 |
| (Militant/Hilda Cuzco) |
I assume a longer account of the proceedings is forthcoming--I certainly hope so since the banner looks more interesting than usual. I will get to it, but I'm going to be in the Philippines for the next two weeks so there may be a delay.
Further Reading:
 |
| Pro Hamas demonstration in Berlin (Source) |
While generally fair-minded, his post has an antisemitic, pro-Islamist slant. Not least, he insists on the Islamist framing of the Gaza war as "genocide"--a lie that reveals his true sympathies.
Mr. Chingo's lede paragraph (links in original):
Donald Trump has taken the riskiest and most potentially devastating step of his second term: a full-scale air strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, described by his advisors as “limited and contained.” The White House is seeking to sell the operation as a surgical strike aimed at neutralizing a growing threat, not launching an all-out war in the Middle East.
The attack — which hit the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites — constitutes a high-stakes gamble on Trump’s part.
He's right about the risk! The TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moniker never fit the man--in both business and politics he was never afraid of risks. Usually he wins; sometimes he loses.
As has become apparent over the past 24 hours, Trump has likely won the gamble with his Iran bombing. As Mr. Chingo puts it,
Tehran is perhaps most likely to go a third way: a calibrated, symbolic but noisy retaliation that allows it to save face without crossing Washington’s red lines.
The other two possibilities Mr. Chingo lists are a literal surrender, or a reprisal intended to draw the US into an all-out war. As Mr. Chingo predicted, the purely performative "attack" on a US base in Qatar was, in fact, this third way. So all the panicking about the US being drawn into another endless conflict as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan seems moot.
A prolonged war is not very likely, no matter what happens. There is no chance the US will launch a ground invasion of Iran, and for one very good reason--we'd lose! Iran, a country with 90 million people, sits on a high plateau surrounded by mountains. Any invasion will require hundreds of thousands of troops and be fought on terrain that heavily favors the defenders. Unlike Iraq, Iran is a coherent polity that has existed for centuries, and unlike Afghanistan, it has a strong central government. In short, Iran could and would put up a fight.
It's with Mr. Chingo's further analysis that some problems emerge. He writes
It’s further proof that Tel Aviv is no longer acting simply as an ally of Washington, but as an actor seeking to manipulate its protector. This represents a dangerous reversal of the traditional division of roles between the imperialist center and its client states, with unpredictable consequences in the various global geopolitical scenarios, where the United States intended to delegate its former role as global policeman.
This is correct--Israel is not (and never was) a mere puppet of the US. Disagreements began in 1956 with the Suez Crisis when Israel, allied with France & the UK, invaded Egypt upon Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower strongly objected, and eventually forced the invaders to withdraw. There have been other incidents since, eg here.
Mr. Chingo's weasel word is "imperialist," perhaps the most meaningless word in the English language. "Imperialist" suggests that there is some spiritual authority above both the US and Israeli governments that mysteriously guides the policies of the two nations. Such a mythical enterprise does not exist. For a guide to policy it's best to take Trump and Netanyahu at their words.
For example, Trump clearly is not interested in regime change: "I don’t want it. I’d like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible... Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don’t want to see so much chaos, so we’ll see how it does.” Conversely, Netanyahu was all-in on assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei: "It's not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict."
This represents a fundamental disagreement between the two allies--and not even the all-powerful "imperialists" can remove it. The security interests of the US and Israel diverge on this point. By strength of arms, the US won the argument.
Mr. Chingo says something funny.
The bombing of Iran not only marks a turning point for Trump’s presidency, but could redefine the global security architecture for decades to come. The message it leaves is brutal in its clarity: deterrence is no longer based on treaties or negotiations, but on the ability to strike first and strike hard.
Deterrence was never based on treaties or negotiations. Those peaceful processes were never more than the velvet glove covering the fist. At the end of the day, global politics is about force--it has always been thus and always will be so. I'm surprised that Mr. Chingo--a so-called materialist--doesn't see this.
The second article that offends, by Left Voice author Nathaniel Flakin, is entitled Berlin’s Biggest-Ever March for Palestine. He claims that "50,000 people protested against the genocide in Gaza."
First, he claims that a "genocide" is happening in Gaza, which is obviously false--and reflects a hidden agenda.
 |
| (Source: Hunger Strike for Palestine Launched at CUNY) |
Free Palestine is a very thinly disguised exhortation to kill all the Jews living in Israel. Another of Hamas' favorite slogans is Globalize the Intifada, which can only be read as demanding the extermination of all Jews worldwide. Mr. Rodriguez took the slogans literally and got a head start on said extermination--he murdered two Jews in cold blood.
Professor Hoff obviously agrees with both Hamas and Mr. Rodriguez--the only good Jew is a dead Jew. In his article entitled Don’t Blame the Palestine Movement or the Left for the Jewish Museum Shooting, he justifies Mr. Rodriguez's act in two ways:
 |
| Professor Hoff calls this "genocide" (https://www.anera.org/how-big-is-gaza/) |
War is terrible and all deaths are tragic. But there is a world of difference between war casualties and gratuitous murder. There is also a big difference between war casualties and genocide. There is no genocide taking place in Gaza--Professor Hoff and his comrades are just lying about that.
Second, he claims any sympathy for the DC victims is just hypocrisy, exaggerated by media outlets such as the New York Times. The goal of the media is "to actively propagate the lie that the movement for Palestine is a violent and antisemitic threat to domestic peace."
Really!? Is Professor Hoff claiming that Hamas is nonviolent, and that Oct. 7th was just a peaceful walk in the park? He apparently also believes that purposely killing Jews isn't antisemitic! His justification is silly (links omitted).
The New York Times, for instance, has repeatedly stated, without evidence, that the shooting was an act of antisemitism, despite the fact that both of the victims were employed by the Israeli state, and that reports suggest Rodriguez chose his targets deliberately. Furthermore, as his manifesto makes plain, his actions were clearly driven by his outrage at the ongoing genocide in Gaza and had nothing to do with hatred of any ethnic or racial group. Such knee-jerk conflations of anti-zionism and antisemitism have by now become standard practice for most of the U.S. media.
Cruelly murdering two Jews only because they're Israeli seems obviously antisemitic--what other evidence do you need? Mr. Hoff says the murderer wasn't really killing Jews, but rather only "Zionists." Among Israelis this is a distinction without a difference. For Hamas (and for anybody else who uses Hamas slogans) there is no daylight between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Does our professor really believe that Zionists in the United States should just be gunned down for no other reason? Apparently Yes, he does.
Because the murderer is connected to the communist Party for Socialism and Liberation grouplet, his act is seen as a black mark against all socialists. Professor Hoff complains
Such obvious red-baiting clearly has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people or stopping real antisemitism of the kind promoted by people like Elon Musk and the Far Right. Instead it is designed to encourage more repression and violence against those who support the movement for Palestine and the entire Left.
Except demanding the extermination of all Jews in Palestine (and worldwide) as Hamas and its followers do--is definitionally antisemitic! I don't know what comments Elon Musk has made that cause the professor to think he's an antisemite, but unlike Hamas and Professor Hoff, Mr. Musk has never, ever called for the murder of all Jews (whether or not they're Zionists).
Professor Hoff is a raving antisemite, and American antisemitism is today a disease of the Left-- including many in the Democratic Party. The professor has a right to free speech, despite the fact that what he says is vile. But nobody who advocates for and defends the slaughter of Jews should be employed as a professor at a public university.
While Professor Hoff's piece reveals the deeply illiberal and murderous intentions of Left Voice, the other article we consider today better belongs as an SNL skit. These antisemites (depicted above) are nothing if not a self-parody.
The lede paragraph reporting on their hijinks reads,
As the Israeli genocide of Gaza intensifies and a famine is declared, a group of eight faculty, students, and staff from across the City University of New York (CUNY) have launched an indefinite hunger strike outside the Graduate Center in Manhattan. They will be at this location from 12 to 6 pm every day and are demanding that, “Chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez and the CUNY Board of Trustees immediately divest from the zionist state and from all weapons and technology manufacturers equipping the israeli-US genocide in Palestine.” The hunger strikers are launching a fundraiser to support families in Gaza and hosting political education, art, and mutual aid events for the local community in New York.
I'm not sure what the point of a hunger strike is. Are they trying to prove how stupid they are? Do they want us to feel sorry for them? Is it an act of virtue-signaling directed at fellow antisemites? I suspect the latter--you and me are not part of their intended audience.
Though one has to wonder how serious this is. They're in public from noon to 6pm--and for all I know afterwards they go to McDonalds for a good dinner.
Their demands are as kooky as the project itself. They want 1) CUNY to divest from Israel, and 2) to divest from all "weapons and technology manufacturers" equipping the "genocide." These are impossible.
Israel is fully integrated into the global economy, and "divesting" from Israel means sticking all your money under a mattress. This won't happen. Similarly divesting from specific industries is equally impossible--Israel produces much of the software that is built into Silicon Valley technology.
Our antisemitic comrades are all pro-poverty. Their best solution for Palestinians between the River & the Sea is to completely destroy the Israeli economy, driving all residents of whatever nationality into dire poverty. It's worse than absurd. These people are just a joke.
Further Reading:
