Trump, Gaza, and Genocide

(This (with a tiny bit of editing) was published 3/8/25 in the Daily Camera here (a small part of what is below wasn't submitted to the Camera- the parenthetical italicized statements))

 

Since 10th grade (1991-92) I have supported the Palestinians (i.e. I have publicly said in the last 18 months that if it resembled, in terms of targets and methods, what the Irish Republican Army did I would probably support an armed campaign by the Palestinians (see this and this). Since Oct. 8th I have often but decreasingly thought that a lot of Palestine solidarity activists might be using the term “genocide” inappropriately. Looking at the UN definition, yes there have been and are several elements of the crime found in the war on Gaza and to a much lesser degree, Israeli Apartheid in general (stretching back to the creation of the state). In the last 18 months I was not certain that there was an INTENT to destroy the Palestinian population. After I learned what kind of government there is in Israel now, and as the assault on Gaza went on and on and on, I started thinking- more and more that maybe, yes, something I THOUGHT was possible was ACTUALLY HAPPENING- the genocide of the Palestinians. But that’s nothing- in terms of my certitude that it’s genocide and in terms of the national destruction involved- compared to what Donald Trump has proposed.

Moving the entire Gaza population elsewhere would eliminate them as Gazans. They would be leaving their land, not because it’s become a “dust bowl,” not because the place was nuked and humans in general couldn’t live there anymore, etc. but because of hatred towards them in connection with their racial and/or national and/or religious identity (one thing that backs me up on this is an explanation here of how Apartheid IS the right word to apply to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in areas it controls). And transforming that now-blood-drenched beach-front property into something that practically no Palestinian could afford to live in would underline their loss- news reports (for example) about Trump’s Riviera would be reminders of what Trump did and would be rubbing it in. In general, Trump’s plan would involve some kind of national trauma comparable to the historical trauma experienced by American Indian communities.

(Nothing in this essay is meant to excuse or justify what happened Oct. 7th, which was mostly an attack on Israeli civilians. I have written a LOT of material critical of Hamas (here, here and here), but at this point it is time for me to focus more on the Palestinians)

In Ireland, the political party Sinn Fein (which was associated with the IRA and is now the biggest party if you look at votes in both the North and the South) announced that they will be boycotting the St. Patrick Day events at the White House this year and they are doing that because of Trump’s plans for Gaza. It might help everyone if I explain something here- SF, especially in the last 3-4 decades, makes a fair amount of effort to avoid conflicts in America with American politicians when it’s about something not central to justice for N. Ireland Catholics and/or peace in N. Ireland. That should help Americans understand how serious this situation with Gaza is- SF and most of the world are terrified by what Trump said.

In addition to the trauma experienced by Gazans, Trump’s plan will not bring peace to the middle-east. To one degree or another almost everyone there supports the Palestinians. If Egypt and/or Jordan cooperate with Trump, the governments in those two countries will probably be overthrown. The odds are pretty good there will be various renewed efforts to attack Israel. There will be more efforts to attack American targets.

There are some other flaws in Trump’s plan. How many REALLY nice pieces of real estate are A) empty of people and B) lucrative enough that two million or more Palestinians could prosper there? I have no idea what location Trump is thinking of. He kind of skirts around this, but he should be politically apprehended for pretty much saying that there will be no reconstruction in Gaza as long as the Palestinians are there but as soon as they are dragged away THEN it will be re-built for rich people. And he’s pretty much said that no, there will be no return.

Trump and Israel must be stopped before they do something horrible.

(An essay I wrote about the flaws in the Zionist argument and how to resolve the conflict is here)

We Need MORE Criticism of Hamas, not Less

 Since Oct. 7th I have read a lot about the war between Israel and Hamas, I have done a small amount of protesting on the street, I have gotten a letter published in the Boulder Weekly (a widely-read alternative newspaper), I have sent a few messages (in support of the Palestinians) to federal politicians, and I have also taken part in a fair amount of email discussion among a lot of the Boulder County people supporting the Palestinians. In those discussions I encountered two ideas that I think overlap and which I would like to address in this essay. First is the idea that it’s okay for the Palestinians to kill civilians because it’s an “asymmetrical” conflict where the Palestinians don’t have the resources, power, and environment to fight in that the Israelis have. The second idea is that the Israelis have the power to wage peace and the Palestinians don’t and therefore it is the former who need to take the first few steps or so towards peace and the latter can wait until those steps have been taken to reciprocate.

This essay will address these two ideas and to a lesser degree some other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

*****

Since Oct. 7th I have read something like 2,000 words a day about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- 50% from the BBC, 10% from Juan Cole’s site Informed Comment, 10% from CNN and the rest is miscellaneous. Looking at the 30 years before that I probably read an average of 100-200 words a day about it and it broke down like this- 20% from Juan Cole and about 20% is from the BBC. The rest, about 60% is from various sources, some  mainstream, some progressive, including The Nation, the Washington Post, the Times of Israel, etc.

*******

Although I only have a BA, it’s in Ethnic Studies and mine includes three courses taught by Ward Churchill (I don’t think this affected how much I learned from him, but he was my faculty advisor (I got an A in all three of the courses he taught)). I have also spent a huge amount of time studying the recent conflict in Northern Ireland (in the last 26 years about 1,000 words a day on average), and that included some things that made me more familiar with the violence than most outside observers (A: I heard a lecture in 2002 by someone who had just months earlier been Chief of Staff of the IRA and B: in 2002 I was in the middle of two riots with the security forces).

In general, I support the Palestinians- in some ways more than many people who support them (in 2002 I got a CU-Boulder group called “Students for Justice in N. Ireland” to endorse the campus Coalition for Justice in Palestine), but in some ways less so (I wasn’t among the brave young people who went there in solidarity with them around 2002). I did a post where I do a pretty good of taking down Zionism and explaining why a one state solution would be better than a two state solution. Here and there in the last six months I say that although I condemn what happened Oct. 7th, I would support something that resembled what the IRA did during The Troubles (a detailed explanation of how I reached the conclusion that the IRA were (OBJECTIVELY) not terrorists is here and a description of the Republican Movement’s (1970-1997) strategy is here).

On the other hand I hate Hamas and always have. Recently I decided that I no longer consider the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization to be worthy of my support.

I did a post about how incredibly appropriate it is to use the word Apartheid in relation to Israel. That is largely about Israel, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In one way or another, to one degree or another, in the last 17 years residents of the Gaza Strip have had it worse than Palestinians in the West Bank (until recently Gaza was dominated by Israel even though it had no soldiers there (now it’s still dominated (if that’s the right word), in part because there ARE soldiers there)). Those Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza are state-less and thus very close to powerlessness.

So, it’s true that Israel is MUCH more powerful than the Palestinians, and is allied with the most powerful country in the world. The resistance is underground in East Jerusalem, Israel, and the West Bank. Israel has an advanced and conventional military that includes, for example, tanks. Does that asymmetry mean that Hamas shouldn’t be seriously criticized for focusing overwhelmingly on intentionally killing civilians Oct. 7th?

No, it doesn’t mean that. Crucially, the IRA almost never intentionally killed civilians and almost never unintentionally killed civilians and almost never TRIED to kill civilians (I explain how I came to those conclusions here). The IRA was of course an underground army and the British had, for example, many helicopters that were used extensively (especially in South Armagh, where, without helicopters, the British Army would have been defeated by the IRA). In the struggle against Apartheid, operations by the military wing of the ANC (in English known as “Spear of the Nation”) were even less likely to result in civilian death, and they were definitely fighting under difficult conditions.

I should say at some point here that I believe there is a spectrum between completely legitimate targets on one hand and completely innocent civilians on the other hand. This is reflected in my opinion of Hamas’ military wing and my opinion of the IRA, among others. It doesn’t mean that I think less-than-totally-innocent civilians are legitimate targets, but I don’t attach much value to such killings when deciding if I consider the group responsible to be a terrorist organization or something better.

Although I do not totally agree with international law on this, international law is so unfavorable towards the killing of civilians that I believe killing civilians is not excused by the conditions that an underground army fight under against a technologically and institutionally superior foe.

Although this may not be the fairest thing to say about them, it almost seems to me that progressive supporters of Hamas believe that there is something akin to a Law of Physics about the inevitability of underground armies intentionally killing civilians- their argument seems to be, “you don’t condemn an apple for falling to the Earth.” But there are at least two such armies that never or almost never intentionally killed civilians. One of them was totally successful (although it should be mentioned that their economic agenda was not realized, the ANC’s primary goal was the end of Apartheid) and the other was sort of successful (the Good Friday Agreement isn’t that bad and in recent years Sinn Fein and the EU have forced the British to create a border of sorts between N. Ireland and Britain).

The second and overlapping idea is that the Palestinians don’t have the power to wage peace and can only wage war until Israel takes the first few steps towards peace on their own. In my opinion Israel is a lot more responsible for the conflict than the Palestinians are. The average Israeli Jew is a lot more comfortable than the average Palestinian is and could survive the re-distribution of resources (i.e. water) that peace would require. I’m sure a lot of Palestinians would say that they have little or nothing to lose and that for decades now Israel has been brutalizing them and undermining the possibility of a two state solution and many of them will fight until Israel makes the first moves.

Although I am not a pacifist, A) I overwhelmingly support non-violent political efforts and B) what I’m about to say needs to be seriously considered by supporters of this theory that Hamas cannot wage peace at this point. The Black population in America was seriously dis-empowered in the decades before and during the Civil Rights Movement (there was SOME militancy and looking back at that history, I support some of that militancy). But Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was almost 100% against the use of violence and saying that he “waged peace” is putting it mildly- it was a scorched Earth version of “waging peace.” I have a theory that intentionally killing civilians in war is further from “waging peace” than exclusively targeting combatants. I am not saying that liberation movements out there in the world need to completely abandon the use force in order to respect the legacy of Dr. King. But I believe progressives should be careful with who we support when it comes to armed liberation movements. And although I am not going to go into a lot of detail beyond looking at the Civil Rights/Black Power era and N. Ireland, I also think we should ask ourselves, “what would Gandhi think?”

The Republican Movement (Sinn Fein and the IRA), as I mentioned above, conducted a very honorable struggle and DID do a lot of non-violent stuff. In all fairness to Hamas, they did successfully contest an election in 2006 and didn’t have much more in terms of opportunities for non-violent political efforts. But I am still going to point out that starting in the mid-80s SF members who got elected to local councils took their seats and engaged their unionist opponents non-violently and democratically- a move towards waging peace in the acutely imperialistic Thatcher years. When the conditions seemed right, in 1994 the IRA went on cease-fire for about a year. After a brief return to war, they went on cease-fire again in 1997 and to a VERY large degree have become less and less relevant and I wouldn’t be surprised if they pretty much ceased to exist in the last 15 or so years.

Although I’m not gonna go into much detail here (I talk about this in a 2009 post) the RM and the Nationalist community in general bent over backwards to make the peace process work. It would have been VERY reasonable if they had refused to sign up to anything that failed to guarantee a United Ireland after some transitional period. The republican argument is something I go into some detail about here. Around 1997-2005 the IRA took several steps leading up to the full decommissioning of their arsenal, steps that kept the Peace Process going forward, despite frequent provocations by their opponents (i.e. for about 3 months in late 2001 loyalists terrified little Catholic girls (aged about 11) on their way to school just inside a Protestant area (there’s a fairly good article about it here)). 

When the conditions seemed right, the IRA was quick to wage peace. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza have less power than the 1998 Catholic population of N. Ireland, but it’s also relevant that on a per-capita basis, Catholic civilians might have been slaughtered in The Troubles to a greater degree than was the case with Palestinian civilians since 1967 (that is, until Oct. 8th 2023 when that situation changed dramatically) (below, starting with the sentence “As I write elsewhere 856+” I try to illustrate how the Catholics were slaughtered). Even though the Catholics probably had more power in 1998, when it came to support from the global community, the Palestinians definitely have more (i.e. the Catholic population of N. Ireland didn’t have a representative at the UN) (and the British, although I don’t believe they used this to win diplomatic battles with Dublin, are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have a veto and they might have benefited from that in terms of discouraging support for the IRA). I talk about the Irish half of that comparison with South Africa in the middle third of a post here (starting with a paragraph that begins by mentioning South Africa). Crucially, the US government was, to one degree or another, on the side of the British as I describe in note #17 of a post here. As I said, the IRA waged peace not when they had the global community behind them, not just when British politics made peace more likely, but when it appeared there was an opportunity to stop the violence and the inequality, the hate and the injustice. In 1994 that meant after very few moves by the British and the Unionists. In 1996-1997 there were a few more moves by the British, but also some provocation by London and the unionists- which was ignored.

As I was typing this I increasingly came to understand that in terms of power, the Catholic population had more than their brothers and sisters in Palestine. But what I wrote about the latter having more support globally is true. Also, in terms of forgiving your oppressors and waging peace, you have to consider what I write below about the Catholic civilian population, on a per capita basis, being slaughtered to such a great extent that it was possibly worse on a per capita basis than what the Palestinians have been through between 1967 and Oct. 7th (it’s not a perfectly symmetrical comparison and for multiple reasons I am not going to hunt down solid figures for deaths of the Palestinians, but you might agree with me when you read that section after the next paragraph).

I don’t think anything excuses much less justifies what Hamas did Oct. 7th. I’m not saying that they are anywhere near as responsible for the conflict in general as Israel is but Oct. 7th was a massive and (sort of) unprovoked escalation (I say sort of unprovoked because it was disproportionate to what Israel was doing- nowhere near as disproportionate as Israel’s response to Oct. 7th, but still disproportionate (you have to consider that targeting civilians is more provocative than attacking soldiers)). If they were fighting offensively as the IRA did, I’d be pretty supportive. Coming back to reality, what do I think Hamas and the PLO and the Palestinian people in general should do? I think their allies worldwide need to continue to take a stand and communicate to Israel that it had better stop bombing Gaza and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza like never before, and stop going towards what I think would be something fairly genocidal. And they need to get the US to stop supporting Israel. (I believe that when it comes to genocide  there is a spectrum between 100% dead and, at the other end of the spectrum, what Ireland experienced during the Famine). I have no idea how making Gaza livable for 2.2 million people will be accomplished in the immediate future. But worse than that is the possibility that Israel will try to push Gazans out of Gaza and into Egypt, which would be pretty genocidal. I have almost no idea what should be done beyond an end to the violence and a return of aid to Gaza and and an end to American support for Israel. Normally I would say that a one-state solution must be pursued as I argue here, but after what has happened to both the Jewish population and the Palestinian population, I am thinking of going back to supporting the two-state solution. I imagine the reality is there will be no peace process worthy of the name for a very long time.

*******

As I write elsewhere 856+ Catholic civilians were killed in the years 1969 to 2005 by either loyalist paramilitaries or the security forces. A comparable scenario in America would have meant around 67,000 unarmed people of color killed by cops or Nazi skinheads (etc.) in the same time period. A: based on what I’ll describe below, I would guess that the actual number for that was probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000; B: I'm not saying the racist system in this country wasn't, ideologically or programmatically, capable of killing 67,000 people of color in those years if the "rebellion" among people of color here had been as militaristic as the one among Catholics in N. Ireland; but the reality is that as bad as it was for people of color here in those years, it was, in terms of deaths, MUCH worse for Catholics in N. Ireland.

What makes me confident about my statement “probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000”?



1. Between 1996 and 2005 according to the FBI there were 38 racist murders. I have read that the Department of Justice officially estimates that for every hate crime reported to the FBI there might be 20-30 that aren’t reported because not all local law enforcement agencies report such crimes to the FBI. So I came up with 1,140 for those years.


2. I heard (from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest) that in a 12 month period during a 2014 (apparent) surge in police murders of black people including those of Eric Garner in NY, Tamir Rice in OH, and Michael Brown in MO among other highly publicized such cases, that around 200 black people armed or unarmed, had been killed by cops in America. Although I’m very open-minded about accusations that cops plant guns, this country also has a ridiculous number of guns.


3. Bear in mind that decades ago the number of people of color and the number of cops in this country were both smaller or much smaller than they are today.


4. If it’s worth much, about 10 years ago I read a huge amount of what the Southern Poverty Law Center put on their web-site in the previous 10-15 years. I also got an Ethnic Studies degree if that’s worth much.


5. There was little or no talk about “Brown Lives Matter” so I get the impression that very few Latinos/Latinas/Chicanos/Chicanas have been killed by cops in recent years (as far as I know, even Arpaio’s sheriff’s department in AZ didn’t kill a single such person) and that might reflect the situation in earlier decades. I have practically never heard of Asian-Americans being killed by cops. And if Native Americans were being killed at a high rate in the 80s and 90s I would have heard (a massive chunk of my major was Native American Studies).
 

