SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war machine
How the Cognitive Dissonance of US Foreign Policy Fuels Genocide in Gaza
Biden must not be allowed to play a deadly balancing act in which he privately demands for the war to stop while openly funding the Israeli war machine.
Mar 22, 2024
When the foreign policy of a country as large and significant as the United States is governed by a case of cognitive dissonance, terrible things happen.
These terrible things are, in fact, already taking place in the Gaza Strip, where well over 100,000 people have been killed, wounded or are missing, and an outright famine is currently ravaging the displaced population.
From the start of the war on October 7, the US mishandled the situation, although recent reports indicate that Biden, despite his old age, has read the overall meaning of the October 7 events correctly.
According to the Axios news website, Biden had argued in a meeting with special counsel, Robert Hur, on October 8 that the 'Israel thing'—Hamas attack and the Israeli war on Gaza—"has changed it all."
By 'change it all', he was referring to the fact that the outcome of these events combined will "determine what the next six, seven decades look like".
Biden is not wrong. Indeed, everything that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government and war council have done in Gaza point to a similar Israeli reading of the significance of the 'world-altering' events.
Netanyahu has proven his willingness to carry out genocide and starve millions of Palestinians because he still feels that the superior firepower of the Israeli army is able to turn back the clock, and restore Israel's military standing, geopolitical influence and global position.
He is wrong, and over five months of war and senseless killing continue to demonstrate this claim.
But the American political gamble in the Middle East and the global repercussions of Washington’s self-defeating foreign policy makes far less sense.
Considering Washington's historic support for Israel, the US' behavior in the early days of the war was hardly a surprise.
The US quickly mobilized behind Netanyahu’s war cabinet, sent aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean, indicating the US is ready for a major regional conflict.
Media reports began speaking of US military involvement, specifically through the Delta Force, although the Pentagon claimed that the 2,000 US soldiers were not deployed to fight in Gaza itself.
If it was not obvious that the US was a direct partner in the war, US mainstream media reports ended any doubt. On March 6, The Washington Postreported that “the United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began”.
With time, however, US foreign policy regarding Gaza became even more perplexing.
Though in the early weeks of the war-turned-genocide, Biden questioned the death toll estimates produced by the Gaza Ministry of Health, the casualties count was no longer in doubt later on.
Asked on February 29 about the number of women and children killed by Israel during the war, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin answered without hesitation: “It’s over 25,000”.
Yet, the numbers are in constant growth, as well as US shipments of weapons to Israel. “We continue to support Israel with their self-defense needs. That’s not going to change,” John Kirby, US National Security Advisor, toldABC News on March 14.
This particular statement is worth a pause, since it came after many media leaks regarding Biden’s frustration, in fact, outright anger in the way that Netanyahu is handling the war.
ABC Newsreported early February that Biden has been "venting his frustration" over his administration's "inability to persuade Israel to change its military tactics in Gaza". Netanyahu, the outlet quoted Biden as saying, is "giving him hell".
This is consistent with other recent reports, including one by Politico, claiming that Biden has privately “called the Israeli prime minister a ‘bad f*cking guy’”, also over his Gaza war stance.
Yet, Netanyahu remains emboldened to the extent that he appeared in a Fox News interview on March 11, openly speaking about 'disagreements', not only between Biden and Netanyahu's governments, but between the US President "and the entire Israeli people."
It is glaringly obvious that, without continued US military and other forms of support, Israel would have not been able to sustain its war on the Palestinians for more than a few weeks, thus sparing the lives of thousands of people.
Moreover, the US has served as Israel's vanguard against the vast majority of world governments who, daily, demand immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Strip. If it were not for repeated US vetoes at the UN Security Council, a resolution demanding a ceasefire would have been surely passed.
Despite this unconditional support, the US is struggling to stave off a wider regional conflict, which is already threatening its political standing in the Middle East.
Therefore, Biden wants to regain the initiative by renewing discussions - though without commitment to real action - about a two-state solution and the future of Gaza.
Netanyahu is disinterested in these matters since his single greatest political achievement, from the viewpoint of his rightwing constituency, is that he has completely frozen any discussions on a political horizon in Palestine. For Netanyahu, losing the war means the unceremonious return to the old American political framework of the so-called “peace process”.
