Category: Uncategorized

MICHAEL LAVALETTE interviews TARIQ ALI

Over the last few decades, we have witnessed the growth of dynamic movements, like Stop the War. But we need to think about organisational outcomes, establishing networks and rebuilding a progressive political alternative.

January 4, 2025 Michael Lavalette interviews Tariq Ali  Counterfire

Following the publication of Tariq Ali’s latest memoirs, he spoke to Michael Lavalette about the contrasting periods covered in his autobiographies and the prospects for the left today.

Tariq Ali has been intimately involved in and written about, progressive, left politics in Britain for over sixty years. He has recently published You Can’t Please All (Memoirs 1989-2024), a follow-up to his earlier volume Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties.

Street Fighting Years covers a period of great advance and excitement for the left. How would you describe the period?

The period from 1967 through to 1975 was a unique period in global politics, it was also an era of immense excitement and hope.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, there were revolutions in China and Cuba and the national liberation movements in Africa. But events in South East Asia were very important. In Vietnam, a peasant-based army was confronting – and beating – the largest, best-armed, most powerful, imperialist country in the world. And in Europe that created a very different mood to what we see today. We all felt: ‘if the Vietnamese peasants can do it, why can’t we?’

That feeling surged through Europe, Latin America, and North America and we felt that the possibilities for a better world were limitless.

In France, there was the largest General Strike in capitalism’s history and when the trade union bureaucrats went up to the workers and said ‘the bosses want to share a bit more of the cake with you’ the response from rank-and-file workers was ‘No! We want the whole bakery’. 

In Italy, a ‘creeping May-type event’ took hold with an immensely combative working class active through the early 1970s.

In Britain, between 1972 and 1974, there was the largest and most militant wave of strikes we have ever had. The levels of solidarity between workers was immense. 

If you like this article, please sign up for Snapshot, Portside’s daily summary.Email

(One summary e-mail a day, you can change anytime, and Portside is always free.)

Despite occasional setbacks and defeats, the period as a whole bred confidence in ordinary people and a deepening radicalisation that lasted up until about 1975. 

In 1975, the Portuguese workers, peasants, students, soldiers and young officers brought society to the brink of revolution. They created a feeling that a fundamental change to society was possible and was within our grasp. And we felt that revolutionary change in Portugal would feed back, deepen and revive our movement across the rest of Europe.

The stakes were really very high. But Portuguese, German and international social democracy poured resources in to bail out Portuguese (and beyond that European) capitalism and to curb the revolutionary drive of the masses. In the aftermath, the ruling classes went onto the offensive and Labour and Social Democratic parties were important to stabilising things for the system.

You Can’t Please All covers the period 1980-2024. This is a general period of neoliberal ascendancy. What shaped the period?

The second volume of my memoirs covers a period of defeat – not just in Britain but across the globe. The book contains interviews and covers meetings with leaders, peasants, workers and students from across the continents against the backdrop of the rise of neoliberal capitalism.

The Intel Drop for more

by MUHAMMAD BURHAN

Internal divisions, economic mismanagement and extremist policies threaten regime implosion and new conflict in Afghanistan

Since its return to power in 2021, Afghanistan’s Taliban have struggled to transform their insurgent movement into a functioning government. Beneath an outward show of unity, the hardline regime is plagued by deep-rooted factionalism, economic mismanagement and growing public dissatisfaction.

According to analyst Mabin Biek, writing for The Cipher in an article titled “Taliban’s Internal Power Struggle: A Regime on the Brink,” the group’s greatest existential threat may not be another foreign intervention but rather its own internal fractures.

If left unchecked, these divisions could accelerate the Taliban’s collapse and plunge Afghanistan into yet another prolonged crisis.

One of the most pressing issues facing the Taliban government is its inability to maintain cohesion among various factions. Under the leadership of Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, the movement has become more centralized around his Noorzai tribal base. That tribal preference is known to have alienated other key Taliban leaders.

Unlike the late Mullah Omar, who commanded broad respect and united disparate groups, Akhundzada has struggled to achieve the same level of authority. Instead, his reputedly rigid leadership style has deepened the identity-based fault lines that run through the Taliban’s ranks.

Key figures like Mullah Yaqoob and Mullah Baradar each command their own power bases in the Taliban, giving rise to multiple centers of influence that are clashing over policy and resources.

