have largely triumphed is more likely to succeed. This makes it all the more important to manage expectations now. Washington should encourage Kyiv to take a more moderate stance on issues, such as Crimea, that are likely to figure in a future settlement; to tone down triumphalist talk, and to emphasize the economic rewards that Ukraine stands to receive through international reconstruction aid and European economic integration under a settlement.”

Meanwhile, the US and its NATO allies should continue to provide military and financial aid "with an eye to putting Ukraine in the best negotiating position” at the point both sides accept that "the costs of continuing to fight will outweigh the benefits...Today, the battlefield is still dynamic; both parties think they are going to triumph. A settlement will become possible only when the outcome on the battlefield becomes more apparent.” However the Biden administration "should make clear to Kyiv, at least in private, where the limits of American support lie and what the White House perceives as unacceptable escalation risks. Setting clear expectations now reduces the risk of misperception in Kyiv."

As for Russia, Ashford believes "it may be possible to find some face-saving deal in which de facto realities, such as Russian legal control of Crimea, could be recognized, and which the Kremlin could portray to the Russian public as genuine concessions by the West”. Sanctions relief and the unfreezing of some of its foreign reserve holdings could also be used to obtain Russian concessions, she notes.