The embattled Israeli Prime Minister also knows that ending the war would constitute an end to his own government coalition, mostly sustained by far-right extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. To achieve these self-serving goals, the Israeli leader is willing to sustain a clearly losing war.
Though Biden has completely “lost faith in Netanyahu,” according to the Associated Press, he continues to support Israel without openly questioning the disastrous outcomes of the war, not just on the Palestinian people, but also on the region and the world, including his own country.
Americans, especially those in Biden’s Democratic Party, must continue to increase their pressure on their administration so that it resolves its cognitive dissonance in Palestine. Biden must not be allowed to play this deadly balancing act, privately demanding for the war to stop, while openly funding the Israeli war machine.
Though the majority of Americans already feel that way, Biden and his government are yet to receive the message. How many more Palestinians would have to die for Biden to hear the chants of the people, ‘Ceasefire Now’?
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Military's 2023 Budget Boost Is 3,200 Times Larger Than NLRB's Increase
If a budget reveals what we value, this one should give us pause: extravagant spending for the war machine, scraps for workers.
Dec 26, 2022
Draft text of the congressional omnibus spending bill released last week reveals a proposed $25 million increase in funding to the National Labor Relations Board, which would bring the agency’s 2023 federal fiscal year budget to $299 million. Its funding has otherwise been frozen at $274 million for the past nine years; when inflation is taken into account, this effectively amounts to a budget decrease of 25% since 2014, according to calculations cited in an NLRB news release.
The proposed hike is well below what leaders from unions like Communications Workers of America and Unite Here have been calling for, and falls short of the (already meager) $319 million President Joe Biden requested.
Any failure to robustly fund the NLRB hurts workers’ attempts to win formal union recognition and protect their basic rights, a key reason why anti-union lawmakers have kept the NLRB’s budget slim. Union representation petitions were up 53% in the 2022 fiscal year, and unfair labor practice charges spiked 19%, according to the NLRB. Meanwhile, the proposed budget increase — at just 9% — is not a meaningful raise above the current rate of inflation.
Let’s dig into what the NLRB actually does. The NLRB is the agency that interprets and enforces labor law for most U.S. workers, unions, and employers in the private sector (companies, corporations, nonprofits and other, non-government businesses). The NLRB performs essential functions under U.S. labor law in support of the union-organizing process. Workers petition the NLRB when they want to hold an election in their workplace for union representation by submitting signed membership cards. The NLRB then verifies the accuracy of those cards, and it determines the “appropriate bargaining unit” (the specific pool of workers who can participate in the representation election and, if a union is certified, would be represented by the union and covered by the union’s contract with the employer) prior to each election. The agency then holds representation elections for workers to decide whether they want a union to represent them. If a majority of workers vote in favor of union representation, the NLRB certifies the union as the exclusive representative of that group of workers, and it legally compels the employer to begin negotiating with the union.
Studies have shown that delay at any stage of this process — but especially between filing the petition and the election, when unions and employers are openly campaigning for or against the union — benefits employers. Every day that passes during this period gives employers more time to exert pressure on workers to vote against the union, which we know not uncommonly includes illegal threats and intimidation (see: Starbucks and Amazon worker-organizers who have been fired). With a massive wave in new union organizing, an understaffed NLRB may not be able to hold representation elections in a timely manner.
The NLRB also adjudicates disputes between unions and employers and enforces labor law. When workers or unions believe their rights have been violated by an employer under labor law, they can file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. NLRB field staff investigate these charges to determine if they have merit, and if they do, NLRB attorneys represent unions and workers in pursuing legal action against employers. Unfair labor practices are often very time-sensitive — for example, when an employer is illegally interfering in a union organizing campaign, or when they illegally fire an employee for organizing at work.
To understand just how starved the NLRB’s budget actually is, it can be helpful to compare the agency with another federally funded entity: the U.S. military apparatus. Mainstream attitudes in Washington would likely posit that it is ridiculous to compare NLRB spending with “defense” spending, as the latter performs a vital, nonnegotiable service whose massive funding is a given and workers’ rights, on the other hand, are considered dispensable. Regardless, the comparison provides useful insights into the moral priorities of our political system.
Earlier in December, bipartisan members of Congress overwhelmingly passed an $858 billion military and weapons spending bill — the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — now awaiting signature on Biden’s desk. That bill is a whopping $45 billion above what Biden requested (already a staggering number). That’s billion with a B, which means just the difference between what Biden proposed and what Congress granted for “defense” spending amounts to 150 times the entire proposed NLRB budget.