These tensions are heightened by ethnic and tribal affiliations, which have become more pronounced now that the Taliban are attempting to govern in a united fashion rather than fight a geographically dispersed insurgency.

The unity once shown during the Doha talks that brought about an end of the war has since largely dissipated and has been replaced by jockeying for power within the movement’s upper echelons.

Asia Times for more

The US has escalated its military, economic, and political intervention in Lebanon, fully backing Israel’s war on Hezbollah while pushing for the country’s total disarmament – an aggressive campaign that risks dragging Lebanon into collapse, civil war, or forced normalization with Tel Aviv.

The optics of US President Donald Trump’s newly appointed envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, flaunting a rocket-propelled grenade from Hezbollah’s arsenal while posing beside a Lebanese army officer, was a clear and deliberate statement. 

The image posted last month, captioned “All in a day’s work,” signaled a new chapter in US strategy that reflects the Trump administration’s new blunt, crude approach toward Lebanon.

While the Biden administration had already steered Lebanon toward a “bone-crushing” policy by backing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a decisive battle against Hezbollah, the next phase of US intervention poses no less danger to this small, fragile Levantine state. Lebanon remains caught in a volatile region, with its former lifeline, Syria, today engulfed in sectarian chaos. 

A new phase of US intervention

“The new US strategy on the Lebanon conflict: Let it play out” – this was Reuters’s headline on 13 October 2024, about two weeks after Hezbollah’s former secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated and Israel launched its ground invasion of Lebanon. 

The report summarized the Biden administration’s stance, making it clear that Washington was determined to ensure that the occupation state emerged decisively victorious in its wars against both Gaza and Lebanon. 

This trajectory ultimately led to the collapse of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government and the takeover of Damascus by the extremist militant faction Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), effectively eliminating Iran and Russia’s influence in West Asia.

With even greater ruthlessness, the new US administration has expanded its support for Israeli military action in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, southern Syria, and southern Lebanon. Trump himself has taken it further, openly advocating for the displacement of Palestinians, the seizure of their land, and the expansion of Israel’s borders in violation of all international laws and conventions – although he has since toned down this rhetoric as Arab states moved to endorse Egypt’s reconstruction plan for the strip. 

By contrast, the previous Democratic administration had at least attempted to maintain a facade of balance by criticizing settlement expansion in the West Bank and pressuring Tel Aviv to allow aid into Palestinian territories.

The Cradle for more

by RALPH NADER

There are reasons why influential or knowledgeable Americans are staying silent as the worsening fascist dictatorship of the Trumpsters and Musketeers gets more entrenched by the day. Most of these reasons are simple cover for cowardice.

Start with the once-powerful Bush family dynasty. They despise Trump as he does them. Rich and comfortable George W. Bush is very proud of his Administration’s funding of AIDS medicines saving lives in Africa and elsewhere. Trump, driven by vengeance and megalomania, moved immediately to dismantle this program. Immediate harm commenced to millions of victims in Africa and elsewhere who are reliant on this U.S. assistance (including programs to lessen the health toll on people afflicted by tuberculosis and malaria).

Not a peep from George W. Bush, preoccupied with his landscape painting and perhaps occasional pangs of guilt from his butchery in Iraq. His signal program is going down in flames and he keeps his mouth shut, as he has largely done since the upstart loudmouth Trump ended the Bush family’s power over the Republican Party.

Then there are the Clintons and Obama. They are very rich, and have no political aspirations. Yet, though horrified by what they see Trump doing to the government and its domestic social safety net services they once ruled, mum’s the word.

What are these politicians afraid of as they watch the overthrow of our government and the oncoming police state? Trump, after all, was not elected to become a dictator—declaring war on the American people with his firings and smashing of critical “people’s programs” that benefit liberals and conservatives, red state and blue state residents alike.

Do they fear being discomforted by Trump/Musk unleashing hate and threats against them, and getting tarred by Trump’s tirades and violent incitations? No excuses. Regard for our country must take precedence to help galvanize their own constituencies to resist tyranny and fight for Democracy.

What about Kamala Harris — the hapless loser to Trump in November’s presidential election? She must think she has something to say on behalf of the 75 million people who voted for her or against Trump. Silence! She is perfect bait for Trump’s intimidation tactics. She is afraid to tangle with Trump despite his declining polls, rising inflation, the falling stock market and anti-people budget slashing which is harming her supporters and Trump voters’ economic wellbeing, health and safety.

