Left Voice & The Election, 2024

 

(Source)

Sybil Davis and Jimena Vergara co-authored an article on Left Voice entitled Neither Harris nor Trump: Only the Working Class Can Fight the Rightward Shift. It's an analysis of the election as of a few days ago, Oct. 25th, that begins this way:

As the election roller coaster barrels on, the Harris campaign has lost some steam. Popular enthusiasm once drove the campaign to new heights and helped raise over $1 billion. Now Harris is struggling to win over undecided votes and is losing support among sectors that have previously strongly backed Democrats — such as Black and Latino men. After riding high on “vibes” after she replaced Biden and generated a huge wave of enthusiasm, Harris has failed to put forward a compelling vision for a country that is contending with inflation, natural disasters, and an increasingly unstable international situation that includes foreign conflicts that many Americans don’t want to be involved in.

In this context, Trump has repositioned himself to potentially win the election. Every poll shows an incredibly tight race in which either candidate can emerge as the winner. It will all come down to a handful of swing states. In this context, we must have as precise an analysis as possible of the situation and think towards what might happen after the election and what our response to the situation needs to be. 

This is remarkably boilerplate. The mainstream media couldn't have phrased it any better. It's surprising that leaders of the Trotskyist Faction (publishers of Left Voice) can't come up with anything different, given the amazing Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Vanguard/Dialectical tools at their disposal. Only the last quoted sentence suggests something unexpected is forthcoming.

Yet there are a few places where our comrades distinguish themselves. The first concerns "Palestine," where they ludicrously claim that Israel is committing "genocide." Without belittling the number of civilian casualties, and even acknowledging the possibility (unlikely, in my view) of war crimes, whatever the Israelis are doing does not rise anywhere near the level of genocide. Even if you take the Hamas figures at face value, under 45,000 people have been killed. This is about 2% of Gaza's population--nowhere close to "genocide." I've covered this before, most recently here. 

Then Comrades Davis and Vergara insist that today's Trump Republicans are "far" right. I guess the adjective depends on where you sit--if you're way off on the far-left Trotskyist fringe, then the Trumpians must seem as if they come from another planet. But no movement that earns roughly half the vote can be "far" anything. Almost by definition, Trump is a mainstream candidate. He has some supporters that might be classed as "far" right--Steve Bannon comes to mind--but Trump himself is not, and neither are most of his supporters.

Of course our authors are here repeating a Kamala talking point--that Trump is the second coming of "Hitler," no less. Whatever else Trump is, he's not a fascist. He has no army of storm troopers. He's not antisemitic. He doesn't hate Black people or Hispanic people ("Latinx" is how the comrades call them). The speaker list at Madison Square Garden included Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Hindus and women. The event was as American as apple pie.

Most recently, Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, has accused Trump of being a "fascist." To which our comrades respond:

Now, whether Trump meets the more precise political-economic definition of a fascist is a complex question that is too big to discuss here. What we can say, though, is that Kelly is correct that Trump is far-right and wants to take more authoritarian measures. But let’s not forget that the people who sent the cops to break up encampments and brutalize students were usually Democrats. The Democrats, too, are moving toward an increased authoritarianism (though not as blatantly and quickly as Trump is).

So even if he's not a "fascist," he's at least an "authoritarian." I'm not sure what that word means--if it means he's gonna use the powers of the office of the president, then he's like all other presidents. There was nothing that happened during his first term that in any way established him as particularly authoritarian. Mss. Davis and Vergara are right to point out that Democrats are equally authoritarian, though the example they give is not a good one. Encampments, blocking traffic and vandalizing property are not protected speech and any government has an obligation to enforce civic order.

Our friends write,

All this is to say: if Kamala Harris wins the election, the election will likely be challenged in court, along with street demonstrations whose character we cannot predict. On Election Day, MAGA supporters might try to intimidate minority voters and prevent them from voting. If Trump wins, the Democratic Party will likely concede. If this is the case, the party of the donkeys will suffer a profound defeat that it will blame on its progressive wing, the movement for Palestine, or Jill Stein. But the blame for any defeat will rest on the Democrats’ shoulders alone: the party is the graveyard of progressive social demands, and broad sectors of the working class, the middle classes, and the oppressed now understand this.

There are many problems with this paragraph.