During the past nine years — since 2014 — that the NLRB’s funding has been frozen (effectively an annual budget cut, accounting for inflation), the war budget has been sky-high. In fact, adjusting for inflation, “defense” spending for fiscal year 2022 was 13% higher than it was during fiscal year 2014, according to calculations provided to Workday Magazine and In These Times by Lindsay Koshgarian, program director for the National Priorities Project, which researches the military budget. What these numbers mean is that, during the same nine years the NLRB’s funding was effectively cut 25%, “defense” spending was increasing 13%.
But percentage increases don’t capture the full picture, given how drastically different the size of the two budgets are. Since 2014, “defense” spending has increased a total of $252 billion, or $150 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The NLRB’s funding is minuscule in comparison. The “defense” increase alone (not adjusted for inflation), of $80 billion from 2022 to 2023, is 3,200 times the NLRB increase for 2023, assuming both of these budgets go through. Adjusted for inflation, the “defense” spending increase from 2022 to 2023 ($65 billion) is 217 times the entire 2023 NLRB budget.
The spending approved for 2023 includes $816.7 billion for the Department of Defense and $30.3 billion for “national security programs” under the purview of the Department of Energy. An important caveat: These numbers do not capture the overall “militarized budget,” as the National Priorities Project puts it. When Homeland Security, incarceration, and law enforcement are considered, the dollar amount jumps much higher.
It’s completely legitimate to oppose this military and weapons spending in its own right; one does not have to compare Pentagon to NLRB funding to be incensed. According to the estimates of Stephen Semler, co-founder of the left-leaning research organization Security Policy Reform Institute, $452 billion of the 2023 “defense” bill funds will end up in the pockets of military contractors. The budget stipulates huge expenditures on weapons, including $32.6 billion for Navy ships and nuclear “modernization,” a euphemism for investment in nuclear weapons. It also continues the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which further militarizes the Asia-Pacific region. Overall, these funds go toward entrenching and expanding a military apparatus that unleashes tremendous harm and violence across the world, from oppressive military bases to support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen to belligerent footing toward China.
But comparing the NLRB budget with war spending is useful, especially, because the juxtaposition offers insights into what lawmakers in Washington view as important. “For years, these budgets have acted as if there wasn’t room for this $25 million increase the NLRB is getting, which is minuscule, while the Pentagon is getting tens of billions more every year,” Koshgarian says. “Whether it’s protecting workers’ rights or nutrition programs or healthcare or Covid-19 spending, we hear we can’t afford these tiny incremental increases to make people’s lives better. But there is no end to the billions more the Pentagon gets.”
Biden, meanwhile, is squandering the opportunities provided by the leadership of Jennifer Abruzzo — his own appointed NLRB general counsel and the most aggressively pro-worker general counsel in recent memory — and undercutting his own stated commitment to workers’ rights — which he betrayed when he denied rail workers the right to strike — as long as he underfunds the agency.
The NLRB and the broader regime of U.S. labor and employment law are not, of course, perfect tools in the service of workers; both are deeply flawed. For example, when an employer commits an unfair labor practice against a worker, the NLRB cannot award punitive damages to the worker. The U.S. lags far behind other industrialized democracies in labor standards. However, there is no question that the NLRB should be fully funded so that it can fulfill its modestly protective mandate. The negative consequences of underfunding are not theoretical. “We are stretched thin,” Noor Alam, an NLRB field attorney in Denver, recently told the Washington Post. “I have cases that I know are really important on union campaigns where lead organizers have been fired and [union] elections are pending, but I’ve been forced to put things that can’t wait on the back burner. Justice is being delayed.”
It is difficult to overstate these stakes. Around 160 million people have jobs in the United States. Each employer profoundly impacts the lives of the working people — jobs determine one’s ability to financially survive and obtain healthcare, and shape one’s basic sense of wellbeing and agency. In the United States, there’s no such thing as guaranteed democracy in the workplace. As the political philosopher Elizabeth Anderson has argued, “under U.S. law, employers are dictators of their workplaces.” Unions are a key counterweight to top-down control, precarity, and low wages. Yet, even amid a wave of union momentum, union density is not great in relative historical terms, currently just a smidge above 10%. In a country where wage theft is rampant and inequality is stuck at high levels, the material protection of those workers fighting to build unions and organize for their rights has both direct and indirect consequences for millions.