This phenomenon of going dark is widespread. Regulators and prosecutors who were either fired or quit in advance have not risen to defend their own agencies and departments, if only to elevate the morale of those civil servants remaining behind and under siege.

Why aren’t we hearing from Gary Gensler, former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), now being dismantled, especially since the SEC is dropping his cases against alleged cryptocurrency crooks?

Why aren’t we hearing much more (she wrote one op-ed) from Samantha Power, the former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Biden, whose life-saving agency is literally being illegally closed down, but for pending court challenges?

Why aren’t we hearing from Michael Regan, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Biden about saboteur Lee Zeldin, Trump’s head of EPA, who is now giving green lights to lethal polluters and other environmental destructions?

These and many other former government officials all have their own circles – in some cases, millions of people – who need to hear from them.

They can take some courage of the seven former I.R.S. Commissioners — from Republican and Democratic Administrations — who condemned slicing the I.R.S staff in half and aiding and abetting big time tax evasion by the undertaxed super-rich and giant corporations. I am told that they would be eager to testify, should the Democrats in Congress have the energy to hold unofficial hearings as ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees.

Banding together is one way of reducing the fear factor. After Trump purged the career military at the Pentagon to put his own “yes men” at the top, five former Secretaries of Defense, who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, sent a letter to Congress denouncing Trump’s firing of senior military officers and requesting “immediate” House and Senate hearings to “assess the national security implications of Mr. Trump’s dismissals.” Not a chance by the GOP majority there. But they could ask the Democrats to hold UNOFFICIAL HEARINGS as ranking members of the Armed Services Committees!

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker can be one of the prime witnesses at these hearings – he has no fear of speaking his mind against the Trumpsters.

Ralph Nader for more

EDITORS, THE BLACK AGENDA REPORT

“The question now is: What are we going to do about this murderous fascism?”

One might not guess it from its title, but Martin Sostre ’s essay, “Armed Struggle: Natural Response to Fascism,” is a nuanced, careful, and eloquent consideration of political strategy in the context of repressive, totalitarian rule. Published in 1975 in the magazine Black Flag: Organ of the Anarchist Black Cross , Sostre’s essay is partly a response to leftist critiques of the strategies of the controversial Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA, whose acts of assassination, kidnapping, and armed-robbery were often deemed vanguardist, tactically-ill thought, and politically disastrous. Yet Sostre reads the theoretical manifesto of the SLA against the real-world political conditions in the United States, where in the 1970s, just as now, a set of “repressive fascist measures” were being implemented—from restoration of the death penalty to a system of total surveillance to “ infiltration, frame-ups, assassinations, brutalisations, de-humanisations, behaviour modification, and genocide.”

In this light, Sostre asks, what should the popular response to fascism look like? If the political rhetoric of fascism is white supremacy and its primal political program is violence, can it only be challenged via appeals to humanity, calls for reform, or prayers for peace, democracy, and non-violence? Sostre is also clear, however, that the fight against fascism demands not a single strategy, but a range of strategies: the anti-fascist response must be “multi-dimensional,” “complex,” and able to meet people where they are.

Born in East Harlem on March 20, 1923, Martin Ramirez Sostre , was an Afro-Puerto Rican revolutionary anarchist. After a short stint in the army and a longer period of hustling, Sostre opened the legendary Afro Asian Book Shop at 1412 Jefferson Avenue in Buffalo, NY. The bookstore became a political and pedagogical refuge for many during the urban strife and whitesupremacist warfare that rocked the city in the late 1960s. In 1967, Sostre and co-worker Geraldine Robinson were arrested on COINTELPRO fabricated drug charges. He was sentenced by an all-white jury to thirty to forty years in prison. Sostre spent the next decade in prison, often in solitary confinement, regularly humiliated and tortured by guards.

While incarcerated , Sostre became a successful “jailhouse lawyer” using legal appeals for his own rights. He also advocated for the religious and political rights of all prisoners and for the end of draconian policies of censorship, solitary confinement, and invasive bodily exams. As the editors of the North Carolina Central Law Review note in their introduction to Sostre’s 1973 essay “The New Prisoner” Sostre was also “the moving force behind the formation of a prisoners’ union in New York State and an advocate of minimum wages for inmate workers.” Sostre also introduced figures like Black anarchistLorenzo Kom’Boa Ervin to anarchist theory and practice. Sostre was released from prison in 1976 through a combination of his own efforts and of the Free Martin Sostre campaign. He died on August 12, 2015 at the age of 92.