UPDATE 6/9/21 I just found a Democracy Now! story relevant to this. It's about the last 20 years, but there's a small overlap between that and the period I was looking at Catholics and people of color (1969-2005), and it's possible that what I said about this comparison is off a little. Bear in mind that the figure I refer to in item #2 above came from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest.

******

In that first part (ending just above this line) I addressed the issues of asymmetry in war and waging peace. Here I need to address some other aspects of Hamas that contribute to me being hostile.

I believe in being consistently against religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Towards the bottom I will explain how I don’t have a racist double standard in the favor of the Irish.

Hamas is an Arabic acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement” and they’re very friendly with Iran, so I think I am on pretty good ground saying they are fundamentalists. I’m not an atheist and I’m certainly not a NEW atheist (see this). I believe in the separation of religious institutions and the state, I believe in secular politics (although I have nothing against religious socialists I am not one myself) and I believe in “Intelligent Design” not creationism.

I won’t apologize for consistently being against social conservatism, including sexism and homophobia. I’m sure some readers are groaning at that sentence in this essay, but please read what I write below.

I get the impression there is something close to a consensus among American progressives that criticizing the allegedly misogynist attitudes of MANY Muslim men is inappropriate. Are Muslim women oppressed to one degree or another in many (perhaps most) muslim societies? I think the answer is pretty close to “YES, although I have gotten the impression that some progress has been made on the issue in recent decades. I need to make clear that I don’t support laws (in France, for example) where muslim women are banned from dressing in a way that might be considered religious and/or traditional and/or conservative. I believe that Muslim women are adults and don’t need the government, or male relatives, or random males in the street telling them what to wear, when men are not treated that way as well.

What about homophobia? In general I get the strong impression that the VAST Majority of Muslims are homophobes. I wish I had a lot of evidence specifically about HAMAS being homophobic, but I am comfortable just assuming that they are. I DO know that in recent years Hamas and Iran get along very well and Iran is DEFINITELY homophobic. I also read a brief accusation of homophobia that Meredith Tax leveled against muslim fundamentalists in her book “Double Bind.”

Do I have a racist double standard in favor of the Irish and/or Catholics? No. Republicanism is mostly secular. There were a few Protestants in the IRA (is Sinn Fein as anti-protestant as Hamas is anti-Semitic? See this), and there are a LOT of atheists in Sinn Fein. Going back to the IRA, I was told that at one point, perhaps in the mid-1990s, a significant minority of IRA POWs were housed together in the same part of the prison because they were all devout. But I am certain it was a minority and probably a small minority of the POWs.

The first (or at least close to the first) Vice President of Provisional Sinn Fein (the SF that Gerry Adams was President of for a long time), in the early 1970s, was a woman. In the era of the Civil Rights Movement (late 60s/early 70s), if there was only one leader of the CRM it was Bernadette Devlin (McAliskey). She was also perhaps the main leader of those, around 1980, who were supporters of republican POWs demanding political status. In the mid-1980s for one year SF was pro-choice and between then and now (or at least most of that time) their position was only MODERATELY pro-life, and they might be pro-choice today. In recent years the two most senior leaders of SF are both women. When Gerry Adams stepped down as President of SF he came out as pro-choice.

A handful of facts about SF and homophobia are here.

******

(I believe that Hamas is anti-Semitic. This is primarily based on 2-3 facts. They’re religious fundamentalists and they went after Jews, and some of them raped Jews (if you can prove that they raped a lot of non-Jewish people, I’ll reconsider that statement). I have decided that the PLO are anti-Semitic (based on a BBC article here) and if THEY’RE anti-Semitic I feel comfortable assuming that the socially conservative religious fundamentalists are, too. When I have made this accusation in the past 1-2 American supporters of Hamas have said that the anti-Semitism of some Palestinians can be traced back to Europe- that doesn’t make it okay!)

There are two last things I need to say. This post is partly a response to a blog post  by a woman named Helena Cobban here. The main theme of her post is that “it’s past time to end the demonization of Hamas.” Combined with everything else I have written above, I need to explain that Hamas weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, the cause of Palestine. Large numbers of people in the world believe it’s wrong for civilians to be targeted in war. Large numbers of people believe that anti-Semitism is wrong. Hamas’ targeting of civilians and their anti-Semitism turn people away from supporting the Palestinians. I mean Oct. 7th did nothing to increase support for their people. ISRAEL’S REACTION has, and that might have been Hamas’ plan, but I think that was a pretty bad plan and doesn’t change the fact that Oct. 7th was anti-Semitic. I guarantee you there would be more support for the Palestinians if they were not associated with Hamas.

I imagine that when anti-Semitism in the Palestinian population is not challenged by American supporters of the Palestinians, it might be noted by the younger and more impressionable progressive activists who might adopt that bigotry as their own. That means that ignoring anti-Semitism among the Palestinians can have an effect on how Jews are treated HERE.

We need to criticize Hamas MORE not LESS.

An Example of Irish-American Anti-Racism

For about 10 years now I have been linking from this blog to a group called the Irish American Unity Conference. I was vaguely or fairly familiar with them about 20-23 years ago when I believe they were a moderate version of Irish Northern Aid, who were basically supporters of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Now they seem to primarily support SF. Although their links list contains nothing radical that isn’t also Irish (i.e. SF’s web-site), they surprised me when I found a June statement in response to Black Lives Matter activism that was taking place at the time. I am reproducing their statement below but you can find it here.

“We, the Officers of the Irish American Unity Conference, express our outrage at the ongoing, deep-seated, brutal racism that is destroying the fabric of our country. We condemn in particular the recent cold-blooded murders of African-American fellow citizens, including children, in Minnesota, Georgia, Texas, Florida, New York City, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore, East St. Louis, and Louisville. We stand in solidarity with our African-American sisters and brothers not only in this time of crisis but at all times. There are disturbing parallels between America’s racism and the state-sponsored political and religious discrimination and violence imposed for over eight hundred years on native Irish people in the north of Ireland. It is not a coincidence that the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement took its inspiration and strategies from the Civil Rights movement in the United States to fight for justice and an end to oppression. We are painfully aware that recent racist events in this country are not an anomaly or aberration, but rather are a continuation of the violence perpetrated against people of color for hundreds of years, often state-sanctioned, to intimidate and deny equal citizenship to a significant segment of our society. We declare our resolve that the United States must once and for all acknowledge and stop its endemic racism or fail its founding principles of equality and justice for all. None of us can be silent, for if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem."

Peter Kissel, President


George Trainor, Vice-President


Kevin Barry, Treasurer


Sarah McAuliffe-Bellin, Secretary

********

It’s really good. Although it’s common for SF supporters to refer to how Black Americans inspired the N. Ireland Civil Rights Movement and we get something out of that, it’s still worth pointing out that every time it’s mentioned, there’s potential for it to get some racist or semi-racist Irish-Americans who care about N. Ireland to change their thinking about race. And this statement goes well beyond simply mentioning the two Civil Rights Movements. I have occasionally suggested to SF members and leaders that they should be in solidarity more with people of color in America and although I have no reason to believe it’s connected to my work, I’m really glad to see that the leadership of the IAUC have done that.

My blog is largely dedicated to the intersection of N. Ireland and fighting racism in America. One of the top three individuals who represent that intersection (along with Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey and Angela Y. Davis) is Bill Fletcher Jr. Bill is a long-time advocate for Justice and Equality on a range of topics. He has held MANY positions, some very senior, in America’s Labor Movement. From about 1995 to about 2001 he was Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO (John Sweeney). He was "national organizer" for the Black Radical Congress and part of the coordinating committee from 1998-2003., a coalition of Black people and organizations on the broad Left in America. For about two years starting in 2001 he was the President of TransAfrica Forum. An example of his Irish Republican activity is here.

After reading the IAUC statement he commented on the similarities between British Imperialism in Ireland and white supremacy in America: “When the English conquered Ireland they instituted a racial-colonial domination over the indigenous population.  They, in fact, constructed a settler state, the legacy of which is Northern Ireland.  The English introduced this system when they invaded the Western Hemisphere, constructed racial slavery for Africans and succeeded in beginning the expulsion of the First Nations."

The posts on my blog that are at least partly about that intersection, what some call “the black and the green,” are here.

The Palestinain-Israeli Peace Process is Over

I just sort of stumbled onto a news story about something I had been largely ignoring for about 2 months. The Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinians is over. Read this. I have done two important posts about this issue. One is about how the term "Apartheid" is an appropriate description of how Israel treats the Palestinians, and one is an argument against zionism.

