‘Israel has never been so divisive in modern political history’ — anti-BDS bill fails again in Senate

US Politics

Philip Weiss on January 11, 2019

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/01/divisive-political-history/

Israel has never been so openly politicized in the United States as it is right now. Yesterday afternoon Senate Democrats voted to block the progress of a bill that would punish those who support Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. It was the second time in three days that the Democrats joined together on that procedural vote, saying that the shutdown should come first.

Democrats are expressing the fear that the party will split over Israel, just as Republicans want. The Senate leadership has indicated that it will push the bill again soon in an effort to show which party cares about Israel and which party is harboring “anti-semitic” and “racist” forces, in the words of Colorado Senator Cory Gardner.

The anti-boycott bill has gotten wide coverage, from Common Dreams to Vox, where Zack Beauchamp’s excellent explainer on the legislation concludes by citing the pro-Palestinian attitudes among young progressive Americans in polls.

“Israel has never been so divisive in modern political history… the Democratic Party can no longer be counted on to back any bill merely because it’s seen as ‘pro-Israel.’”

Mainstream Democrats fear that division. Josh Rogin writes in the Washington Post that Israel is now going to be an issue in the 2020 elections, and a “growing problem” for Democrats:

And each of the dozen or more Democratic lawmakers potentially running for president will have to take a position, one that either hurts them with progressives in the primary or moderates in the general election. And that’s the point. One can lament the end of congressional bipartisanship on Israel, but the truth is that has been the case for many years.

[Senate Majority leader Mitch] McConnell is attempting to show that, on Israel, Republicans are actually largely in agreement, whereas Democrats have a growing problem. The political battle over foreign policy leading up to 2020 has begun, and McConnell just fired the opening salvo.

Amir Tibon in Haaretz also sees “a real threat to the continuation of bi-partisan support for Israel in American politics.”

In the current political environment, Israeli diplomats and groups like AIPAC face a double challenge. One part of this challenge is the growing “progressive wing” within the Democratic Party which is very critical of Israel, and now includes two members of the House of Representatives who openly endorse BDS. The second part of the challenge attempts by Republicans to paint the entire Democratic Party with a single brush when it comes to Israel, ignoring the real differences between the few who are truly anti-Israeli and those who have nuanced positions on specific policy questions.

Here are some highlights of the debate so far.

The lobbying against the bill was led by Palestinian solidarity groups such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights and Jewish Voice for Peace and the Presbyterian Church’s Israel Palestine Mission Network, all of which support boycotts, but also crucially by the ACLU, which repeatedly denounced the bill on free speech grounds.

It’s as if the Senate doesn’t have other matters to address — like a government shutdown. We urge Senators to stay strong in defense of the First Amendment and continue to vote no.

Israel supporters divided bitterly over the legislation, and AIPAC lost a Senate vote, twice.  “[T]he historically nonpartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) called on lawmakers to advance the bill as quickly as possible, making its most partisan legislative push since it urged lawmakers to vote against the Iran nuclear deal in 2015,” Al-Monitor reported. 

The liberal Zionist group J Street clearly represents the Democratic Congress, against AIPAC. J Street respects the rights of Americans to boycott and blasted an AIPAC email for “blatant falsehoods,” such as the claim that the bill would not target individuals.

In fact, the bill would give a Congressional seal of approval to anti-BDS laws passed by 26 states that penalize individuals and groups that support the boycott. The poster child for the cause has been the case exposed by the Intercept of a Texas elementary school teacher who lost work because she refused to sign a pro-Israel “loyalty oath.”

Amazingly, the issue of loyalty got into the debate, when the new congresswoman from Detroit, Rashida Tlaib, who is Palestinian and supports BDS, tweeted of the Senate bill:

They forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.

Tlaib was greeted with an onslaught of criticism, reminiscent of the anti-Corbyn vitriol in Britain over the Israel issue. The Israel Policy Forum and the American Jewish Committee were angered by the imputation of dual loyalty. “[T]he charge evokes classical anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalty–in this case, applied to some lawmakers who are not even Jewish–that have no place in our political discourse,” the AJC said. (When you have time, check out all the reasonable voices that have raised just that issue, whose side are you on).

Tlaib gained surprising support from some liberal Zionists–surely because of her other big moment this week, her “impeach the motherfucker” line. Though it was in that connection that Michelle Goldberg at the New York Times wrote that neocon Daniel Pipes is “overtly bigoted” against Palestinians.

Rashida Tlaib was echoed by Jon Tester of Montana on the Senate floor yesterday. He said he had to be for America first:

I am telling you, I am a big supporter of Israel, but I took an oath of office to protect this country first, and we are turning our back on this country.