A visionary with a highly attuned sense of both justice and praxis, Martin Sostre had the mind of a political strategist. These qualities are demonstrated in his essay “Armed Struggle: Natural Response to Fascism.” We reprint it below.

Armed Struggle: Natural Response to Fascism

by Martin Sostre

Sisters and Brothers:

The escalating repression by this predatory, racist and sexist capitalist system makes glaringly clear to all but the most politically backward that the dire predictions that U.S. capitalism would evolve into fascism have come to pass. Restoration of the death penalty, life sentences for drugs, recent supreme Court rulings upholding the denial of the right to live in communes, the right to privacy and human dignity (by granting police the right to arbitrarily invade peoples’ persons and homes and use as evidence in court anything seized during the illegal search), police electronic eavesdropping, infiltration, frame-ups, assassinations, brutalisations, de-humanisations, behaviour modification, and genocide are some of the repressive fascist measures now being implemented.

The question now is: What are we going to do about this murderous fascism? Shall we continue spouting revolutionary rhetoric without commensurate deeds and passively stand by like sheep while our comrades are framed by the gestapo police kidnapped off the streets and murdered one by one? Must we passively wait our turn to be led to the oppressors’ cages, brutalised or murdered? Or shall we oppose the choking fascist oppression which if allowed to continue encroaching on what is left of our personal freedoms will eventually convert us into de-humanised mindless robots? The answer is obvious. Indeed, to defend ourselves by all means necessary against the destruction of our human rights and personhood not only is the natural right to self-defence but a human duty.

By what means then shall we resist the fascist oppressors? The answer to this is determined by the means employed to press us. Our oppression is multi-dimensional. We are oppressed economically, legally, psychologically, culturally, physically and by all other means deemed necessary by the criminal ruling class to maintain themselves in power. Since oppression is multi-dimensional, does not common sense dictate that resistance to it be multi-dimensional with each level of oppression challenged by a commensurate level of revolutionary resistance?

For example, the fascist lies propagated by the controlled media press must be challenged with revolutionary truth disseminated by the movement press, tapes, films, books, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, etc. Not too many revolutionaries and militants will disagree with this. Only when the same common-sense is applied to opposing fascist violence with revolutionary armed resistance do many of them become horrified. Witness the reaction of most of the movement people to SLA’s [Symbionese Liberation Army] revolutionary response to fascist repression.

The current revolutionary action of the SLA is the correct and inevitable response to the countless kidnappings, frame-ups, brutalisations and murders perpetrated by the ruling class members upon resistors of oppression. At long last the individual members of this exploitative-racist-sexist system are being subjected to revolutionary justice. As Malcolm X said, “It’s a case of the chickens coming home to roost.” I extend my revolutionary love and solidarity to my SLA comrades and wish them every success.

Why then are so-called militants and revolutionaries so horrified when armed fascist repression is resisted by the armed might of the people? Do they expect the people to revert to the turn-the-other-cheek state of the 1950s and respond to fascist murder, sadistic brutalisation, frame-ups and tortures with passive acquiescence, love for our fascist enemies and cooperation in our own oppression?

Or is it that these horrified so-called militants and revolutionaries see the liberation struggle as one dimensional, to be fought solely on the level of consciousness they happen to be on? Surely they cannot be so politically retarded [sic] as to believe that in a liberation struggle the enemy should be fought on only one level – that approved by the enemy.

It is just as absurd to propose that everyone resist fascist oppression through peaceful means as to propose armed resistance for everyone. Just because I’m a revolutionary anarcho-communist who believes in armed struggle does not dogmatize me to propose that everyone arm and go underground. Nor would I denounce those who refuse to do so.

Black Agenda Report for more

AL JAZEERA STAFF

Trump’s tariff threats and political pressures are believed to be reasons Central American countries agreed to receive deportation flights.

United States President Donald Trump‘s administration has deported thousands of undocumented immigrants since taking office last month, in a crackdown that critics argue is violating immigrants’ rights to due process.

During his first month in office, the Trump administration has deported 37,660 people, according to data from the US Department of Homeland Security, often to their country of origin, but sometimes to third countries.