1. The Trump campaign is MUCH better run today than in 2020, and their campaign has been almost error-free. In particular they have competent lawyers who are filing the lawsuits before the election (and winning some of them) which will make the election much fairer than in 2020. Accordingly, I think any argument that the election was stolen will be much weaker this time around.
2. The Trump campaign is trying very hard to recruit minority voters to their side. Far from trying to "intimidate" them, they're working to get them out to vote--especially Black and Hispanic men.
3. The so-called "movement for Palestine" is a disgrace. It's really a movement for Hamas--if there ever was a fascist movement, Hamas is it. 
4. Obviously if the Democrats lose, the fault will fall on the Democrats--though Republicans will surely take some credit for that outcome. 
5. How our comrades can claim that the Democrats are the "graveyard of progressive social demands" is beyond me. After all, Left Voice's program is 100% identical to that of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party--antisemitism included. So if one is a graveyard, then so is the other.

Comrades Davis and Vergara include these remarks in their final paragraph.

Whoever wins, we will need to fight to protect our rights and win our demands. Hopefully from this united front, a new political party can emerge. A party of workers and the oppressed that fights for socialism. The need to build a political alternative to the current parties is paramount, but so is the fight in the here and now. ... The vanguard and the socialist Left must embrace a revolutionary program and join together to lay the foundation for a new political party of the working class — one that raises high the banner of socialism.

Big words, that. I think Trump will likely win the election, including the popular vote. Which means he'll get at least 75 million votes, and the Democrats only slightly less. Approximately 50 people attended the most recent Left Voice congress. Trotskyists of all denominations have been calling for a labor party since the 1930's, always to no avail. No reason to think our comrade's call today will have a different outcome.

Further Reading:

• Oberlin, 2024
• The Trotskyist Faction on Haiti
• Malik Miah Defends Harvard

The End of Cuban Civilization

 

A little bedtime reading in Havana (source: EFE / AAP) 

The Militant, in an article which they must now find slightly embarrassing given the island-wide blackout last Friday, reproduces part of a report delivered to the UN General Assembly and released to the press last Sept. 12th. The dignitary responsible for the missive is Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez. The excerpt appears in The Militant under the title Cuba: ‘End Washington’s economic, trade war against our revolution!’.

I do have to give The Militant some credit here. None of the other so-called Trotskyist papers on my beat even mention Cuba. For example, the most recent article about the island in Left Voice was posted in February, 2022! And yet I believe all my Trotskyist friends believe Cuba to be a socialist/workers' state and a step toward our progressive, human future. But it appears none of them have any courage of their convictions. Except The Militant.

Mr. Rodriguez has the courtesy to admit that "All the difficulties faced by the Cuban society are not exclusively due to the blockade...", but the rest of the article condemns the US policy in no uncertain terms. And he does have a point, or perhaps a few of them.

• The US made it much more difficult for Cuba to respond to the pandemic by imposing restrictions on imports of ventilators and oxygen from third countries, among other things.
• The US "continued its pursuit of fuel supplies to Cuba." I assume that means the US tried to deny Cuban access to fuel on the world market.
• The US worked to "curtail the recovery of the Cuban tourism sector" post-pandemic, dealing a mortal blow to the country's main source of income.
• The US has refused to let Cuba use global financial networks, almost all of which go through US banks.
• The US--specifically the Biden administration--has refused to lift the Trump-era's "arbitrary inclusion of Cuba in the State Department’s unilateral list of alleged countries sponsoring terrorism."

I can't vouch for Mr. Rodriguez's facts, but he is certainly right that the US has not been a friend of Cuba. The question is: Why?

The problem begins in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis. The island allowed the Soviet Union to place nuclear-tipped warheads in Cuba, aimed at the United States. Now I know there are arguments on both sides, but the hard fact is that when somebody aims nuclear weapons in your direction--that somebody isn't gonna be a best friend. The Cuban government has never so much as apologized for that act. And more, until the Soviet collapse in 1991 they remained a staunch ally of the Soviet Union--and since then an ally of Russia.

Cuba sent troops to Angola to fight against American interests. Again, I know there are arguments on both sides, and I'm not sure America really had any interests in that war (besides oil). Still, when one of our nearest neighbors goes halfway around the world just to poke Uncle Sam in the nose--don't be surprised if Uncle Sam returns the favor.