Juan Cole writes incisively, in an opinion that is sure to gain an echo in the mainstream before long:

[Tlaib] wasn’t harsh enough. The senators who pushed this bill, foremost among them Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) have betrayed the Constitution. And so have the American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers, who are attempting to gut the US Constitution on behalf of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. AIPAC should long ago have been made to register as the agent of a foreign power, and it is a consistent failure of the Department of Justice and the FBI that no pressure has ever been applied to the organization, which attempts to buy or bully representatives who should be standing up for their districts, not kowtowing to an international corrupt bully-like Netanyahu.

Colorado Senator Cory Gardner has provided the red meat on the Republican side, baiting Democrats for being anti-Semitic and racist because they aren’t there for Israel.

We have heard the rhetoric. We have heard the very real comments from not fictitious Members of Congress but from actual Members of Congress who support an anti-Semitic movement….

[Let us take] strong action against a reprehensible and racist movement known as BDS.

While Rubio said yesterday that the Democrats are in “de facto” support of BDS.

If you oppose this bill, then you are in favor of shielding from counter-boycotts anyone who decides to take these actions. That is what you are for, which is de facto support for BDS because what you are basically saying is to go ahead and boycott Israel and divest from Israel, but no one can do that to you…

[This bill] doesn’t do anything to infringe on anyone’s First Amendment right. All it does is protect the First Amendment right to be against BDS and to do to the boycotters what the boycotters are doing to Israel.

Yesterday and on Tuesday, Rubio admitted that the bill was about limiting an individual’s freedom to influence foreign policy:

[T]his is not some domestic debate…. They are trying to influence the foreign policy of another country. This is not a traditional free speech… It is about foreign policy….The courts give broad discretion to Congress and the President in the setting of our foreign policy.

There is a wide fear now among liberals that the Israel issue is going to divide the Democratic Party just when it needs to stay unified. Rogin argues in the Washington Post:

But if McConnell’s strategy was to draw attention to the Israel policy divide inside the Democratic caucus, progressives eagerly took the bait. “First and foremost, McConnell is pushing Democrats to take a position on BDS,” a senior Senate aide told me.

But the Democratic leadership is in a bind. They can use the shutdown to avoid voting directly on anti-BDS legislation for now. But when it eventually comes up, it will likely pass (in some form) with the support of [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who recently shrugged off the Israel policies of what she calls the “extreme left.”

Israelis fear that the debate is only going to open up a division at the highest levels of American government. It was a bad week for AIPAC, Tibon writes in Haaretz:

For Israeli diplomats and pro-Israeli groups such as AIPAC, this was not a good week. A vote on Israel-related legislation that splits almost exactly along party lines (four Democrats out of 47 supported the bill), and creates a partisan boxing match with Israel in the middle, is the exact opposite of the bi-partisan support that Israel officially wants to preserve, and that AIPAC sees as essential for its success.

Michael Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum is deeply concerned. He calls it the big BDS bang and fears that U.S. politics will never be the same:

The 116th Congress has barely gotten settled, and already BDS and efforts to combat it are wreaking havoc across the Democratic Party and between Democrats and Republicans. This week featured accusations of dual loyalty, allegations of secret support for BDS, and thinly veiled efforts to use Israel, and BDS specifically, as a wedge issue for political gain. This is almost certainly a preview of what is to come rather than an aberration, and it adds to the urgency that Democrats already feel to maintain the party’s historically pro-Israel bent while effectively beating back attempts to cast support for Israel as being the sole province of Republicans.

Rubio is wrong that a “significant number of Senate Democrats,” let alone any Senate Democrats, now support BDS, Koplow continues, but Democratic Senators want to see this go away.

[M]uch of the anti-BDS legislation puts Democrats in an uncomfortable position, where they are forced into a bad choice of either being on the side of absolute support for Israel or absolute support for free speech, but not both. While none of the senators support BDS, many of them would rather see the issue go away.

Democrats do indeed have a problem with some of their base on Israel, and Republicans are going to do all they can to make them take uncomfortable vote after uncomfortable vote, reaping whatever political wins they can rather than try and sustain bipartisan support for Israel as a policy goal. Praise the rock-solid support for Israel in the Republican Party all you want, but ask yourself how pro-Israel it truly is to accelerate a process through which Israel becomes a partisan issue rather than trying to stem the tide.

So, it’s just gotten started. And those who support BDS are getting a platform at last inside mainstream political life.

Thanks to Adam Horowitz, James North, and Dave Reed.

LOS COSTOS DE COMBATIR AL CRIMEN ORGANIZADO Y LA CORRUPCIÓN

Se ha dicho hasta el cansancio y se ha estudiado a profundidad la manera en que las actividades criminales se expanden en un país[1], debido principalmente a la captura de partes relevantes del Estado mismo por grupos, organizaciones e intereses ilícitos que buscan obtener ganancias económicas, a expensas de actividades consideradas ilegales, y que por lo tanto deberían implicar un riesgo elevado al realizarlas, debido al supuesto castigo que podrían recibir los que se dedican a ellas.

Ese riesgo se minimiza, cuando una parte relevante de las autoridades, supuestamente encargadas de mantener la legalidad y evitar esos ilícitos, está coludida o dirige dichos negocios.

El régimen neoliberal que ha gobernado México las últimas tres décadas y media se insertó deliberadamente en una globalización económica salvaje, cuya primera divisa siempre fue la “liberalización” de los “mercados” (productos, servicios, finanzas); a excepción del libre flujo de personas.

Ello implicó una reducción de las funciones preventivas, supervisoras y punitivas del Estado, pues se consideró que su interferencia en la economía y en la sociedad sólo distorsionaba el buen funcionamiento de ambas.

Así, los intercambios económicos lícitos crecieron; pero a la par lo hicieron también los considerados ilícitos[2], aprovechando la apertura de fronteras, la disminución del papel del Estado como regulador, supervisor y árbitro en la arena económica y social; y el impulso de una cultura individualista y hedonista, que puso por encima de todo la utilidad y el placer personales, por encima de la responsabilidad y la solidaridad sociales.

En México, caracterizado su sistema político-económico por una acendrada corrupción, la imposición del modelo neoliberal y sus consecuencias, llevó a un nivel superlativo el crecimiento del crimen organizado, gracias a que los gobernantes y los grupos económicos dominantes, al ver roto su monopolio sobre el mercado interno, vieron la posibilidad de mantener su poder y riqueza, embonando la apertura impulsada por la globalización y la disminución concomitante del Estado, con el aprovechamiento de las oportunidades que los mercados “no regulados” ilícitos proporcionaban.

De esta manera, desde el mismo gobierno (federal, estatales y municipales) y en buena parte del sector empresarial y financiero se consideró a las actividades criminales como una especie de “compensador” ante las dificultades de la competencia con el mercado global; y como fuente de acumulación de capital para futuros malos tiempos en la política o en la economía.

Por ello, siempre fue imperativo que la cabeza del sistema, es decir, el Presidente de la República, representara a estos grupos o al menos se entendiera con ellos, para que desde el gobierno mismo se mantuviera la protección a este esquema de explotación económica y de acumulación de riqueza y poder.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador siempre ha dicho que él no formó parte de esta “mafia del poder” y por el contrario, cuando llegara a la presidencia la combatiría. Esa fue una de las razones principales por las que los partidos políticos del régimen neoliberal (PRI, PAN, PRD, PVEM, este último ahora aliado a López Obrador), junto con las cúpulas económicas, se opusieron de manera tan determinante a las candidaturas presidenciales del político tabasqueño.

López Obrador, en esta última campaña presidencial, aseguró a esos grupos que ya no los perseguiría de llegar al poder y que dejaría pasar su corrupción y colusión con el crimen organizado, a cambio de que se terminara ese sistema de permanente saqueo y explotación de la economía y la sociedad mexicanas.

Obviamente los intereses de grupos políticos, económicos y criminales no pueden abandonarse de un día para otro[3]; además, hay toda una cadena de actores nacionales y extranjeros que se benefician de ese sistema. Por lo tanto, ningún llamado o actitud condescendiente desde el poder va a cambiar esto.

Eso lo vio López Obrador desde los primeros días de su presidencia, y al parecer, ya se dio cuenta que los perdones y las amnistías a los corruptos no van a servir de nada. Mientras puedan, estos grupos van a mantener sus actividades ilícitas a como dé lugar.

Ante ello, López Obrador ha iniciado el combate a estas mafias, atacando primero el robo de combustible, lo que en general ha sido bien visto y aprobado por la mayoría de la sociedad y por actores internacionales. Pero esa actividad ilícita lleva por lo menos 20 años imbricada en el sistema económico (Pemex) y político (Secretaría de Energía, gobiernos estatales y municipales), por lo que querer acabarlo de un manotazo, es poco realista. Y lo peor es que los grupos y sectores criminales, políticos y económicos afectados aún cuentan con numerosos instrumentos para responder a las acciones del gobierno; por ejemplo. saboteando los ductos, lo que ha obligado a mantenerlos cerrados y con ello retrasar la distribución del combustible.

Al mismo tiempo, la cara “legal” de esta mafia, ha aprovechado el desabasto de combustibles para generar aún más inconformidad social por las largas filas en las gasolineras, la afectación a negocios, transportes de pasajeros y mercancías y a servicios esenciales, y por el impacto negativo que está sufriendo la economía del país con estas medidas.

Es difícil saber si el gobierno previó lo que sucedería al atacar de frente el robo de combustible que fue protegido y auspiciado desde los niveles más altos en los gobiernos de Fox, Calderón (quien por cierto fue Secretario de Energía) y Peña (impulsor de la hasta ahora fracasada reforma energética).

Pero lo que es indudable es que para desbaratar las redes de protección y complicidad que hay en todos los niveles y áreas del gobierno con el crimen organizado, el gobierno de López Obrador se va a enfrentar a consecuencias similares a las sucedidas con el combate al robo de combustible. Tanto la reacción de los grupos y sectores afectados, como las consecuencias no previstas de las acciones del propio gobierno, generarán altos costos económicos, sociales y políticos.

Y todo ello, de concentrarse en un periodo de tiempo relativamente corto (digamos un año), podría acabar exasperando a la ciudadanía, que si bien desea terminar con las redes de corrupción y de protección al crimen organizado, tampoco está dispuesta a sufrir un periodo de tiempo indeterminado con desabasto de productos básicos o con la disrupción de su vida cotidiana.

El gobierno federal va a tener que ir midiendo muy bien las batallas que dará contra el régimen neoliberal corrupto y vinculado al crimen organizado, pues éste aún sigue vivo y con grandes recursos, que va a utilizar sin miramiento alguno para sabotear y minar al gobierno de López Obrador.

---

[1] Berdal, Mats y Mónica Serrano; Crimen trasnacional organizado y seguridad internacional. Cambio y continuidad.; FCE; México; 1ª. Ed.; 2005; pp. 361

[2] “Al fin y al cabo, nos lo hemos buscado: el éxito actual del comercio ilícito es, en gran medida, el resultado de unas políticas deliberadas, orientadas a la integración global y a unas economías y sociedades abiertas. En realidad, no debería sorprendernos que el comercio legal y el tráfico ilícito hayan crecido de manera conjunta”. Naim, Moisés; Ilícito. Cómo traficantes, contrabandistas y piratas están cambiando el mundo.; Debate; Barcelona; 1ª. Ed; 2006; p. 57

[3] “La especialidad de estos criminales es el control de la logística y los medios de transporte ilegal. El lucro está en su capacidad para obtener, transportar y distribuir mercancía ilegal a través de distintos países. De qué mercancía se trate se ha convertido en algo casi irrelevante.” Comentarios de la entonces subdirectora del FBI, Maureen Baginsk a Moisés Naim. Ibidem. P.53

Here's a roundup of the world's top 10 defense contractors, by sales

·         American defense firms are the indisputable top producers of the world's weapons.

·         From combat ships to hypersonic missiles to fighter jets, Lockheed Martin remains the world's top arms manufacturer.

·         Total weapons sales by Russian firms came in second. For the first time, a Russian company appeared in the top 10 alongside European and American corporations.

Amanda Macias | @amanda_m_macias

Thu, 10 Jan 2019

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/top-10-defense-contractors-in-the-world.html

WASHINGTON — American defense firms are the indisputable leaders of the world's $398 billion arms sales industry, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also known as SIPRI.

In 2017, weapons sales from the top 100 companies totaled $398.2 billion, a 2.5 percent uptick from 2016 and the third year of growth for the industry. (The total excludes China, due to a lack of available data on which to make a reasonable or consistent estimate," according to the report.)

"The overall growth in arms sales of the Top 100 in 2017 was driven by increases in arms procurement spending by several states, in particular, the United States and Russia," the report's authors wrote.

Total weapons sales by Russian firms came in second. For the first time, a Russian company appeared in the top 10 alongside European and American corporations. The arms sales of the 10 Russian companies amounted to $37.7 billion in 2017, which accounts for 9.5 percent of total top 100 arms sales.

Here's a roundup of the world's top 10 defense firms, by sales.

10. Almaz-Antey

Arm sales: $8.6 billion

Country: Russia

For the first time, a Russian weapons supplier appeared in the top 10 of SIPRI's annual list. Almaz-Antey, Russia's largest arms company, increased its weapons sales by 17 percent in 2017 to $8.6 billion, according to the report.

Almaz-Antey is the manufacturer of Russia's S-400, a mobile long-range surface-to-air missile system, which has lured foreign military buyers.

The S-400 is the Kremlin's answer to America's Patriot missile system made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin's THAAD platform. At least 13 countries have expressed interest in buying the S-400 instead of American alternatives despite the potential for triggering U.S. sanctions.

9. Leonardo

Arm sales: $8.9 billion

Country: Italy

Leonardo has a portfolio ranging from helicopters to missiles to drones. Formerly known as Finmeccanica, Leonardo is the largest of only two Italian defense contractors to rank in the top 100 arms companies in the world. Leonardo also manufactures equipment for non-military space programs.

The firm brought in $8.9 billion in 2017 arms sales, which accounts for 68 percent of the company's total revenue.

8. Thales

Arm sales: $9 billion

Country: France

As one of the largest defense contractors in Europe, Thales produces a variety of weapons systems ranging from armored vehicles to missile defense to navigation equipment.

Thales' arms sales of $9 billion account for about half of its total 2017 revenue. In 2017, the French firm raised weapon sales by nearly seven percent from the year prior.

7. Airbus Group

Arm sales: $11.3 billion

Country: Trans-European

Airbus Group, the second largest defense contractor in Europe, brought in $11.3 billion in arms sales in 2017. The weapons contracts account for only 15 percent of the company's $75 billion in 2017 revenue, however. The bulk of the firm's revenue comes from commercial aircraft and its space unit.

The company's most recognizable military product is the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet, a collaboration between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain. There are 546 jets Eurofighters in operation today.

6. General Dynamics

Arm sales: $19.5 billion

Country: United States

General Dynamics, known in part for America's stalwart M1 Abrams tank, brought in $19.5 billion in 2017, down slightly from $19.6 billion the previous year. The M1 Abrams has been used in nearly every major U.S. conflict since its inception in 1980 and still serves as the main battle tank for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.

The firm's arms sales represent 63 percent of total sales. General Dynamics brought in $31 billion overall in 2017.

5. Northrop Grumman

Arm sales: $22.4 billion

Country: United States

Northrop Grumman saw a 2.4 percent increase in 2017 sales to $22.4 billion. In June, the aerospace and defense tech firm acquired rocket maker Orbital ATK for $7.8 billion. The deal allows Northrop to expand its foothold in the space market, an area where Orbital ATK has played a dominant role.

In October, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman $792 million to develop a domestic launch system prototype. Per the award, Northrop's work on its OmegA Rocket is expected to be completed by 2024.

4. BAE Systems

Arms sales: $22.9 billion

Country: United Kingdom

BAE Systems remains the UK's top arms producer and saw growth of 3.3 percent in its 2017 sales. Notably, nearly 30,000 of BAE's 83,000 employees work for an American subsidiary.

This past summer, the defense firm won a U.S. Marine Corps contract to build the next amphibious combat vehicle. The contract is expected to amount to $1.2 billion.

3. Raytheon

Arms sales: $23.9 billion

Country: United States

Raytheon is the world's top manufacturer of guided missiles and a leader in missile defense systems.

The defense giant saw a 2 percent increase in 2017 sales to $23.9 billion compared to sales in 2016.

Raytheon's portfolio includes the Patriot missile system, a combat-tested platform that has become the backbone of European ballistic missile defense. Outside of Europe, Raytheon's Patriot system is operated by nine nations.

2. Boeing

Arms sales: $26.9 billion

Country: United States

The gap between America's top two defense firms, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, widened by $18 billion in 2017.

"The fall in Boeing's arms sales can be partially attributed to delays in the delivery of KC-46 tanker aircraft and the end of deliveries of C-17 transport aircraft," analysts wrote in the report.

However, Boeing's arms sales only account for 29 percent of the aircraft manufacturing giant's total 2017 company sales.

In 2018, Boeing bagged a significant number of Pentagon contracts. In the month of September alone, Boeing was awarded more than 20 contracts with a cumulative value of $13.7 billion.

1. Lockheed Martin

Arms sales: $44.9 billion

Country: United States

From combat ships to hypersonic missiles to fighter jets, Lockheed Martin remains the world's top weapons manufacturer.

In 2017, the Bethesda-based arms giant brought in $44.9 billion in sales, an 8.3 percent increase from 2016.

This year, Lockheed Martin snatched both of the Pentagon's new hypersonic weapon contracts and continued delivery of its F-35 fighter jet, America's most expensive weapons system.

Venezuela amenazada

Ángel Guerra Cabrera

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/01/10/mundo/024a1mun

Estados Unidos y sus lacayos hacen de Venezuela el blanco, hace casi 20 años, de una de las campañas de desestabilización, guerra económica y mediática más salvajes conocidas hasta nuestros días. La toma de posesión del presidente Nicolás Maduro, a realizarse este jueves, ha sido el pretexto desde hace meses para redoblar esa agresión. Ejecutada por una internacional de derecha vigilada por Washington, ha enjaezado a ella la endeble Unión Europea y el llamado Grupo de Lima, integrado, con la digna excepción del México lopezobradorista, por los gobiernos más antipopulares y proyanquis de nuestra América, incluyendo el de Brasil. Encabezado por Jair Bolsonaro, mezcla de rasgos típicos de los más primitivos integrantes de las unidades de asalto nazis y de los coroneles esclavistas brasileños del siglo XIX, cuyo ascenso a la cabeza del gigante sudamericano ilustra la deriva ultraderechista con tintes fascistas a que han empujado la ofensiva imperialista oligárquica, contra los gobiernos revolucionarios y progresistas de nuestra región, la misma llegada de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca y la honda crisis mundial del capitalismo y de la globalización neoliberal.

El imperialismo estadunidense ha desempolvado la Doctrina Monroe (1823), concebida para subordinar a nuestra región. Con el cínico desconocimiento de Maduro, Washington persigue acabar con el gobierno democrático de la patria de Bolívar y Chávez. También, aplastar la revolución venezolana con la utilización de los tenebrosos recursos de la guerra híbrida. Si lo lograra, lanzarse al cuello de Cuba, Bolivia y Nicaragua y apoderarse de los recursos naturales de nuestra región. Liquidar la idea, inspirada por Bolívar y Martí y retomada e impulsada por Fidel y Chávez, de América Latina y el Caribe unidos e integrados económicamente en una zona de paz y cooperación. Acabar también con los valientes gobiernos caribeños que se han resistido a servir a los planes de Washington para aplicar a Venezuela en la OEA la injerencista Carta Democrática Interamericana.

Para ello están decididos a tomar una acción militar de envergadura contra Venezuela, no necesariamente con intervención directa de grandes unidades gringas. Hay claras evidencias de que estos malévolos trajines son concebidos y operados por el Comando Sur de las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos, por lo menos desde que en 2016 y con la firma de su todavía jefe, el almirante Kurt Tidd, se publicara el plan Venezuela Freedom II Operation, continuación de una fase previa de la que informó al Senado de Estados Unidos el 12 de marzo de 2015 el entonces comandante de ese cuerpo armado, general John Kelly, hasta hace poco jefe de gabinete de la Casa Blanca.

Estados Unidos nunca ha negado la autoría de ese documento ni de otro más reciente también salido del Comando Sur, el Masterstroke (Golpe maestro), surgido debido a la derrota por el chavismo conducido por Maduro, del Venezuela Freedom II Operation.

Al leer actualmente el primero de esos planes la impresión que da es la de un relato anticipado de la política real de asfixia, golpe de Estado continuado, y aislamiento internacional contra la Venezuela bolivariana y chavista que hemos visto poner en práctica por el imperialismo desde 2016, cuando fue concebido.

Maduro fue relecto en paz y tranquilidad con más de 6 millones de votos el 20 de mayo de 2018 y una participación de 46.02 por ciento, muy similar a la que se observa en las presidenciales estadunidenses. Mayor votación y participación que la de varios países latinoamericano cuyos gobernantes ahora pretenden desconocerlo, en obediencia al plan golpista yanqui denunciado el 8 de enero por Maduro, quien rechazó frontalmente la espuria declaración del bien llamado cártel de Lima y afirmó que Venezuela está lista para defenderse. El líder chavista recibió 67.64 por ciento de los sufragios, mientras el candidato de oposición más votado alcanzó sólo 20.93 por ciento de los sufragios, equivalentes a un millón 927 mil 387. El sistema que contabilizó la elección es el mismo que ha dado la victoria a la oposición las pocas veces que lo ha logrado, incluso cuando ganó la Asamblea Nacional. De trayectoria abiertamente golpista desde que fue electa, como ordenaba el Venezuela Freedom II,forzó a la Corte Suprema de Justicia a declararla en desacato. La oposición está desarticulada y no puede ganar una elección al chavismo pese a los graves problemas ocasionados por la guerra económica, mediática, financiera e indudables deficiencias del gobierno. Por eso, digitada por Washington siempre ha insistido en el camino golpista. Exigir respeto a la soberanía de Venezuela y condenar el plan subversivo es la palabra de orden. Así lo expresa una reciente declaración apoyada por más de 700 personalidades convocadas por la Red de Intelectuales, Artistas y Luchadores Sociales en Defensa de la Humanidad.

Twitter: @aguerraguerra

What is Corbyn thinking?

Bernard Porter 31 December 2018

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2018/12/31/bernard-porter/what-is-corbyn-thinking

Jeremy Corbyn is getting a lot of stick just now – certainly on the anti-Brexit Facebook pages I subscribe to – for not coming out clearly in favor of a second referendum, and for Remain. The Guardian is especially critical: but when hasn’t it been, of this untidy bearded radical who flouts even liberal standards of political respectability? I have to say, a part of me is disappointed too. I’d have liked Labor to have taken more of a pro-European lead. But then I think again.

There are three reasons for suspending judgment on Corbyn until the whole sorry affair has worked itself out. First, he is at least being consistent in his career-long Euroscepticism, which is more than you can say for Theresa May: pro-Europe one day, leading the anti-Europe charge the next. What would the press have made of a similar volte-face by the famously principled Corbyn?

Second, he has always been a Eurosceptic, not an anti-European; and for totally different reasons from the right-wing antis: he sees the EU as having been taken over by global capitalism and so an obstacle to the democratic socialism he wants for Britain. That’s why he must be against a form of Brexit that releases Britain from the hands of Brussels only to send it into the claws of Trump, and America’s lower product and labor standards. The emphasis in Corbyn’s speeches has always been on jobs and workers’ rights; which could be secured either within a reformed EU (there are plenty of Leftists there to help him) or by a ‘soft’ Brexit arrangement that kept Britain within the single market. In the present chaos, it isn’t clear which is more likely. So Corbyn is – sensibly and intelligently – holding his fire. Of course, the Manichaean tabloids are too thick to see this; or else assume their readers are.

The third reason for giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt is that he has his Northern working-class and other ‘left-behind’ voters to think of. Insofar as they and others voted against Europe (and they may not have been as solidly Brexit as the popular press makes out), it was largely for all the wrong reasons; but they don’t like being told this, especially by ‘elitists’ and ‘experts’, and so are building powerful and expert-resistant barricades – ‘You lost, accept it’; ‘What part of democracy don’t you understand?’; ‘We’re not idiots, we knew what we were voting for’; ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – against any sign that they might be about to be ‘betrayed’ by the ‘Establishment’. At the very least it may be wise for Corbyn not to come out as a Remainer until the practical flaws in the Brexit enterprise have been clearly revealed to everyone, as well as the cheating on the Brexit side.

Much of the working-class Brexit vote was a blind expression of anger or a desperate cry for help. Only the elitist leaders of the movement cared much about Europe. Any solution to the problem that doesn’t address this, or even exacerbates it, could intensify the dangerous divisions that the debate has opened up in Britain. This is an important consideration, which only Corbyn’s more subtle approach – if I read it correctly – takes proper account of.

My money’s on an eventual Norway-style settlement – membership of the single market with free movement, and the freedom to nationalize things. Corbyn’s ‘red lines’ would be fundamentally different from May’s, and he might be more successful with them. But in the present situation, nothing can be predicted.

In the meantime we should try to see the problem from Corbyn’s – and Labor’s – point of view. The party’s priority must be to make radical changes to Britain’s economy and society. The relationship with Europe is secondary to this. A social democratic Britain could be reconciled either with a membership of a reformed EU or with a soft Brexit. But it isn’t compatible with any Tory policy towards Europe, either out or in. So: an election must come first; followed either by a renegotiation on Labor’s terms or another referendum, with Remain as an option, which should give us a more accurate picture of the ‘people’s will’ – a more informed will this time. It might even allow us to crawl back, tail between our legs, into the EU. (That would be my preference, but then I live there.)

Last, but by no means least, this just might undo some of the domestic harm done by this wretched contest, smoothing out the political divisions between Brexiters and Remainers, and enabling the British to live at least moderately happily together again. Johnson and Rees-Mogg, and the rest of the public school crowd would be pushed back to the margins where they belong. On this view, Corbyn’s way could even be seen as ‘patriotic’. Or am I crediting him with too much good sense?

John Bolton: Trump’s Foreign Policy Architect or Saboteur?

He's slow-walking the Syria withdrawal, either on the president's orders or over his head.

By DANIEL R. DEPETRIS • January 8, 2019

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-bolton-trumps-foreign-policy-architect-or-saboteur/

On December 19, as Christmas Day was fast approaching, Donald Trump delivered an early holiday gift to American troops stationed in Syria: pretty soon they would be packing their bags and getting out. To illustrate the point, the showman-turned-president released a video, one minute and 19 seconds long, of him in front of the White House portico proclaiming that the withdrawal was imminent. “After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young people home,” Trump said.

At precisely that time, the foreign policy establishment—a.k.a. The Blob—was springing into action. Their hearts beating wildly, they took to the airwaves and the op-ed pages to warn that a dopey president was making America less secure. David Ignatius, the longtime columnist at the Washington Post, wrote a column entitled, “Trump’s Syria withdrawal snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.” Democratic Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, put out a statement pronouncing, “Just because President Trump tweets that he has defeated ISIS doesn’t make us safer, especially when the reality is very different on the ground.” Pentagon officials who were ordered to prepare for a quick withdrawal were privately hoping that the uber-hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham could persuade Trump to slow everything down.

And then there was John Bolton, the White House national security advisor and Blob member of 30-plus years who makes ancient Sparta look reasonable and peace-loving. While Bolton would never say so explicitly, it was obvious from the outset of Trump’s Syria decision that he didn’t support what his boss was doing. Indeed, it was only months prior that Bolton had said categorically that U.S. troops would not be leaving Syria as long as Iranian operatives or Iranian-sponsored militias were breathing Syrian air. Now, Trump had pulled the rug out from under Bolton and made him look foolish. He was outside the loop, ignorant of what his own boss was planning.