We are talking about the U.S. workplace. Why on Earth is it a given that military spending should remain bloated while worker institutions shrivel?
Like the NDAA, the omnibus bill is commonly referred to as must-pass, and if the latter doesn’t go through by December 23, some government services might be disrupted. Meanwhile, countless workers are taking tremendous risks to mobilize in warehouses and meatpacking houses and kitchens, and offices to unionize their workplaces, or to stand up against egregious abuses. And when they reach out for protection of their basic rights, they are met with a federal government that cares more about war-making than protecting the vulnerable, exploited, and abused. The wide gap in proposed funding levels between the military apparatus and the NLRB gives us an opportunity to reflect on the moral content — and moral compass — of how public funds are used.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Bed with a Nation-Wrecker: 5 Ways Hillary Is As Bad As Bill
Feb 29, 2016
In 1996 Bill Clinton referred to the U.S. as "the world's greatest force for peace and freedom, for democracy and security and prosperity."
For PEACE he cluster-bombed civilians in Yugoslavia, wiped out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and stood by as Iraqi sanctions and Rwandan genocide killed hundreds of thousands of people.
For FREEDOM he oversaw the largest increase in prison population in U.S. history, with the great majority of prisoners in for nonviolent drug offenses, and with more people working in criminal justice than in social services.
For DEMOCRACY he backed NAFTA, which allowed corporations to undermine local governments with lawsuits against public health and environmental and food safety laws.
For SECURITY he dismantled the safety net for families with children, leading to a dramatic increase in extreme poverty in the U.S.
For PROSPERITY he invited mortgage failure by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and deregulating derivatives, and he made CEOs more prosperous by making their "performance" pay tax-deductible.
Hillary on PEACE (Peace is War)
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, an advisor to the United Nations, called Hillary "the candidate of the War Machine," adding that "Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security."
In her book, "Hillary's Choice," author Gail Sheehy claimed it was Hillary who encouraged the president to bomb Kosovo. Then, as Secretary of State in 2011, she strongly supported war in Libya, a country which today is overwhelmed with crime and joblessness and a lack of basic necessities. In 2012, according to Sachs, she was largely responsible for the obstruction of peace efforts in Syria.
Hillary on FREEDOM (that is, Prison)
Michelle Alexander notes that Hillary called black kids "super-predators" who needed to be brought "to heel," like dogs. To do this, she supported her husband's 1994 crime bill, which was so severe that food stamps were denied to anyone convicted of a felony drug offense, and public housing was disallowed -- at the risk of eviction for entire families -- for anyone with even an arrest.
The fact that the African American community is backing Hillary tells us that the media is not spreading the word about this disgraceful part of her past.
Hillary on DEMOCRACY (that is, Free Trade)
Free trade agreements stymie democracy by placing corporate interests over the needs of local governments. Hillary was for NAFTA, and then against CAFTA, and both for and against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she once called the "gold standard in trade agreements." According to one account, she has "a long record of verbally criticizing free-trade agreements, but then supporting them when in office."
In another assault on democracy, in Honduras in 2009, Hillary thwarted efforts to return democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya to his rightful position of President after a military coup. The aftermath was a country riddled with poverty, crime, and military abuses, along with damaged U.S. relations with Latin America.
Hillary on SECURITY (that is, the Safety Net)
Hillary actively advocated for her husband's 1996 "welfare reform" legislation, calling the recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) "deadbeats," and despite a doubling of extreme poverty calling the program a success as recently as 2008.
Due in large part to her urging, public housing was slashed by $17 billion while prison funding was increased by $19 billion, thus making the prison cell 'home' for low-income drug offenders. Recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) fell from 68 percent of impoverished households to just 27 percent.
Hillary on PROSPERITY (that is, for Banks)
In the two years before starting her presidential campaign, Hillary was paid over $4 million in speaking fees from the big financial institutions. After her campaign was underway, she proclaimed, "I'm going to go after big banks."
Hillary should be instilling fear and apprehension in average Americans. In the same deceptive, cunning manner as her husband, she leads us to believe she is on our side. But she's married to Wall Street and the man responsible for the most diverse forms of national destruction in modern times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular