Politics
Negativity and the Budget
The commentary that surrounds the Federal Budget is a noise of dissatisfaction and ‘negative bias’. The reality is that the ‘power of constant attack’ will make it harder to co-operate together, in bipartisan fashion, on crucial matters. Is there another way? My cousin has written of the courage and fortitude of our farming forebears. They Continue reading »
Can music conquer all? You bet
“It’s a bit silly in this day and age but that’s how it is.” Russell Chapman is well-placed to talk about what he’s called the “West of Scotland disease”. That is the continuing bitter rivalry between Rangers, “the Queen’s team”, and Celtic, with its “loyalty to [the church of] Rome”. As a five or six-year-old, Continue reading »
From ‘isolated’ Russia with love: Moscow festival unites filmmakers from the Global South and the West
At one of the world’s oldest film festivals, 240 pictures from 50 countries were shown in Russia. Last week the 46th Moscow International Film Festival (MIFF) concluded in Moscow. MIFF was first held in 1935 and is one of the oldest film festivals in the world. Over the years, its winners have included some of Continue reading »
Protest and dissent can absolutely push the empire to retreat on Gaza
It is entirely possible for the surging anti-genocide protest movement and its accompanying zeitgeist in the general public to push the empire to retreat on Gaza. The imperial murder machine has many strengths, but it also has weaknesses. The globe-spanning power structure that is loosely centralised around Washington has invested in perception management more heavily Continue reading »
Neither Candidate Has Much to Say About Israel. So Why Is AIPAC Pouring Money Into This Race?
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee said its top priority this cycle was to oust members of the progressive Squad. But the group has also been quietly pouring money into another Democratic primary: a competitive race for an open congressional seat in Maryland. AIPAC’s target? Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who was in the Capitol during the January 6 attacks.
Neither Dunn nor his rival, state Sen. Sarah Elfreth, has been particularly outspoken in support of or against Israel, raising the question of why AIPAC is involved in the race at all.
In the last month, AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has poured $4.1 million into the race to support Elfreth. Some 20 candidates are running for the open seat in Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District, where incumbent Rep. John Sarbanes announced in October he would not seek reelection. Dunn and Elfreth are leading fundraising.
In individual campaign contributions, Dunn has outraised Elfreth almost 4 to 1, with $4.5 million to her $1.4 million. But considering the outside boost from AIPAC, the group has given Elreth’s campaign a significant leg up: The pro-Israel group’s super PAC has spent almost as much as Dunn has raised. Elfreth has distanced herself from AIPAC’s support and said she was unaware that the group’s super PAC would be spending on her behalf.
Elfreth’s campaign is also getting support from at least 12 donors who’ve given between $1,000 and $6,600 who have also given major support to far-right Republicans including former President Donald Trump, according to campaign filings reviewed by The Intercept. At least five of the donors are registered Republicans.
More than 100 of Elfreth’s donors have also given significant amounts to AIPAC’s political action committees. In total, donors to Elfreth have given more than $2.8 million to those PACs.
Dunn’s campaign released an ad last week criticizing Elfreth and claiming she’s aligned with far-right Republicans. Donors to Elfreth’s campaign include Larry Mizel, the former Colorado finance chair for Trump’s 2016 campaign; real estate developer Robert Sarver; former AIPAC President Edward Levy; and Daniel Kraft, president of Kraft Group International and the son of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. Several of the donors have given to Republicans including Trump, Nikki Haley, Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla.; Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
In a statement to The Intercept, Dunn criticized Elfreth’s campaign for accepting money from AIPAC’s super PAC and called on other candidates to condemn the outside spending, which he said was dark money “bankrolled by MAGA Republicans.” Taking the money in effect condones AIPAC’s actions, Dunn said, which include endorsing more than 100 candidates who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“Dark money was solicited into this race.”
“Any candidate who receives this support refuses to condemn their meddling in this race and essentially accepts the endorsement of an organization that has backed over 100 candidates and members of Congress who incited the rioters I fought on January 6th and tried to overthrow our democracy,” Dunn said. “Right after I announced my plan to protect our democracy from outside special interests who try to influence elections, dark money was solicited into this race.”
Elfreth’s campaign recently removed from its website a red box: a common campaign tactic used to encourage outside spending on races without violating rules prohibiting campaigns from coordinating with super PACs. The red box provides material that outside PACs can use in their communications. Elfreth had previously acknowledged the red box and said that a teacher’s union might use it to support her, according to the nonprofit news site Maryland Reporter.
Related
AIPAC and Republican Donors Raising Big Money for Maxine Dexter Against Susheela Jayapal in Oregon
It’s not clear what drew AIPAC into the race. At a forum in April, both candidates offered support for efforts by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., to condition aid to Israel. Dunn himself has been supportive of Israel and has said the country has a right to defend itself. He has supported sending U.S. funding to Israel and increasing humanitarian aid to Gaza. Dunn has not been outspoken against human rights abuses by Israel or U.S. military aid. And Elfreth is not running a particularly pro-Israel campaign.
A United Democracy Project spokesperson told Jewish Insider the group was not concerned about Dunn’s position on Israel, but that it was spending on the race to ensure Elfreth won out over other candidates in the race it described as “anti-Israel.”
The super PAC said it was supporting Elfreth because of her position on other issues like the right to abortion, climate change, and domestic violence. Dunn is campaigning on a similar platform, emphasizing the right to abortion, strengthening voting rights, environmental protection, and working toward Medicare for All.
United Democracy Project has not run negative ads against Dunn.
Neither Elfreth’s campaign nor the United Democracy Project responded to a request for comment.
The post Neither Candidate Has Much to Say About Israel. So Why Is AIPAC Pouring Money Into This Race? appeared first on The Intercept.
We do not have a national debt
I posted this video this morning:
The transcript is as follows:
We don't have a national debt in the UK. We do have national savings, but we don't have a national debt, whatever you are told day in and day out by our politicians and by financial journalists and everybody else. Why do I say we haven't got a national debt? Well, the simple fact is that the national debt has two sides to it.
One side is that the government owes somebody money, and therefore, we say they're in debt, and the other side is that somebody has an asset. This is true of all financial transactions in the world. Every transaction has two sides to it. That's what accounting is built upon: debits and credits, ins and outs, pluses and minuses, call them what you will.
In the case of our so-called national debt, undoubtedly, the government has a credit, which is said to be a debt, but somebody else has a debit, and that is an asset. Now, that asset is private wealth, because quite literally what the national debt represents is money that people have chosen to deposit with the government for safekeeping.
That's something which is identical to what happens with a bank. People can choose to save their money in a bank, and when they do, nobody goes around and says, “Oh, the bank's in trouble, it's in debt, it's got to repay, everybody put money into it, and therefore if it doesn't it will all go bust.” No, they don't.
They actually want to encourage people to put money in the bank because the more money the bank has, the better it looks to be, the stronger it is, and the more likely it is it can pay off its creditors. Everyone feels as though they would like to be in the biggest bank because that is the safest bank. Well, why don't we use that logic when we look at the government?
The government is already the ultimate safe place to put your money because they make the money and therefore can always repay you without fail, whatever happens, because they can always make some more if they need to repay you whenever you demand it. But more than that, the government is simply providing you with a safe place to put your money when it creates the national debt, as it is called.
It offers you a savings facility. And we know that's true, because it's called National Savings and Investments or NS& I, its own savings bank. Which includes things like premium bonds. They're part of the national debt, by the way. So if you own any, or if you know somebody who owns any, do you know, they've got part of the national debt? They don't think that there's any crisis being created by that. They actually think they've got something which is valuable.
They have. They really do have, because the government will pay it back to them if they want to be repaid because it's a savings account.
But they also offer things like straightforward savings and deposit accounts. I've actually got some savings with NS&I. Seemed like a good deal at the time.
What about the rest of the so-called national debt?
Most of it is called government bonds. Well, if you go into many building societies and banks and ask if you can save money over a year or two, they'll offer you a bond, literally identical almost to the government, but for one thing. If you save your money in a bond with a High Street bank, only you can get the money back.
If you save your money in a bond that the government issues, you can sell the bond to somebody else. That's literally the only difference between what the High Street bank offers you and what the government offers you. You can sell it in less than three, four, five years - however long it lasts in the case of a government bond. You can't in the case of a building society. But otherwise, bonds are simply savings accounts.
So if we've got piles of money being saved with the government, do we have a government with a debt crisis when none of those people want to be repaid, they're all very happy to hold their money there, and they don't want it back?
No, of course we haven't got a debt crisis and nor should we be obsessing about how we have to repay it because it's a burden on our grandchildren.
The truth is the lucky grandchildren will inherit part of the national debt because it's part of their parents’ or grandparents’, or whoever else's, estate left to them in their wills.
So, the truth is that we don't have a national debt. We just have a National Savings Bank, and just as banks have creditors on their balance sheets for the sums that they owe back to the people who save with them, so does the government, but it doesn't mean it's in debt as such. It just means it's operating a banking facility, and that's what, in this case, the credit on its balance sheet means. There is no possible debt crisis in the UK created by people wanting to save with the government.
Let's stop talking about the national debt as if it's a burden, and let's start looking at it as if it's a national asset. Because that's exactly what it is for those people who save with the government.
Israel “Likely” Used U.S.-Supplied Weapons in Violation of International Law. That’s OK, Though, State Department Says.
In a long-awaited report, the State Department lays out numerous suspected international humanitarian violations by Israel in its war on Gaza, yet suggests no changes in policy or consequences.
The Biden administration concludes it is likely that Israel used U.S.-supplied weapons in “incidents that raise concerns” about the country’s legal compliance, while crediting Israel for investigating them.
The report also concludes Israel is not currently blocking humanitarian aid, despite “deep concerns” about “action and inaction” by the government resulting in aid delivery to Gaza that “remains insufficient.”
The State Department said it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israeli forces have used U.S. weapons in ways “inconsistent” with international humanitarian law or “best practices for mitigating civilian harm.” But at the same time, the report hedges, “it is also important to emphasize that a country’s overall commitment” to international law “is not necessarily disproven by individual [international humanitarian law] violations, so long as that country is taking appropriate steps to investigate and where appropriate determine accountability.”
The report also hedges on Israel’s responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza. The U.S. intelligence community assessed there was “no direct indication of Israel intentionally targeting civilians,” but also “that Israel could do more to avoid civilian harm.”
“While Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations, the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.”
The 46-page report includes a section addressing the Leahy Law: a 1997 law that prohibits U.S. assistance to “any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” The 14-some pages regarding Israel specifically make no mention of the law, or whether Israel is in compliance with it.
Friday’s report was submitted under a national security memorandum issued by the Biden administration in February. The memorandum — known as “NSM-20” — required the State and Defense departments to obtain “credible and reliable written assurances” that Israel was not using any U.S.-supplied weapons in violation of international law. Israel provided these assurances in mid-March.
NSM-20 also required the administration to report to Congress on whether there were any “credible reports or allegations” that undercut Israel’s assurances. In recent weeks, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a coalition of humanitarian organizations flagged numerous incidents to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Last month, 26 Democrats — including one of President Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairs — questioned U.S. assertions at the time that Israel was using U.S. weapons in accordance with international law, given “mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations that Israel has used U.S arms in ways that violate U.S. and international law.” This followed a similar letter sent from 17 Senate Democrats in March.
An unclassified version of the report was published Friday afternoon by Just Security.
After the report’s publication, an independent task force called it “at worst intentionally misleading in defense of acts and behaviors that likely violate international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes.” The task force includes two former senior State Department officials, Charles Blaha and Josh Paul, and human rights attorney Noura Erakat. “Once again, the Biden Administration has stared the facts in the face — and then pulled the curtains shut.”
As the deadline for the administration’s report approached, officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, joined by parts of the State Department, urged Blinken to find Israel’s commitments were not credible or reliable when it comes to allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. “The killing of nearly 32,000 people, of which the GOI (Government of Israel) itself assesses roughly two-thirds are civilian, may well amount to a violation of the international humanitarian law requirement,” USAID wrote in a submission to Blinken, according to reporting from Reuters.
Israel’s War on Gaza
But Friday’s report concludes that Israel is not “prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” at least within the meaning of U.S. law.
“I guess there was a little hope for me that Blinken would rule that the assurances from Israel weren’t credible,” said an official at USAID who spoke with The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
“The evidence is so clear,” the USAID official said, that “the government of Israel has systematically denied humanitarian aid” to Gaza in violation of international law. “USAID colleagues feel strongly there is only one way this could have turned out.”
In an “options memo” compiled for Blinken in recent weeks, some State Department bureaus came to the same conclusion, Reuters reported last month. In a joint submission, four bureaus raised “serious concern over non-compliance” with humanitarian law, including “unconscionably high levels of civilian harm to military advantage” and “killing humanitarian workers and journalists at an unprecedented rate.” That submission came from the bureaus of Democracy Human Rights & Labor; Population, Refugees and Migration; Global Criminal Justice; and International Organization Affairs.
Among the incidents in which the State Department says it has not been able to reach “definitive conclusions” on whether U.S.-supplied weapons were used was the killing of seven World Central Kitchen humanitarian workers, including an American.
This week, Biden admitted for the first time that Israeli forces have used U.S. bombs to kill civilians. In December, he stated that Israel was losing support over its “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza.
“For over 216 days, the world has watched Israel use weapons provided by the United States to commit mass atrocities and gross violations against Palestinians in Gaza. Civil society organizations, watchdogs, and former administration officials have documented and verified countless examples that have shown Israel’s assurances were never credible nor reliable,” said Mohammed Khader, action policy manager at the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. “The report is grossly incomplete and is far from holding Israel accountable for violating U.S. and international law.”
The post Israel “Likely” Used U.S.-Supplied Weapons in Violation of International Law. That’s OK, Though, State Department Says. appeared first on The Intercept.
South Africa asks ICJ to order halt to Rafah massacre as 110,000 Gazans flee advancing Israeli troops
The move comes as Australia, in a significant break from Israeli and US policy, voted yes in the UN General Assembly to upgrading Palestine’s UN membership status. The resolution passed with 143 countries voting in favour, nine voting against, and 25 abstentions. International Court of Justice press release follows. Application of the Convention on the Continue reading »
“Antisemitic hate crime”: US and Israel desperate to avoid ICC justice
Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has labelled prospective action by the International Criminal Court to hold him accountable for the murder of 14,500 children in Gaza as “an unprecedented antisemitic hate crime”. In recent weeks we are suddenly seeing heightened interest in the International Criminal court (ICC). It is necessary to understand just what it is, Continue reading »
Queen Rania of Jordan: What’s happening in Gaza is a war crime
This conflict has killed more children in five months than all the conflicts in the world in the past four years. Children have not been killed at this rate in any other time in history: the highest kill rate since the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Joy Reid: Joining me now is Her Majesty Queen Rania Continue reading »