Bolton, a wily bureaucratic operator who knows how to slay inter-agency dragons, immediately went to work. If he and his like-minded colleagues at the Pentagon couldn’t persuade Trump to reverse the troop withdrawal, they could at least try to convince him to slow down implementation, drag out the process, and perhaps attach a few conditions to the drawdown. A more conventional president might have stuck to his guns, but Trump has a tendency to change his mind depending on whom he sees on Fox News (which could mean Lindsey Graham or Retired General Jack Keane, who isn’t exactly known for his foreign policy restraint). Bolton, Graham, and the swamp creatures understand this indecision perfectly well, and they took advantage of it. Soon enough, Trump was backing down from his original position and telling reporters that the troops would leave gradually.

Then, on Sunday, January 6, Bolton upped the ante. Speaking to reporters during his trip to Israel, he said that certain things would need to occur before American GIs could be pulled out. “This is a cause and effect mission,” Bolton commented. “Timetables or the timing of the withdrawal occurs as a result of the fulfillment of the conditions and the establishment of the circumstances that we want to see. And once that’s done, then you talk about a timetable.”

What are the conditions Bolton speaks of? First, the total elimination of the Islamic State—an objective any honest terrorism expert will admit is impossible (how does one “defeat” terrorism anyway?). And second, an assurance from Turkey that they won’t slaughter the Syrian Kurdish fighters now doing the bulk of the anti-ISIS work on the ground. What that assurance would look like is anyone’s guess. To Bolton, however, it doesn’t really matter: the trick is to slow Trump’s original announcement to such an extent that it’s made irrelevant. In his mind, the Syria mission isn’t about the Syrian people, Bashar al-Assad, or ISIS, but the evil Iranian empire swallowing up territory. Bolton’s obsession with regime change in Tehran starts with Syria—and if that means parking a few thousand more American ground troops in the desert indefinitely, so be it.

Is Bolton actually speaking for President Trump? Or is he freelancing like he did before the Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, when his talk of the “Libya model” nearly upended diplomacy before it began?

If it’s the former, Trump needs to get in front of a microphone and level with the American people about why the policy has changed. If it’s the latter, he needs to immediately summon Bolton back to Washington and tell him in no uncertain terms that he has 10 minutes to put his things in a cardboard box before vacating the White House grounds.

Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters, and a frequent contributor to The American Conservative.

Trump’s Neocons Reverse His Syria Withdrawal Plan

by Ron Paul Posted on January 08, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2019/01/07/trumps-neocons-reverse-his-syria-withdrawal-plan/

I’m starting to wonder whether President Trump has any power over US foreign policy at all. Many people believe that the US president is just a figurehead, with actual foreign policy firmly in the hands of the deep state. Trump’s latest dramatic U-turn on pulling troops from Syria certainly feeds such theories.

When President Trump announced just a couple of weeks ago that the US was removing its troops from Syria and possibly reducing troops from Afghanistan, the neocons, the media, the military-industrial complex, and the left-wing “never-Trump” people were livid. They were silent when President Obama made the horrible decision to overthrow Assad in Syria and sent weapons to jihadists to do so. They never said a word when billions of dollars were committed to this immoral and dangerous “regime change” policy. They weren’t interested in the rule of law when President Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and sent troops into Syria.

But when President Trump declared the obvious – that ISIS was effectively defeated and that we had no business being in Syria – these above groups in unison declared that actually bringing US troops home was a “gift to Russia.” They said bringing US troops home would create instability in the regions they left. Well, is there any proof that occupation by US troops actually brings stability?

No sooner did President Trump announce our departure than his neocon advisors began walking his words back. First, he had to endure  lunch with Sen. Lindsey Graham reading him the riot act, where, according to the Senator, Trump agreed to no timetables for departure. Then his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, began to tell the world that President Trump’s statements on troop pullout were just empty words, not US policy.

While Syrian Christians newly liberated from the rule of US-backed extremists celebrated Christmas for the first time in years, John Bolton dusted off the old warning to Assad that the US would attack if he “again” gassed his people. With the Syrian president personally taking part in some of the Christmas celebrations, does anybody really believe he’d go back to his office and order a gas attack?

Bolton then claimed that the US would shift troops from Syria to Iraq to continue fighting ISIS and that the US fully backs Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory. Did President Trump even agree to any of this?

Even worse, Secretary of State Pompeo is embarking on a Middle East tour where he will essentially tell leaders in the region that the US president is a liar. According to one State Department official quoted in a report on Sunday, Pompeo’s message to the Middle East will be, "Despite reports to the contrary and false narratives surrounding the Syria decision, we are not going anywhere. The secretary will reinforce that commitment to the region and our partners."

Calling the US president’s actual words on Syria “false narratives”? How is this not insubordination?

Will President Trump stand by and watch this coup taking place under his nose? Does he realize how his credibility suffers when he boldly announces a US withdrawal and the does a U-turn days later? Has he noticed recent polls showing that the majority of the American people agree with him? Why is he so intimidated by the neocons?

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.