In more recent years Cuba has aligned itself with the so-called "axis of evil," ie, that loose, anti-American alliance between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Venezuela used to be part of that group, but that country has long since committed economic and social suicide and is no longer a global player of any consequence. These countries work to resist US influence globally--and Cuba's alignment with them means they'll get no benefits from us.

Speaking of suicide--it looks like the Cuban power system may have breathed its last. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 18th,

Electricity went out across Cuba on Friday just hours after its cash-strapped government ordered the shutdown of nonessential businesses to save power as millions of residents were already suffering from widespread outages.

The country’s Energy Ministry said that a failure at the largest power plant sparked a nationwide blackout affecting the island’s 11 million residents. Utility workers were working to restore service, the ministry said on X.

An update today from Reuters tells us

Cuba's power-grid operator said it had restored electricity to parts of the capital Havana on Monday following a fourth major grid failure in 48 hours, while Tropical Storm Oscar lashed the island's eastern end.

They've made fantastic progress! The same article reports that

Cuban energy officials said they were providing to the grid around 700 megawatts, or one-fourth of a typical day's demand, by mid-morning. Authorities said they had restored power to 56% of Havana by midday. 

Note that "one-fourth of a typical day's demand" seems kind of silly. Even in normal times power is out for 20 hours per day for much of the island. One fourth of that says the power is available for only one hour per day. Such are the benefits of socialism.

We're told that "utility workers were working to restore service." I don't believe that. Utility workers in the United States can earn six figures. In Mexico it might be half as much. Even in poor countries like Guatemala and Honduras I'll suggest utility workers earn what counts for a living wage.

But not in Cuba. In Cuba the employees are paid in scrip and given a now increasingly useless ration card. This is no way to live.

According to Times Radio, in two years, 2022 & 2023, Cuba's population has declined from 11 million to 8.5 million, or a 23% drop. This is due to emigration--people are fleeing the island as fast as their little row boats can carry them. Do you really think many utility workers are still left in Cuba? Why would they stay when they can't even earn enough to feed themselves?

I think the Cuban electricity grid is down for the count. They don't have the fuel, they don't have spare parts, and now they likely no longer have the workforce. Cubans are just gonna have to get used to living without electricity--just as they did in the 19th Century when they were a Spanish colony.

Of course no electricity means no food, no water, no medical care, and for that matter, no schools. The link is to a video by Joe Blogs which appeared two weeks ago, ie, just before the great blackout. It looks like everything he predicted is coming true.

A Socialist Workers Party (publisher of The Militant) leader Mary-Alice Waters used to make frequent trips to Havana (eg, here) where she gave sitting-room only speeches to an audience of petty-nomenklatura. I doubt she'll be making such trips in the future. The island is too far gone.

Secretary Rodriguez can complain and moan and cry about the injustice of it all. And maybe he's right? Perhaps the US really is a scoundrel and has treated Cuba wrong? And it's likely the General Assembly will pass yet another meaningless resolution condemning the US behavior.

The US may be wrong, but it has behaved in a way that is totally predictable. If you want trading relations with the United States (and by extension, with the rest of the world), you have to be a US ally when it comes to foreign affairs. You can't side with the "axis of evil."

For many decades Castro gained political favor by blaming the US for everything. But those days are long gone. The only solution to Cuba's problems today begins with disavowing America's enemies, pledging to be a loyal partner in the Caribbean and in Latin America, and allowing the (mostly) free inflow of capital to help rebuild the economy. Because capital and expertise is what America has, and what Cuba needs.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us
• A Tale of Two Conferences
• The Philippines

Kamala vs. Trump: The Decline of America?

Left Voice author Sou Mi (who I think is female; apologies if I have that wrong) has written a think piece entitled Kamala Harris Wants to Revive an Empire in Decline. It's a well-written, worthwhile read that in my view is wrong in important ways. 

The confusion starts at the top. This is the "hook" paragraph--that's supposed to tempt you into reading the rest of the article.

As November pulls closer and the specter of another Trump presidency looms large, Harris is trying to present a different project for the future: one based in restoring a “rules based order” where the rules are fundamentally set by U.S. imperialism.

Only the last word grates--"imperialism" is a meaningless word that adds nothing to the paragraph. The paragraph would be better if she just omitted it, eg, rules are fundamentally set by the U.S. 

"Imperialism" occurs 22 times in the article, and all such mentions should be deleted, either as I illustrated above, or by substituting real institutions like "US foreign policy." Because foreign policy at least comes with an address (Foggy Bottom) and has somebody in charge (Antony Blinken). Unlike "imperialism," which is at best a vague conspiracy theory.

Otherwise she is quite correct--that Trump and Harris represent a decision point for American foreign policy. This observation is not original to her--it's been widely discussed in the mainstream media.

She paints the choice between the two this way. She says Harris

...has not only positioned herself as the heir to an administration that put diplomacy back on the table, but also presented a vision for the future: one based in the realization of an American leadership that will restore a “rules based order” through both diplomacy and might, and where the rules are fundamentally set by the U.S. imperialism.

This seems true. Kamala aspires to take us back to the good ol' days when America ruled the waves, owned the foreign exchange medium, and guaranteed world peace. 

Sou Mi accurately summarizes Trump's position, which I'll describe in my own words. Labelled "America First," it suggests that the US should withdraw from global affairs, mind it's own business, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, let the devil take the hindmost. When the enemy gets within 12 miles of our shores, then and only then will the world's greatest superpower be roused to action.

I exaggerate slightly. Trump is not quite as hands off as I've described, but only because he's forced to compromise with reality. The US really does have trade relations with other countries that need to be protected, notably with Mexico and Canada, but also with Europe and S.E. Asia. Those trade routes will require US policing. And more, the US has cultural and religious allegiances beyond our shores, eg, Israel, which even though it is of no strategic value whatsoever, we are bound to protect. (It does have economic value.)

But at his core, Trump is a pacifist. He does not want America involved in any war. He follows in the tradition of two prior pacifists, Nixon and Reagan, both of whom described the American strategy as having the biggest, baddest, meanest military the world has ever seen--and then never using it. "Peace Through Strength" is how previous generations (and Sou Mi) put it. It's Trump's strategy to a tee.

So the debate is between "The War Party," represented by Kamala, Liz Cheney, the journalists at The Bulwark, the CIA, and most college faculty. And "the Peace Party," championed by Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, journalists at ZeroHedge, and (apparently) most of America's working class.

I'm not sure which side Sou Mi is on: is she pro-War or pro-Peace? I don't think she knows, so befuddled is she by all those imaginary "imperialists" floating around in her head. I also don't really know what side I'm on--I can see virtues in both points of view. But I'll be voting for Trump.

So why now? Why is this choice presented to the American public in this election? Sou Mi has an answer (my emphasis).

Harris’s proposals... come amidst the growing tensions of an empire in decline, especially amidst the retreat of globalization when the United States, based on the export of manufacturing and exploitation of cheap labor in the global south (and particularly through the restoration of capitalism in China), and debt-fueled consumption, was able to rearticulate a unipolar order behind it.

Sou Mi's view is that, with the "empire in decline," there are two possible responses. One is, in spite of that, to double down and re-establish our weight in the world. This is what Kamala proposes to do. The other is to retreat into a shell and acknowledge defeat--the Trump strategy. Or, instead of War Party and Peace Party, we can think of them as the Recovering America's Greatness Party and the Surrender Party (which weirdly reverses the terminology the parties use to describe themselves).

I dispute that America is an empire in decline. For good reasons during the Cold War, the US served as the world's policeman, and provided the world with a reserve currency by running huge trade deficits. This enabled an unparalleled period of global economic growth, including, most notably, in China (bringing 400 million people out of poverty). Sou Mi ludicrously describes it as an act of "exploitation," which it definitely wasn't. It was, instead, an act of great generosity (albeit extended only to America's allies--and not to miscreants such as Cuba).

The question thus arises, can America continue to be so generous? Trump says no; Kamala responds yes. The problem is that, while America has certainly gotten richer over the past 70 years, the rest of the world has gotten richer faster and caught up. So Sou Mi is partly right: in relative terms, the US has declined, and is therefore no longer able to finance global trade as it once did. While in domestic terms our trade deficit has not yet declined, today as a fraction of total global trade it is too small a percentage to finance global trade.

In finance parlance, this is known as a shortage of eurodollars--and countries that don't have enough eurodollars (eg, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa, and on the cusp, China) are no longer able to import basic necessities such as food and fuel.

Whatever Kamala's intentions, she will not be able to reverse this relative decline in eurodollars, and the result will be a crimp in globalization. As there is no other reserve currency on the horizon, despite this shortage the Eurodollar will remain the world's reserve currency for the foreseeable future. The only country that can literally "print" eurodollars is the United States--we're sitting in the catbird seat.

Then there is our role as the global policeman. We guaranteed European borders, allowing European countries to all but defund their militaries. And likewise for Canada, Japan and the Philippines, among others. This, by itself, made people richer. We made the same guarantee to countries in the Middle East, fighting wars over Kuwait.

But being the world's policeman is expensive! And US taxpayers have to pay the bill. Trump has decided we don't need to do that anymore. For example, our efforts to keep the Red Sea open have come to naught--we're using million dollar missiles to shoot down the Houthi's thousand dollar drones, obviously not a sustainable operation. Technology has changed the nature of warfare. 

There's no reason for us to police the Red Sea--that's a job for the Europeans. We no longer have much interest in defending European borders. If Russia invades the Baltic states, we're probably not going to rise to their defense. We're not patrolling the Indian Ocean--India, Japan and China can fight over that one.

More, the Middle East is on its own. We still have an outpost in Qatar, but I predict that's not long for the world--Trump will bring them all home. The US has no dog in any fight over the Persian Gulf--we don't import any of their oil, and we have no reason to defend their sea lanes. That's up to the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese to work out. Good luck!

That's Trump's plan. Kamala says we're still gonna be the world's policeman. That's popular within the intelligence community and in the faculty lounge--but not among many common voters. It's one reason why I think she'll lose the election.

Sou Mi's article is worth reading. Apart from the gratuitous use of the word "imperialism," hers is an intelligent point of view.

Further Reading:

• The Eurodollar
• The Professor's Congress: The International Situation
• James P. Cannon Was Spectacularly Wrong

Sam Karlin Makes a Mess of the Middle East

 

Left Voice calls this "genocide"
(https://www.anera.org/how-big-is-gaza/)

Left Voice author Sam Karlin contributes a piece entitled The Demand for a Ceasefire Has Met Its Limits. He's got it all wrong. The article is a mess from top to bottom.

The major thesis is that the primary demand of leftist radicals--Ceasefire Now--is no longer useful. It is inconceivable, says Mr. Karlin, that Israel will ever agree to a ceasefire (by which he means unilateral Israeli surrender).

He may have written his piece a day or two early, but the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has recently announced that Hamas is destroyed as a military entity. Hence there already is something of a ceasefire in Gaza, and Israel has moved its forces to the Lebanon front. There is still some fighting in Gaza, but it is now reduced to individuals and small groups acting without any coordination.

Of course the huge civilian project remains: reconstructing Gaza and creating a political environment that will allow the enclave to thrive. That means defeating the ideology that requires the murder of all Jews, and replacing it with some win/win arrangement that serves the interests of both peoples. This will take a very long time--and may not succeed at all. In the latter case Gaza will remain an open-air prison as it has been for past decades.

But that's not Mr. Karlin's goal. His goal is

An end to the genocide, a full withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Middle East, the dissolution of the settler-colonial Zionist state, and full right of return for Palestinians and a free, secular, socialist Palestine from the River to the Sea are still achievable goals. They must be achieved, however, not through appeals or pressure on imperialism, but on international class struggle against imperialism.

The genocide has never happened--Gaza's population has been growing by over 2% annually--a birth rate higher than almost anyplace in the world. Prior to the war, life expectancy in Gaza was 75.7 years, which is above the global average (73.3 years). When it comes to genocide, the Israelis are pathetic failures. 

His goal of a "free, secular, socialist Palestine" is manifestly impossible. No party to the conflict wants a secular state: the Jewish rabbinate in Israel doesn't want that, and neither does Hamas, which insists on an Islamic state. Mr. Karlin needs to tell us who (beyond the 50 people in Left Voice) regard secular as a plausible outcome? Socialist is equally unpopular and desired by precisely nobody.

Then Mr. Karlin has this cockamamie picture of global politics.

Israel serves the vital role of an enforcer of U.S. interests in the Middle East. While the U.S. benefits from having Israel as a regional attack dog, Israel benefits from its relationship with the United States; an ally in the world’s main imperialist power allows it to project strength well beyond its size and population. For this reason, neither country can afford to seriously abandon the relationship, even in the current context, in which Israel is creating conditions that greatly harm U.S. imperialism’s broader interests.

The boogeyman in this scenario is something called "U.S. imperialism," an entity that doesn't exist. It's a meaningless word, and it explains precisely nothing about the relationship between the US and Israel. Israel is important to the US primarily for cultural and religious reasons, but also because it is a vital link in global trade, contributing much of the software for Silicon Valley. For those reasons it's more important to the US than any other country in the Middle East.

Consider the competition: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, and increasingly also Egypt, are all failed states, with unstable governments and rapidly declining economies. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are absolute monarchies, which lends them a patina of stability and good governance, but absent the oil wealth it's all a house of cards. The only politically stable countries in the region are Turkey and Iran--both of which exist on high, unassailable plateaus that have protected them from invasion throughout the centuries. But "stable" doesn't mean successful, and neither of those countries has a solid economic future.

The USA, especially as expressed by presidential candidate Donald Trump, just wants to wash its hands of the whole mess. We don't need the oil. We don't need the cotton. We don't lack for sand or camels. The Middle East (outside of Israel) is worth nearly nothing to us. Not even the oil is important--that's problem for Europe, China and Japan, not the USA.

The only thing we import from the Middle East are problems and terrorists.

Gaza is of no economic or strategic value to any country, least of all the United States. Israel would gladly transfer ownership of it to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Neither country wants it, and Egypt would be hopelessly destabilized by taking it. So Israel--for both practical and humanitarian reasons--will now be responsible for rebuilding Gaza.

Apart from the temporary deployment of the US Navy in the region, the US has about 34,000 troops in the Middle East. If you believe Mr. Trump, that's about 33,999 too many. The presence of the US military there will only shrink. Not because of the demise of "US imperialism," but rather because of the demise of the region's countries as partners in a global economy.

The problem in Lebanon is that Hezbollah has made much of northern Israel uninhabitable, and the Israeli government needs to get those citizens back in their homes. Not all northerners are Jewish; recall the Hezbollah rocket that killed 12 Druze children in the Golan Heights. Israel rightly regarded that as an attack on its citizens and responded appropriately. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets that it fires indiscriminately at Israeli civilians--and not just in the north.

As even Mr. Karlin must realize by now, Hezbollah (along with Hamas) is a cat's paw of Iran. For whatever reason Iran has a thing against Israel--they've been chanting Death to Israel for decades now, and they obviously mean it quite literally. Israel has to defend itself from Iran, and also from Hezbollah. Unlike the indiscriminate rocket fire from Hezbollah, Israel has very cleverly and successfully eliminated Hezbollah's officer corps. Now it has to eliminate the rocket stash--and then people on both sides of the border can return to their homes and live peacefully.

Mr. Karlin makes some implausible claims:

As anyone with a shred of credibility has pointed out for a year now, Netanyahu has everything to gain from prolonging the Israeli offensive in Gaza; he literally faces the possibility of going to prison as soon as he leaves office.

Mr. Netanyahu may or may not have legal problems, but the defense goals of his government have near universal support within Israel. There is no way the prime minister's legal issues have any influence.

This has fully emboldened the Israeli Far Right to pursue their long standing goal of expanding their settler-colonial regime to the West Bank and now Lebanon.

The "settler-colonial" phrasing is just an antisemitic slur. And nobody suggests Israel is going to annex southern Lebanon--that makes no sense at all. They just need to destroy Hezbollah's rockets.

Our author greatly exaggerates the importance of the Biden administration's efforts at a ceasefire. I think there are two possible reasons for their efforts, neither of which are particularly serious.

1) The administration wants to help Kamala win the election, for which she desperately needs the Arab votes in southeastern Michigan. Many of these voters are descendants of Maronite Christian immigrants from Lebanon and Syria--I wonder how much sympathy they have for Hamas? 

2) Antony Blinken--probably the most incompetent secretary of state this country has ever had--is lusting after a Nobel Prize, which would be his if only he could negotiate a unilateral Israeli surrender. To Mr. Netanyahu's credit, that has not happened.

It's got nothing to do with "US imperialism," whatever that is. Mr. Karlin has no clue.

Further Reading:

• The Trotskyist Faction on Haiti
• Left Voice and the Intifada
• "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"