Several Central American countries have accepted deportation flights. While their own citizens form a bulk of those coming from the US, these nations have also allowed the Trump administration to send nationals of other, mostly Asian, countries, including India, Pakistan and Iran. Last week, about 300 deportees arrived in Panama and more than 100 arrived in Costa Rica, the two countries said. The US has released no official details about the number of flights and exact number of immigrants.

But why is Trump sending deportees to third countries instead of their countries of origin? And why are these countries accepting the deportees?

Which third countries are accepting deportation flights from the US?

Last week, Panama became the first country to accept 119 deportees from other countries.

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino said on February 13 that the migrants were from countries including China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mulino said it was the first of an expected three flights, and about 360 such deportees are expected to arrive in Panama.

Panama’s Security Minister Frank Abrego said on February 18 that 299 foreign deportees were being detained in a hotel, indicating more deportees had arrived in Panama since the first flight landed the previous week. These migrants were from 10 countries, including Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China.

At least 135 people, including children, from Uzbekistan, China, Afghanistan and Russia arrived in Costa Rica’s capital, San Jose, on February 20.

The US transported 177 Venezuelan migrants from its military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Honduras on February 20. From there, Venezuelan authorities flew them on to Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, on flag carrier Conviasa.

Al Jazeera for more

by ZAKIR KIBRIA

Perception management is as critical as physical confrontation.

The protests in Istanbul over the past few days, sparked by the detention on March 19 of Mayor Ekrem ?mamo?lu, the chief political rival of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, have taken an unexpected turn with the emergence of surreal, meme-worthy visuals.

Among these, a Pikachu-costumed protester fleeing riot police and AI-generated images of the Joker joining the demonstrations have gone viral, transforming a tense political confrontation into a global spectacle.

This phenomenon raises critical questions about the nature of protest in the digital age. Is this a spontaneous, organic outpouring of absurdist humour or a regime-change operation leveraging hyperreality? How do we interpret such protests in an era where deepfakes, AI-generated imagery and viral memes blur the line between reality and fiction?

How does digital spectacle reshape political resistance?

Viral spectacle

The detention of Istanbul’s mayor on corruption charges — widely perceived as politically motivated — triggered mass demonstrations, with nearly 1,900 arrests reported by Thursday. The protests reflect deep societal fractures, with ?mamo?lu symbolising resistance against Erdo?an’s authoritarian rule.

Amid water cannons and riot police, a demonstrator in an inflatable Pikachu costume became an unlikely icon of defiance. The imagery juxtaposing a cartoonish Pokémon with state repression resonated globally, spawning memes declaring “Gotta catch ’em all” and “Pokémon uprising”.

The contrast between the playful, childlike figure and police brutality creates cognitive dissonance, amplifying the protest’s emotional impact. The viral spread of the footage, amassing over nine million views on X by Friday, demonstrates how internet culture reframes political struggle, making it digestible for global audiences.

Beyond Pikachu, AI-manipulated images inserted fictional characters such as the Joker and Spider-Man into the protests, further distorting reality. Some netizens even superimposed Pikachu floating above the crowd, blending satire with misinformation.

How does hyperreality — French theorist Jean Baudrillard’s concept of reality being replaced by symbols — shape public perception of the protests?

The spectacle

Jean Baudrillard argued that in postmodern society, signs and images replace reality, creating a simulated world where distinctions between truth and fiction collapse.

Applied to the Istanbul protests, the Pikachu protester is no longer just a man in a costume: it is a symbolic, hyperreal event, detached from its original context. The AI-generated imagery of The Joker further dissolves reality, making the protest a media spectacle rather than a purely political act.

Dawn for more

by YASHRAJ SHARMA

Politicians and parties have used iftars to forge peace during strife but also to woo elite Muslims for the community’s votes. Experts say they’re both a legacy of Indian secularism and a symptom of political rot.

It was the month of Ramadan in 1974, and the northern city of Lucknow, a hub of India’s Shia community, was on the boil.

Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, a stalwart of India’s then-ruling Indian National Congress party, had taken over as the chief minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh, whose capital is Lucknow, only a few months earlier. Shia-Sunni clashes had erupted at a time on the Muslim calendar that represents peace, prayer, reflection and a sense of community.

To push for a truce, Bahuguna invited Shia leader Ashraf Hussain for a meeting. Hussain refused, saying he was unable to come because he was fasting.

So Bahuguna made Hussain an offer: He could break his fast at the chief minister’s residence. Hussain accepted. The menu included fruit, sherbet, sheermal, kebabs and Lucknow’s famous biryani. And successful truce talks.

At a time when Hindu-Muslim tensions in Uttar Pradesh and many other parts of India were also on the rise, Bahuguna’s iftars became a yearly affair. In subsequent years, the meals were planned, and guest lists started expanding. Advertisement

In his book An Indian Political Life: Charan Singh and Congress Politics, Paul R Brass noted that Bahuguna established “a happy rapport with the Muslims” by acting boldly to suppress “anti-Muslim rioting”.

The veteran politician started a phenomenon that has since become a staple of India’s political calendar: Ramadan is crammed with iftars hosted by parties and politicians eager to host influential Muslims as they court the community’s votes. Over the past 50 years, these iftars have become shows of political strength and platforms to forge alliances or to forgive past skirmishes to move on.

On the one hand, analysts said, political iftars help underscore India’s secular identity – non-Muslim political leaders hosting Muslims for a meal during the holy month. “Iftar reflected a certain notion of plurality, an idea of celebrating differences in commonality,” sociologist Shiv Visvanathan told Al Jazeera.

But political iftars have also attracted increasing pushback — and not just from current Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, which has for the most part shunned these events. Critics have argued that these iftars are performative acts that are more about the interests of the leaders hosting them than about the Muslim community.

“It was not sought by Muslims, and we must always remember that. Political iftar parties were not a creation of the Muslims,” said Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst who has attended several such events. “Political iftar was a kind of religious outreach programme.”

Al Jazeera for more

by B. R. GOWANI

at present, Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine

Glenn Greenwald explains how Goldberg joined The Atlantic

“In 2007, David Bradley — the owner of The Atlantic and (in his own words) formerly “a neocon guy” who was “dead certain about the rightness” of invading Iraq  — lavished Goldberg with money and gifts, including ponies for Goldberg’s children, in order to lure him away from The New Yorker, where he had churned out most of his pre-war trash.”

Goldberg, a pro-Israel warmonger, would want Israel to rule the Middle East

he wholeheartedly supported Bush government’s 2003 invasion of Iraq

Goldberg’s Jewish identity had forced him to move to Israel in 1990

he became a prison guard where he met Rafiq Hijazi, a PLO leader

Goldberg, after talking to Hijazi, a prisoner, had a great discovery:

“I soon discovered that he [prisoner Rafiq Hijazi] was the only Palestinian I could find in Ketziot [Prison] who understood the moral justification for Zionism.”

why would Goldberg want a “moral justification” for Zionism

Zionism is a movement which, with the help of British, took over Palestine

you can’t expect an occupied Palestinian to justify occupying force Zionism

Goldberg further adds,

“For his part, I might have been the only soldier he met who didn’t deny the existence of misfortune in Palestinian history.”

“misfortune in Palestinian history?”

wow! Goldberg is a master bullshitter

was it some kind of a natural calamity which befell on Palestinians

no, Jewish occupiers stole the Palestinian land

on that stolen land emerged Israel which is financed for long by the US

Goldberg is in the news again

in March 2025, Goldberg came to know of a US airstrike plan against Yemen

he was unintentionally included in a Trump government’s Signal chat

after two hours, on Mar 15, 2025, US launched airstrikes against Houthis

J. D. Vance differed with President Donald Trump on bombing of Yemen

Trump, a business-being, received $100 million from Miriam Adelson

the money enhances Trump’s support for Israeli destruction of Palestine

Trump also has to be careful of the cancerous Israel Lobby

the US bombed more than 40 locations in Yemen

for what?

Houthis have attacked more than 100 shipping vessels linked to Israel

Yemen’s Houthis are showing their solidarity with the people of Palestine

Goldberg should have revealed the message he received to the press

it could have alerted the people and Houthis in Yemen

it could have saved 53 Yemeni lives, including 5 children, & destruction

it could have, at least, washed some of Goldberg’s crimes of warmongering

he didn’t do that

Binoy Kampmark is so right when he points out Goldberg’s hypocrisy

“Normally, the one receiving the message is condemned. In this case, Goldberg objected to being the recipient, claiming moral high ground in reporting the security lapse.”

Trump called Goldberg a “sleazebag,” which he surely is

instead, like a hero, Goldberg is giving interviews to hawkish media

(in 3 weeks, the US wasted $200 million worth of arms & ammunitions)

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com