A good source of information about the conflict is here. For a more frequently updated and relatively neutral source, see The Times of Israel.

Tom

Fuck George W. Bush: Three New Poems

Below are three more poems. For an explanation of how I write my poems, see this. The last one is based on lyrics I agree with, the others are NOT.

For the rest of the lyrics, click on the "lyrics" label at the bottom.

1. Smash the Klan II. What you think it's about.
2. From Out of the Ashes. The birth of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland.
3. Surf the Euphrates. About the Iraq War.

“Smash the Klan II” based on “Aryan Pride” by Final War. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about slightly militant opposition to the KKK among white people. It’s sort of inspired by the time that I joined around 100-300 people in 1995 protesting a “rally” by the Klan in Boulder. At the end we surrounded the building they had rallied in front of and trapped them there for about an hour or two until the police tried something sneaky that involved getting them out in an ambulance.
2. Instead of “crossing the border,” many Mexican-Americans are partly or totally descended from Mexicans who lived in what was Mexico until it became CA, NV and the South-West of the US (and TX).
3. The 54th Mass was the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the segregated Black unit that fought in the American Civil War and whose story is told, accurately or otherwise, in the movie “Glory.”
4. Racists have a greatly exaggerated sense of how much anti-white bigotry there is. In a paragraph more than half-way from the top of this post that starts with “Even without that…” I explain why I think anti-white bigotry is a very small problem.
5. I exaggerate how easy it is for white people to get a job, although if we focus on times when it’s a white person and a person of color, it IS pretty easy for the white person to get the job. Affirmative Action helps a lot, but “Hispanics” and Blacks still have an unemployment rate fairly close to twice that of white people (it’s a bit higher for Blacks than for “Hispanics” and the gap fluctuates a bit, but it’s around twice; see this). Racists think that white people are discriminated against and have more trouble getting a job. Of course, that’s probably because they think that the natural order of things should involve full employment in good jobs for white people and see anything else as unfair.
6. My thoughts about the white identity and European-American ethnic identities are in the first 2/5 of this (you should also read the conclusion, which is the second to last section) (I realize that BEFORE they read that many anti-Klan white people might not like what I say, but I think that after they read it, they will).
7. The St. Patrick Battalion was a group of American soldiers, most Irish and almost all Catholics, who deserted the US Army during the US-Mexico War and joined the Mexican Army. I’m sure it varied from individual to individual, but to one degree or another they thought that what the US was doing to Mexico was unjust (they were also alienated by anti-Catholic bigotry in the US Army (and of course Catholics *used to be* on the Klan’s list as well)).
8. After I started altering stuff, I switched the first verse with the chorus. Also, there were only three verses in the original, and the fourth verse is totally mine.
9. **70% of this poem is me, 30% is the original. I don’t know if the 3rd line of the second verse in the original lyrics I found on-line is what was actually written by the original lyricist.

Many people hate the Klan for spreading prejudice
Gay people, Muslims, and Jews are on their fucking list
Black people aren’t criminals like you see on your TV
The border crossed Mexican-Americans, its a fact of history

Chorus
Brothers and sisters, join together as one.
We’ve got the fucking KKK totally on the run
in memory of the brave 54th Mass soldiers who died
Fuck the Nazis, and fuck the Klan and fuck Aryan Pride!

Racists cry “Black man, yeah Black man full of hate”
Widespread anti-White bigotry is the bullshit story they narrate
Its fucked up how white people can secure any job by race
It’s funny how the Klan deny that that’s totally the case.

Chorus

Our solidarity won't be broken, and we won’t hide from an affray
We will keep on working until we asphyxiate the KKK
Our message will be spread. Our voices loud and clear
Inform the youth, of the truth, the Klan’s greatest fear.

Chorus

We’ll never be proud of being white, it’s an artificial identity
It’s totally steeped in privilege, hate and inequality
We’re proud of being Irish, Scottish and German, Greek, Polish and Italian
We’re in solidarity with the oppressed, just like the St. Pat’s Battalion

*********

“From Out of the Ashes” based on “After the Fire” by Skrewdriver. original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the aftermath of the anti-Catholic pogrom in the Lower Falls Nationalist/Republican area of Belfast in Aug. of 1969 (it wasn’t INCREDIBLY Republican BEFORE that month, but not long afterwards it certainly was). In July, August, and September, and mostly during a period of 2-3 days, in Belfast, 1,505 Catholic families fled their homes (probably something like 18% of Belfast’s Catholic population, probably something like 1.8% of the North’s Catholic population). In one night alone 650 families were burnt, or at least forced, out of their homes.
2. The DUBLIN-BASED LEADERSHIP OF THE IRA had demilitarized it in the years before Aug. 1969 and only a few IRA weapons were available to help defend the area, a defense that was largely unsuccessful.
3. The Civil Rights Movement that started in mid- and late 1968 was overwhelmingly committed to non-violence and had hoped to democratize N. Ireland.
4. Provos refers to what we call in recent decades Sinn Fein and the IRA. They broke off from SF and the IRA (what became known as Official SF and Official IRA) partly because of the leadership’s decision to demilitarize the IRA.
6. Initially the British Army kind of saved the Catholics from police-led loyalist mobs and were welcomed for about 9 months, but they became increasingly like the notorious Black and Tans unit of the British Army that served in Ireland during the War of Independence 1919-1921.
7. Squaddie is a term for British soldier.
8. On the night of June 27th 1970, the Church of an isolated Catholic enclave in East Belfast was attacked by a loyalist mob. The British Army wouldn’t defend the area but members of the PIRA did. It was their first major action.
9. I like calling The Troubles the Second Anglo-Irish War, the first being the War of Independence.
10. There is or was a T-Shirt designed by either SF or their old American support organization Irish Northern Aid, that said: “From Out Of The Ashes Arose The Provisionals.” It was referring to the ashes of the mythical bird, the Phoenix (in this case representing the IRA they split off from (actually, I used to think it was the ashes of the burned out homes, and I kind of prefer that interpretation because there were some good people in the Officials in the early 1970s and I don't believe in speaking positively about the feud between the two groups)).
11. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes in Northern Ireland.
12. Based on a fairly scientific look, only .3% of the PIRA’s operations resulted in civilian death.
13. **62% of this poem is me, 38% is the original.

The fires burned for hours, it was a time of terror.
Dublin had ordered the IRA disarmed but they were totally in error
Those nights there were burnt out homes, our community was battered
Non-violence had been our people’s hope, but now that hope was shattered

Chorus
After the fire, the ruins there did lay.
After the Provo victory there will come a brand new day.

The Falls stood in misery, and initially welcomed the British Army Man
But increasingly the Squaddies acted just like the old Black and Tans
Then, on the night of June 27th, it was known the Provos had come alive-
Seeds of resistance once sown, now had grown, new life that would not die.

Chorus

The new Anglo-Irish War is approaching, and with the Provos we shall be.
They rose from the ashes of August ’69 and they will fight for you and me.

*************

“Surf the Euphrates” based on “Surf Nicaragua” by Sacred Reich (despite their name, their politics are very progressive- I'm fairly familiar with all of their music and at least some of it is more or less socially liberal and it's also economically progressive and it's anti-war). Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the Occupation of Iraq.
2. The Euphrates is a major river going through Iraq.
3. One of the MANY reasons Bush had for invading Iraq was that it has a lot of oil.
4. A major argument in favor of invading was that Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda. In fact, shortly after the war began a poll found that about 70-75% of Americans thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It was such bullshit that Tony Blair didn’t use that argument when trying to convince the British people and Parliament to invade. It’s also been strongly suggested that the % of the anti-US forces that were foreign Islamists was very tiny.
5. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction found, and that was predictable based on what the UN weapons inspectors were saying just before the invasion and what former Marine and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter said around 2000.
6. Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense.
7. Based on multiple pieces of anecdotal evidence and the existence of Iraq Veterans Against the War (now, About Face), and how unpopular Bush became shortly after the 2004 election, I imagine a lot of American soldiers who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 wished they hadn’t after they did one or more tours there.
8. I think another reason for invading Iraq is that it provided multiple opportunities to give money to corporations. Besides arms contractors and those doing privatized work for the military, corporations getting money for reconstruction spent about half of what they got doing actual reconstruction (often a contractor would keep half and give the rest to a subcontractor and sometimes THAT corporation would keep half and give the rest to another subcontractor).
9. This poem is not pro-insurgency. It was reasonable and natural that a large majority of Iraqis wanted the US out, but my favorite slogan of the anti-war movement was “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home.” Also, some group at some point, and they may have been anti-war, was raising money to send men and women serving there body armor, and I would have supported that (it’s different than giving them extra ammunition with which to kill Iraqi civilians). (it’s also not pro-Saddam- it would be great if Saddam had been pushed out of power in a better way, but the methods that the US and UK used were bad)
10. Besides the insurgency, there was other instability caused by the invasion and occupation- Al-Qaeda attacks on Shiite neighborhoods, ethnic cleansing by Shiites and possibly some by Sunnis, and tension between some of the Shiite population and the Occupation forces. At one point it came close to a full-blown Sunni-Shiite Civil War.
11. The Surge was a brief but dramatic increase in the number of soldiers and Marines in Iraq.
12. Between 1991 and 2003 Iraq was frequently bombed by the US and UK.
13. I think that Bush supporters enjoyed the political dimension of the war, where they tangled with anti-war groups. We were in a time of a “New McCarthyism,” where disagreeing with Bush was seen by a lot of people as politically taboo. As I said, at the beginning of the war, the vast majority of Americans blamed Iraq for 9/11.
14. As far as Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq, here is something I included in two posts about anti-Semitism:

Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were many, Israel was a small part of it. There was the opportunity to give lots of money to corporations in multiple ways, the strong desire for using the US military that most GOPers have, the desire to teach the world a lesson in terms of what the US will do to them if they piss off D.C., the desire for oil, the idea of democratizing the Middle-East. I also heard something about it being connected to countering the growing strength of the Euro. It's possible they half believed that stuff about WMDs and Al-Qaeda. Israel was a small part of it.

15. Bush liked the idea of being a popular war-time president the people would rally around.
16. **46% of this version is me, 54% is the original.
17. In a post here I describe what I did to oppose the invasion.

I know a place Where you're all going to go
They'll pay you to kill for oil If You're eighteen years old
First You'll need a haircut And then some new clothes
They'll stick you in Baghdad To play G.I. Joe

CHORUS:
You think you’re fighting Al Qaeda and that you’ll find WMD
But it’s total bullshit, concocted by Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney
But now it's too late You're entering Iraq
You voted for Bush, you’ll soon wish you could take it back

What is this we're fighting for and What are our goals
To create a cash cow for US corporations and improve Bush’s polls
Instability  and Sunni resistance grow deeper everyday
The situation worsens, the Surge is on it's the way

CHORUS:

Lessons we have learned Are easy to forget
Hints of Vietnam How soon we all forget
First we used sanctions and bombs, now go in the troops
Another chance for the Right to slander anti-war groups

1847: Three New Poems

Three more poems. These are all based on offensive material, I explain that and my poems in general here.

The rest of the poems are available by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom. There are about 10 pages worth, so click on "older posts."

1. Black 47. About the Irish "Famine."
2. Still Right-Wing. About American politics.
3. 1945. About WWII.

“Black 47” based on “Six Million Lies” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the so-called “Famine” that Ireland experienced.
2. From elsewhere on my blog, here’s a fairly good summary:

During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. …  the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. … The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish

3. It was close to genocide.
4. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that a British Prime Minister apologized for British policy during the Famine. I guarantee you they weren’t being honest about it and not apologizing.
5. I’m not sure to what extent the British pushed the idea that the Irish are all alcoholics, but I’m sure they at least sort of did.
6. If you focus on the number of INDIGENOUS Irish who died or emigrated, it was a little less than three million.
7. As far as the American establishment pushing lies about the Famine, see this. As far as I can tell, a lot of Irish-Americans believe that the Irish chose to just eat potatoes.
8. I’m not saying that everyone who supports Northern Ireland being part of the UK also peddle lies about the Famine, but I think that most of them do.
9. During the Famine, people were offered money if they didn’t teach their children Irish (that’s according to a Sinead O’Connor song).
10. The 12 of July is a major holiday for N. Ireland Unionists, and is political and sectarian (it’s the anniversary of a battle in Ireland where a Protestant contender for the British throne beat his Catholic rival).
11. Orange is the color of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Anglo-Irish context.
12. Partition is the division of Ireland.
12. As I prove here only .3% of operations of the Provisional IRA resulted in civilian death. And I like referring to The Troubles as the Second Anglo-Irish War (the first being the War of Independence).
13. This isn’t ABOUT SF. It’s just saying that the cause of Irish freedom is strengthened by SF’s electoral success. It’s not saying SF believes this or did that, except that they will lead Ireland to unity (no member of SF is going to complain about that statement).
14. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate.
11. **78% of this version is me, 22% is the original. I took the first two lines of the original, combined them, altered them, and then created a completely new 2nd line.
12. No Remorse were British and supported the unionist and/or British cause(s) in N. Ireland.

Did the Irish really prefer potatoes or is it just a British lie?
20% left and 20% died
Genocide by the Brits, we have the proof
Why did they try to cover up the truth?
Scared that they would look like scum that they are
So they pushed the idea that the Irish can’t stay out of bars

Three million of the human race
Because the British Army had an iron grip on the place
They play down the fact that food was shipped across the Irish sea
They may have fooled you, but not me

The worst case of Laissez-faire economics in history
It was also racism and religious bigotry
American media and schools cooperate
With the lies of those who support the North being part of the British state
Well the beautiful Irish language didn't die
Fuck Margaret Thatcher and the 12th of July!

So let's make Ireland British Army free
We’ll make sure there's no return to an Orange society
The partition of Ireland is rotten to the core
Provos fought with courage and honor in the Anglo-Irish War
With Sinn Fein and global solidarity we'll surely win
And the Protestant Unionists will see us as their kin

**************

“Still Right-Wing” based on “Still Occupied” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is the address of the White House.
2. Fash is short for fascists.
3. I doubt it’s just a tiny minority of white people who worry about that. I think it might be around 20-30%.
4. “Right-to-work” is, in general, a reference to anti-union government policies. Specifically, “Right-to Work” laws say that someone can’t be required to join a union in order to get a job. This means that people who benefit from a union contract at their job don’t have to pay membership dues, which weakens the union.
6. As far as the racist, homicidal cops, see this.
7. A lot of GOP local and state elections officials pull fucked up shit. Not enough voting machines in certain precincts and few or no opportunities to vote early means long lines and people going home without voting so they can get up and go to work the next morning. There’s what happened in FL in 2000 where they were. WAY to quick to take people off the rolls because they MIGHT have been convicted of something. More recent fight-back against letting ex-cons vote, and creating a poll tax by saying that such people have to pay all the money they owe in connection with their conviction before they can vote again.
8.  In terms of racial equality, the FUTURE looked so bright when Obama was President. Trump took that and turned it on its head. Also, Obama (as a candidate and as President) was not a progressive, but nor was he a Clintonite. He was a liberal, as I non-philosophically define them here.
9. I’m not interested in an alliance with the obnoxious, extreme, sectarian anarchists. I think the moderate anarchists were SLIGHTLY happy with Obama being elected, because he was the first Black President, and as I explain above, he was not a Clintonite. And I think that most Marxists and almost all social-dems were at least sort of happy with him, for the same reasons.
10. **76% of this version is me, 24% is the original. The second-to-last line of both verses is brand new- it wasn't there before.
11. UPDATE 4/1/20 Just in case there's confusion, I'm not saying that everyone to the left of center and  opposed to the GOP is a leftist or more generally a progressive. It might sound like I'm saying that, but I'm not. I JUST CHANGED "WE'LL" IN THE COUNTY CLERK LINE TO "DEMS AND PROGRESSIVES WILL".

With Obama, the future looked so bright,
Finally, a President who wasn’t white.
But then, at 1600 Pennsylvania, Trump moved in,
Even though, the popular vote, he didn’t win.
Our society is being torn apart,
think this is bad but it's just the start.
Instead of health care fash worry that the white race will die
How can so many white people swallow so many lies?

Chorus
It’s still a “right-to-work” nation, workers aren’t free -
The working-class labor movement is on it’s knees
And it's hard, hard to defeat -
the murderous police departments patrolling the Black street!

With GOP County Clerks Dems and progressives will never have a chance to win
Their idea of democracy and fascism are almost akin
Hopefully the white working-class will awake, before it's too late,
And Labor will keep educating them, however much money it takes.
We’re trying to save the labor movement from homicide,
we're for comprehensive diversity and for class pride.
Whether we’re social-dems, Marxists or moderate anarchists
We're never ever giving in to the fucking capitalists!

*************

“1945” based on “Final Attack” by Final War. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the last several months of WWII in Europe.
2. A bridgehead is either a position held to maintain the possession of a bridge at the front, or a position just behind enemy lines.
3. Many of them didn’t do any time because they were executed.
4. The Waffen-SS was the military (as opposed to paramilitary) component of the SS (the very ideological, official, domestic security part of the Nazi state).
5. Combined arms attacks involve more than one type of military unit (i.e. infantry, armor, ground attack aircraft, artillery)
6. The main weapon of a tank is its main gun. Bazookas were an early version of a Rocket-Propelled-Grenade type weapon.
7. Panzers were German tanks.
8. **71% of this poem is me, 29% is the original.
9. UPDATE 4/6/20 I need to say that as far as American servicemen opposed to anti-semitism, realistically it was probably just some moderate-sized minority of them.
10. UPDATE 4/6/20 The chorus is kind of out of whack chronologically (to one ridiculously large degree or another, knowledge of the camps was incredibly limited until the end of the war).

The day is approaching the day of victory
for the Poles, the Jews, and all those, opposed to the Nazis
gonna keep fighting gonna knock em dead
gonna reinforce the front and our bridgeheads

gonna take many prisoners when their lines we overrun
won’t stop till our mission is done
they took over Europe and made Jews wear an arm-band
now we’re gonna smash them with an iron hand

(Chorus)
Oh no, what are the Nazis gonna do?
when we find the concentration camps for the Jews
We’ll put them on trial for war crimes
After they’re convicted, they won’t do any time

we’ve got our sights set on the Waffen-SS
Arms factories, all those Nazis who oppress
we’re on a rampage we’re letting loose
And we’ll only accept unconditional surrender, without a truce

We carry out ambushes and combined arms attacks
they tried to take the world, now they cower at our artillery impacts
Main guns and bazookas are how we destroy Panzer tanks
And when we capture Krauts we love to interrogate their upper ranks

Anti-Zionism Is No More Anti-Semitic Than Irish Republicanism Is Anti-Protestant

I have always been a supporter of the Palestinians. Well, in Junior High, to whatever tiny degree I was political and politically educated, I guess you could say I was a neo-conservative and I drew Israeli flags on my my notebooks, etc. But since I started becoming more educated and progressive and active, in High School, I have been a supporter of the Palestinians. On this blog, as I simultaneously go to great lengths to oppose anti-Semitism (the best examples are here and here, but all my posts that are partly or totally about anti-semitism are here), I have also referred to Israeli Apartheid, as a way to describe how the Jewish State treats it’s Palestinian citizens and, more so, how it treats the Palestinians in the West Bank (I haven’t said much about Gaza but it is horrible what is happening there and it also involves the fact that the Palestinians are stateless and there is bigotry towards Arabs). But I have not really said much critical about Zionism.

In this post I will argue that Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster., and that a one state solution is a better idea than a two state solution.

UPDATE 10/1/23 The next paragraph is a response to something I read from a fairly good source of information- the idea that critics of Israel, if they aren't anti-Semitic, must recognize the Jewish population's right to self-determination.

The Jewish people in general don’t have a right to self-determination. They are not a nation. Religious groups don't have a right to self-determination (Catholics globally and in Ireland don't). In America (and I think social scientists and/or Jews in other countries would agree) being Jewish is a religious and/or ethnic identity and ethnic groups don't have a right to self-determination (Irish-Americans don't have a right to self-determination). Even with a large concentration in Israel, Jews are mostly a diaspora, and that was even more true in 1948. The Irish diaspora does not have a right to self-determination. The Irish on that island do, but not the diaspora. Since many people use the term “bi-national” when describing a one state solution to the conflict, I use the term that way twice in this post. Some would say I’m saying that the Jews are a nation. On one hand, the Jewish people of ISRAEL might be a nation, but some people including some Irish republicans would say that N. Ireland Unionists are a nation, and IF they have a right to national self-determination, as a settler population, it is inferior to that of the indigenous Irish (although this is complicated because there are some Unionists who are Catholic and some of those are technically indigenous, it is a lot more accurate to say Unionists are an ethnic group that could be called British-Irish) (IF European-Americans have a right to self-determination, it is trumped by that of American Indians). So, the Jewish-Israeli population might have a right to self-determination, but it is trumped by the right to self-determination of the 100% indigenous population of Palestinians (almost the entire Jewish-Israeli ethnic group are settlers or the descendants of settlers). IF (and it might be a huge if) anyone says that the Jews are a race and therefore they have a right to self-determination, here's my response: A) No, races don't have a right to self-determination (does the white race have a right to self-determination?); B) The Nazis certainly thought Jews were a race, and C) are such hypothetical supporters of Israel saying that Israel is a racial state?

The Jewish population dispersed from the Holy Land almost two millenia ago. Yes, some remained, but the idea that they could reserve the entire area for all the descendants (two millennia later) of those who left is ridiculous. MANY Irish Catholics left Ireland and although some of their descendants can become Irish citizens, the VAST majority cannot. And that includes the descendants of that VAST majority of the emigres who left as result of British and Unionist policy in Ireland. Let me focus on the area currently called Northern Ireland. For centuries there’s always been a large minority of the population that identify as Catholic and/or Irish. No one says that all the descendants of the emigres can come back.

Some would point to the Holocaust as a relevant difference, and that’s not totally irrelevant. I’m not saying I deserve an award from the Anti-Defamation League for this, but there is a fair amount of material on my blog about the Holocaust, here. Although I have mixed feelings about criminalizing Holocaust Denial because I am opposed to censorship, I believe an argument can be made that Holocaust Denial breaches international law on genocide, and I don’t oppose criminalizing it. At least half, maybe 2/3, of Europe’s Jewish population was killed intentionally and efficiently by a regime that meant to exterminate the entire population and that fought to the death and was only defeated after a MASSIVE military effort that included what you might say were at the time three of the world’s super-powers (the US, the USSR, and the UK). As I have written elsewhere, genocide is the cultural equivalent of a species going extinct. And of course there is the background of widespread global anti-Semitism before Nazi Germany, and the refusal of most, maybe all countries to take in more than a handful of refugees during the Nazi era in Germany.

On the other hand, here’s what the Irish went through that comes sort of close. Although this is roughly equivalent to what Hitler did with the work camps in the early years of the Holocaust, Cromwell (in the 1600s) sent tens of thousands of Irish people to the Caribbean as some kind of cross between indentured servants and slaves. They had no choice and worked under slave-like conditions until they earned their freedom or died (many or MOST died) (they usually lasted about 3-7 years). During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. Now, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it’s not like the British were rounding up the Irish with the goal of extermination. But the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. And the facts are the facts as far as how many people died or had to emigrate to avoid dying. There’s much more, but that’s the most serious and relevant stuff.

What happened in the Holocaust, is not much worse than what happened to the Irish. On the other hand, what the Nazis wanted to do is worse than what the British wanted, IF the British had wanted what happened to the Irish to happen. But there are two more things to consider: A) The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish, and B) keeping Jews in concentration camps (not DEATH camps) or ghettos with little or no food or medicine was not terribly different from what the British did disempowering and impoverishing the Irish and taking food, at the barrel of a gun, out of Ireland while there was a potato blight.

On one hand, you could sort of compare Zionism with the 1800s immigration of Irish to America and what happened to the indigenous population of this country during that century. But the Irish population didn’t rally to that to quite the same degree that the Jewish population rallied to Zionism (I would estimate that in an average year of the last 8 decades, about 80% of Jewish people were Zionists, and I think that about 35-44% of the world's Jewish population live there, and many others spend some time there; there isn't a comparably solid ideology about the Irish emigrating to America, although probably 60% of the diaspora live here). And I am not happy about what Europeans and European-Americans have done here in relation to the indigenous population, and I have done some activism about that. My activism on the issue reflects the fact that I got an Ethnic Studies degree with a primary focus on American Indian Studies. And in both cases, I’m not saying anyone needs to get on a boat and go back home. But the white population here and the Jewish population in what used to be called Palestine, need to transform their relationship with the Indians and the Arabs, respectively.

You could also sort of compare it to what the British did settling the Irish province of Ulster, 2/3 of which makes up N. Ireland (although it was not in response to mass suffering let alone genocide). I’m not real familiar with that, but I guarantee you that centuries ago the Catholic population was treated perhaps worse than it was the first 80 years after N. Ireland was created, and there’s some information about that here, here, and here. We are talking about a colonial effort, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone when I make that comparison on this blog.

I’ll return to the N. Ireland comparison soon, but let me say a few more things first. Responding to the Holocaust by founding a Jewish State in the Holy Land was not a great idea. After the war, those Jews who just couldn’t stay in Europe would have found safety in America, or probably SOME European countries like the UK, Ireland (although they were neutral, the war-time Prime Minister had a fairly good record of opposing anti-Semitism and the 1937 Constitution explicitly recognized the Jewish religion as part of the Irish nation), Denmark (whose population went further than any other to save the Jewish population from the Nazis), just to mention a few solid examples. In terms of safety, founding the Jewish State was, at least in hind-sight not that helpful in reducing anti-Semitism and the Jewish population there has only been relatively safe because of A) a ridiculously skilled or ridiculously lucky military, B) MASSIVE military support from the US, and C) in the last 4-5 decades, the possession of nuclear weapons. As far as anti-Semitism world-wide, the fairly predictable effect of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians under its rule has been to just make anti-Semitism more popular than it was shortly after WWII.

Also, I’d say the Jewish religion isn’t as connected to the land once known as Palestine as the Christian religion is. What I call the Old Testament begins a long way from Jerusalem. And then there was 400-500 years in Egypt. Although the early history of the Jews is part of the Bible, Christianity is INCREDIBLY defined by the birth of Christ, his life, his death, and if you believe people like me, his resurrection, and then his ascendence into heaven. It all took place in the area once known as Palestine. And yet, I think the Crusades by European Christians were reactionary.

In Ireland, the goal of republicans and nationalists could be called a “one state solution.” They want Ireland united. Some socialists and others predict that if Sinn Fein got close to its goal, the actual result would be a repartitioning of N. Ireland. I think that’s unlikely and crucially, SF would not accept that. Also, what they want is a secular state of all religions and you MIGHT also use the term bi-national. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate. Below I address the idea that the South of Ireland is today based on religion and/or ethnicity (it’s diverse enough that ethnicity is the right word).

I don’t know when I started to drift towards supporting a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with settlements and with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and with Trump’s “peace” plan, I am thinking that the two state solution is dead. There’s also the fact that MANY West Bank Palestinians (not to mention many of those in Gaza) would like to experience the relative democracy that Israelis enjoy and certainly most of them would like to enjoy the relative prosperity most Israelis enjoy. MANY people in the West Bank are not happy with the Palestinian Authority and I imagine that when it comes to a democratic society a small or large minority of people in Gaza are not happy with Hamas. A recent poll described and analyzed in an article here found that about 2/3 of Palestinians have given up on the two state solution.

(I should explain something about one of the polls results- that 84% want to withdraw recognition of Israel. It might be a large minority of that 84% want to destroy Israel. There must be GREAT anger towards Israel in Gaza considering the humanitarian disaster, the complete lack of state-hood and the resources for state-hood, and the periodic, brutal and short-term invasions by the Israeli military in the last 15 years. But it might also be a flawed response to calls for the PLO to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something that will make it easier for Israel to treat it’s Palestinian population as second-class citizens, and it might be inspired by a desire to see Israel destroyed in the sense that it is replaced by a secular, democratic, bi-national state including the West Bank and Gaza. I mean, in the same poll 78% want to stage NON-VIOLENT protests against Trump’s plan, suggesting that they aren’t out for Jewish blood)

There’s also a poll saying that 30% of Israelis want a federation with Palestine, which might indicate support for a one state solution, although in that article Juan Cole is pessimistic that it’s that positive.

Although it’s easier said than done, a one state solution would solve the conflict better than a two state solution would. It would turn Israel into a fully fledged democracy and the odds are that social conservatism would be weakened in both the Palestinian and Jewish populations, and even if Israelis see some small decline in their lifestyle as part of a redistribution of wealth, hopefully it would be negated by the creation of a social democracy- Israel, in a slightly warped way, used to be a social democracy, and Fatah, the dominant part of the PLO, has been for decades a Jr. or (today) a full member of the Socialist International (sure, the SI isn’t as socialist as it used to be, but still…). Even if Jew-hatred continued in Iran and they got a nuke (I’m saying IF to both), if the Jewish and Palestinian populations were more integrated and the Palestinians were happy with the new state, I doubt a WMD or conventional attack would take place. Some of the money currently spent on destructive military activities would be funneled to things like health care and education and the environment.

I have tried to find out exactly what contributes to calling Israel The Jewish State. I spent hours in the library. Actually I didn’t but I am really good at using Google Advanced Search and identifying what sites are good sources for this or that topic. I couldn’t find hardly anything except for stuff about the recent Nation-State law which is both horrible and fairly vague (there's also a ton of stuff on a related question here). I believe that some of what contributes to use of the phrase Jewish State can be retained in a one state solution. The Jewish religion and culture can be protected along with Islam, Christianity, Druze, and the various other cultures like that of the Arabs. Equality legislation can be created and enforced.

Immigration policy would probably have to change in two ways. Those who fled or were expelled from Palestine as a result of the creation of Israel (and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza), and their descendants will have to be allowed back. We’re talking about people whose parents or grandparents left, not people whose ancient ancestors left. Jewish immigration might have to be curbed a little compared to the current policy and hopefully Jewish leaders in the new state won’t travel the globe unnecessarily encouraging Jewish immigration. It should remain a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution. If you doubt that happens or think it will cease when the conflict there is resolved, think again. Fascism is on the rise throughout the world, including in Europe, and although it’s possible they’re not all as anti-Semitic as Hitler was, it’s still a problem. Although, or perhaps because, it’s an unbelievable story, read here about how a Jewish-American had few options but to immigrate to Israel to avoid being killed by Nazi Skinheads partly because he’s Jewish (even before the Internet, Nazi skinheads networked pretty well and Daly might have had trouble avoiding them by simply moving somewhere else in America, and I'm pretty sure he decided to immigrate around 1995) (I read elsewhere that on one hand he became a Likud activist but on the other hand he did work supporting Ethiopian Jews facing racism)). The new state could use diplomacy, economic power, and when needed their scaled down but probably still efficient foreign intelligence agency and military to help those Jews in the world who are experiencing persecution. And their diplomacy will be more respected than it is now.

It might be a good idea to initially have some kind of power-sharing set up like they have in N. Ireland. Not comparable to the one in Lebanon which is stupid, but like the one in N. Ireland. See this and this. There might be some relevant ideas here, in a peace plan proposal for N. Ireland I developed (that’s right, the UN Secretary General DID call me on the phone to discuss it- in my wildest dreams). (UPDATE 4/2/20 As far as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that can be done in some way that resembles what's done in N. Ireland with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. What was difficult for me until now was what to do about a Head of State? I just figured it out. They could use what's called in Britain and Ireland "Alternative Vote" (what's called "Instant Run-Off Voting" in America). In the UK/RoI context it's proportional representation (with Single Transferable Vote) with just one seat being filled. They could use that, but with an elevated threshold, like 66% instead of 50%+1. That way the top parties (I don't think there should be a limit, but I imagine most of the smallest ones won't bother) will probably nominate moderates who can attract a lot of votes, and the winner will definitely be someone a large majority of the voters will be more or less happy with. And it might be best to put a lot of the power over the military and foreign policy in the President's hands, at least kind of like they do in France (also, one more idea- Constitutional Amendments should definitely require what in Northern Ireland they call "cross-community support") (It might also be a good idea if the Interior Ministry is formally or informally reserved for a MP who designates themselves as "Other" and/or it requires "cross-community support;" informally it's reserved for an "Other" in N. Ireland) (I'll be honest, I don't know what happens with the French President and the Defense and Foreign Ministries, but I would suggest that those ministers in a future WhateverIt'llBeCalled be appointed by the President and require confirmation by the Parliament with "cross"community support"))

A one state solution might avoid an Israeli Civil War, although it might also unavoidably be preceded by one. When the government pulled settlers out of Gaza, there was talk of civil war. To one very large degree or another, settlers in the West Bank wouldn’t have to leave.

Let me say a little more about N. Ireland and a one state solution. Republicans and especially the moderate Social Democratic and Labour Party in the North don’t want the Protestants to leave (although the SDLP is closer to the Catholic Church than SF is, they’ve overall done a better job of attracting Protestants). They have worked with the Unionists to sustain the Peace Process and create a new society in N. Ireland and take steps towards a United Ireland. I believe that SF compromised more than they should have had to in terms of agreeing that Ireland will only be united when a majority in N. Ireland want that, but for the most part I support the GFA and the steps republicans have taken to make the Peace Process work. An example of this is senior SF leaders attending various events that are MUCH more Protestant and/or Unionist than Catholic and/or Nationalist, if not totally Protestant/Unionist. At least once in the last twenty years organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Belfast printed their materials in English, Irish, Chinese, and Ulster-Scots (a very, very minor language associated with Protestants and Unionists). Although SF believes that there should be separate legislation for promoting the Irish language in N. Ireland, they support something similar for Ulster-Scots. SF has practically always been willing to work with Unionists. The recent three year crisis in the Peace Process which was started with SF withdrawing from the Assembly’s Executive, was triggered largely by a financial scandal involving the First Minister (a Unionist) and involved  Unionist opposition to an Irish language act and same-sex marriage, a sectarian policy decision by a Unionist minister, and Unionist talk about how much anti-Protestant bigotry there is in N. Ireland (seriously, very little, and if you think I’m downplaying it because I hate them, too, see this (especially the notes BELOW the poem) and/or look at the survey results for “Equality” and for “Contact and Mixing” here or read this about sectarianism in the first 50 years of N. Ireland).

Lastly, here is my response to the idea that the Republic of Ireland (the South) is comparable to Israel.

After the War of Independence in Ireland, in 1920-1925 the South became what was called a “Free State.” Its independence from the UK was limited. For example, members of Parliament had to swear an oath to Queen. The 1937 Constitution created the position of President and the first President was a Protestant. Presidential terms are normally seven years and someone can serve two terms. In the 1970s there was another Protestant President for about 2 years before he died. So, out of 9 Presidents, two were Protestant. As far as the 1937 Constitution and Catholicism, it’s true that early drafts emphasized Catholicism and the Catholic Church, but there was GREAT opposition to that. The final draft of the relevant section recognized the existence of the main Protestant churches in Ireland, as well as the Jewish religion, and it recognized “the special position” of the Roman Catholic Church “as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.” This special place for the Catholic Church was done away with in 1972. The ban on divorce was done away with in 1995. There were of course homophobic laws (only in 1993 was homosexuality decriminalized) and the constitution had to be amended in 2015 to allow for gay marriage (there wasn’t anything in the document about “a man and a woman,” but still, only in 2015 was it amended to solidly legalize gay marriage in a country where a law could be more easily overturned by politicians if the country drifted to the right) and abortion is 99% illegal there. But there is plenty of homophobia and pro-life nonsense among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. (also, although the Catholic Church is in two ways sexist, that can be exaggerated, and in recent decades, FREQUENTLY the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) has been a woman and between 1990 and 2011 the slightly powerful position of President of Ireland was held by women, one of whom went on to become the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Is Ireland defined by ethnicity? Until about 20 years ago the South was almost literally 100% white, and there weren’t many non-Irish white people (in the last 20 years there has been bigotry that sort of resembles racism towards, for example, Poles). In 2004 there was an Amendment to the constitution that eliminated birthright citizenship for people born to parents who are not both citizens of Ireland. But if one parent is a citizen, they get citizenship. Also, although naturalization has been restricted, it’s still possible and it’s still fairly easy for citizens of the European Community (although that could be interpreted as racist, I don’t think they had much of a choice as a member of the EU). First, the parties in Ireland I primarily support (SF and Irish Labour) opposed the citizenship Amendment as racist (and also as being in conflict with the Good Friday Agreement). Second, although I couldn’t have said this until recently, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland for the last few years was a man named Leo Varadkar, whose father is Indian. Also, he’s an openly gay man. I don’t like him or his party (Fine Gael, who are sort of socially liberal but sort of pro-British and in love with capitalism). According to wikipedia, he was a government minister between 2011 and 2017 when he became Taoiseach. Between 2007 and 2011, when FG were in Opposition, he was a  Spokesperson (shadow minister?). The Irish language is recognized by the Constitution as the first official language and English is recognized as the second. A lot is done to promote the former, but practically everyone practically always speak the latter and everything official is available in both languages. The British came very close to stamping out the Irish language (and they WERE trying to).

The South is not comparable to the Jewish State. And SF doesn’t want a United Ireland to be any more Catholic or based on ethnicity than the South is now. The second half of this (starting with the sentence “A lot of people…”) talks about the former, and most of this deals with the latter.

In conclusion, Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster. That doesn’t mean Jews need to leave. But they do need to transform their relationship with the Palestinians, and I believe that is best achieved through the creation of a truly democratic, secular, bi-national state.

Babylon 5 Reviews M

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 5 episode 7 “Secrets of the Soul”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one small political issue and one pretty large one.

First, Dr. Franklin says, for the third time, that he will not be involved in biogenetic warfare and this time promises representatives of an alien race who are giving him their people’s medical information (probably the biology, chemistry, etc. and epidemiology) that he would rather die than be involved in that sort of thing.

While reviewing that information he learns that there were two races (the Hyach who are known to Earth and the Hyach-Doh who are buried in history) on their home planet in a case of “parallel evolution.” He is accosted by one of the Hyach intent on maintaining a cover-up of what happened to the other race. He learns that at one point centuries ago they briefly co-existed and there was inter-marriage. Then Hyach religious forces had that designated as immoral, which changed to illegal, and then became punishable by death. After that the Hyach spent centuries successfully pursuing a policy of extermination. This included bounties on the heads of the Hyach-Doh and a severe ban on anyone helping them leave the planet. The former reminds me of what happened to American Indians, and the latter goes further than what the Nazis initially did (for some period of time in the 30s German Jews could leave).

Dr. Franklin then learns that the race that continued (the Hyach) is numerically declining and that it’s doing so because they needed the inter-breeding with the other race (the Hyach-Doh) for biological or genetic reasons.

There is a powerful exchange between the Dr. and a Hyach who seems RELATIVELY willing to deal with the truth:

Hyach: We are a dying people unless you help us.

Dr. Franklin: No.

Hyach: You hold us responsible for those who were killed.

Dr. Franklin: Yes.

Hyach: Even though we ourselves were not yet born?

Dr. Franklin: You helped hide the truth about what happened by revising your history, cutting out the parts you didn’t like. Now as far as I‘m concerned that makes you an accomplice after the fact.


The one quoted above asks for forgiveness and Dr. Franklin says only the Hyach-Doh can do that, but they’re all dead.



**Season 5 Episode 8 “Day of the Dead”** For a plot summary see this.

There’s one tiny comment I need to make about this. This episode was made about 20 years ago and I think that back then this mistake I need to highlight was fairly common and today probably everyone against bigotry already knows what I’m going to say. But when discussing diversity and inclusion using the word “tolerance” is very inappropriate. It suggests something is wrong with, for example, the religion being discussed. So it was disappointing that the Captain of B5 used that word in connection with religion.


**Season 5 Episode 9 “In the Kingdom of the Blind”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one brief bit of politics. The Interstellar Alliance gets one of it’s member races to agree to not block the independence of a planet near them (although it’s not stated explicitly, the seperatists were probably governed by the IA member). That was in exchange for the IA agreeing to intercede in all border disputes there for the next 20 years. I imagine something like that might be helpful somewhere on Earth in reality- possibly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, possibly with other international conflicts.



**Season 5 Episode 10 “A Tragedy of Telepaths”** See this for a plot summary.

There's only one political issue in this episode. Evidence is discovered indicating that recent attacks on shipping by Interstellar Alliance races may be carried out by OTHER members of the IA. There is some degree of escalation of threats and military deployments between three different IA races. Then Sheridan deploys Ranger White Star military vessels and threatens to attack anyone seen attacking the military of fellow IA races. Apparently it’s allowed by the constitution of the IA and it’s not a horrible idea but I’m not sure it’s a good idea.


**Season 5 Episode 20 “Objects in Motion”** See this for a plot summary.

There are two brief things about Mars that are worth mentioning. First, looking at the time when Mars was controlled by Earth, accusations are made about what Earth was doing with it’s colony: a vague reference to “exploitation” and a more specific reference to strip mining. Those accusations are the sort of things I had been hoping to hear about Earth's rule of Mars.

The other political thing is that Earth is using bureaucracy, especially about finance, to control Mars as it tries to realize independence- it’s basically neo-colonialism. Th Interstellar Alliance offers to help Mars get financial independence from Earth.