#demonstration against the war in ukraine

[tomorrowusa]

Journalists covering a demonstration in Moscow by wives of Russian soldiers were arrested by Putin's police.

Some 20 journalists were detained by police in central Moscow on Saturday at a rally of Russian soldiers' wives calling for their men to be returned from the front in Ukraine. Independent Russian news outlet SOTA reported that 27 people were taken from the demonstration and transported to the nearest police station. Reuters news agency said one of its journalists was among those detained while filming women laying red carnations at the tomb of the unknown soldier in the shadow of the Kremlin's walls in central Moscow. Moscow police did not comment on the raid. "Journalists should be free to report the news without fear of harassment or harm, wherever they are. We are committed to covering world events in an independent, unbiased, and reliable way, in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles," a Reuters spokesperson said in a statement. The demonstration was organized by a group called The Way Home, which urged "wives, mothers, sisters and children" of reservists from across Russia to come to Moscow to "demonstrate (their) unity." The Moscow prosecutor's office said Saturday that the rally had not been coordinated with the authorities. Authorities warned against calling for and participating in unauthorized demonstrations. For several weeks, wives of currently mobilized Russian men have been campaigning for their husbands' return from the front, as well as opposing further mobilization. 

In Russia, an "unauthorized demonstration" is one which does not support Putin and his fascist policies.

Speaking of fascists, Tucker Carlson is apparently in Moscow.

Tucker Carlson Being Spotted in Moscow Sparks Frenzied Speculation

The reported appearance of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in the Russian capital has sparked intense speculation over the purpose of the conservative media personality's visit to Moscow. Carlson arrived in Moscow on February 1, and was spotted attending the Bolshoi Theater in the capital, according to Russian outlet, Mash. Questions quickly swirled over why the TV anchor would have traveled to Moscow, and whether he intended to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin during the visit.

A Tucker interview with dictator Vladimir Putin would probably be as incisive as his interview with Trump. 😝 Perhaps Putin will let him see the famous Trump pee tapes.

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll decide to defect while in Russia. His views are much more in tune with a totalitarian state than with the United States.

[sayruq]

Biden's visit has concluded. Israel has spent his entire visit trying to muddy the waters of what happened to Al Ahli Hospital and despite their cartoonish efforts, it hasn't worked

The Global South and especially West Asia know who is responsible for the bombing and no amount of AI voice recordings of 'Hamas operatives' can change that.

Israel war crimes continues to backfire on them even in America

Biden backing Israel has had an impact on America's image. Here's a Wall Street Journal article warning that America's continued support is turning countries towards Russia and China which is code for turning countries against America

An EU official said that the EU will pay a heavy price in the Global South for its continued, unabashed support for Israel

There's also speculation that the Biden administration knew about the bombing before it happened.

Countries that were/are allied with Israel continue to distance themselves from Israel like Russia. The reason I keep highlighting Russia is because the West has been running out of ammunition due to the Russia-Ukraine war and that includes Israel which is rumoured to have sent 80-90% of its ammunition to Ukraine. If this conflict lasts a long time, Israel will need to buy weapons and ammunition and Russia would be one of the countries they would turn to (same with China)

So, where are we in terms of the conflict? After days of waffling over a ground operation in Gaza, Israel postponed it until some time after Biden's visit and now we're back here again

Now I'm no military expert but constantly going back and forth on whether or not you'll invade Gaza is bound to do damage to your troops' morale. No wonder they're dealing with mass desertions while their citizens demonstrate on the streets. The Israeli leadership has no plan besides bombing Gaza.

I've seen people on twitter say that the hospital bombing was done deliberately to normalise IDF soldiers to mass civilian deaths in places like hospitals, schools, places of worship, etc. I don't know if I believe that - I think they wanted to push Iran and Hezbollah's buttons before hiding behind Biden. I don't think these people are thinking strategically.

As far as the possibility of regional war is concerned, all indicators show that the West preparing for the war to escalate

Seems to me the Israel has seen what Ukraine has received in just a year and a half of war. They're done receiving a paltry 3.8 billion every year and now prepared to drag out the conflict and I can't say I blame with Biden proposing a 100 billion package for both Ukraine and Israel. This will stretch America too thin as far as funding in concerned. Cracks are already showing

There are parts of the US government that is unhappy that the Ukraine war is losing attention. During the Ukraine war, you had parts of the government that wanted focus to shift from Russia to China. Because of that, the US government has spent the past year alternating between hostility to Russia and threatening to go to war with China over Taiwan. When Niger expelled France from within its borders, America was preparing to join that conflict until Mali and Burkina Faso declared they would fight with Niger. Now they're entering a third front in West Asia. In short, the mighty empire is expending a lot of resources right now and it is not the threat it was when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.

At any rate, the ground invasion of Gaza won't go the way Israel and America hopes it will

The coalition of Palestinian resistance fighters are still patiently waiting for the IDF to come meet them. Their allies aren't backing down either

The reason I keep making these posts is to remind people that, while the genocide of the people of Gaza is horrifying, the war for the liberation of Palestine has not yet been lost.

Do not lose hope. From the river to sea, Palestine WILL be free

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Calcalist is Private Israeli Media]

"We have a huge deficit of ammunition not just in Ukraine but all over the world. We understand we should produce this here in Ukraine because all around the world it’s finished, it’s depleted. All the warehouses are empty," said Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal to the "Financial Times" in October of last year, addressing the ammunition situation of the Ukrainian army, which is interconnected with the challenges faced by the IDF.

The increased ammunition usage in the wars in Gaza and Ukraine has led to an unprecedented global shortage of ammunition of all types. While the IDF tries not to address the issue publicly, Major General Eliezer Toledano admitted last month that the IDF is reducing air attacks, emphasizing the necessity to "manage the economy of armaments" because the war will last a long time. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also commented on the matter, stating that "we need three things from the U.S.: armaments, armaments, armaments." At a press conference two weeks ago, Netanyahu announced that Israel is preparing the Israeli defense industries to "cut off dependence on the world," a goal that is not realistic in any way.[...]

[L]ast week the Director General of the Ministry of Defense Eyal Zamir concluded a huge deal with the American government for the supply of aerial ammunition in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so far over 25,000 tons of weapons have been sent to Israel since the beginning of the war in about 280 aircraft and about 40 ships. The Israeli defense industry is also tasked with filling the IDF's stocks. About two weeks ago it was published in Calcalist that the Israeli companies postponed the supply of weapons worth more than $1.5 billion to their customers across the world to divert resources for the IDF's combat needs and that in the last three months, the Ministry of Defense ordered more than NIS 10 billion ($2.7 million) worth of weapons from them. It should be noted that the shortage does not stem from a lack of budget but from a lack of supply, and the Treasury does not restrict the IDF from purchasing ammunition of any kind.

The tremendous need for armaments stems from the unusual amount of bombings that the IDF has carried out in Gaza since the outbreak of the war. Two weeks ago, the army announced that 30,000 targets had been attacked in Gaza. A security source told Calcalist that the rate of fire the IDF is using in the current war is similar to that of a "superpower," is comparable only to the capabilities demonstrated by the U.S., and probably also exceeds the number of armaments of the Russians in the campaign against Ukraine.[...]

Another reason [for the increase in targets bombed] is that in the current war, the IDF adopted a policy of a lighter finger on the trigger [sic] regarding damage to infrastructure and Hamas operatives who are in a civilian environment, thus increasing the ability to hit targets that were not previously attacked. In addition to these reasons, there is also the added pressure from the political level, as well as from the [Israeli] public, who demand an increase in air force bombing to prevent as much as possible a risk to the forces on the ground.[...]

[O]ne should ask whether, considering the existing ammunition stockpile, this policy may not harm the IDF's readiness to carry out future missions, especially given the existing security challenges and the probable scenario in which the IDF will be forced to [sic] carry out an attack in southern Lebanon as well. The IDF may be forced to better clarify its limitations to the politicians to avoid reaching an extreme scenario of an ammunition shortage, or in the words of General Toledano: "There is no infinite army."

28 Jan 24

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Stellantis wants to make scabbing woke

I'm coming to Minneapolis! Oct 15: Presenting The Internet Con at Moon Palace Books. Oct 16: Keynoting the 26th ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

I know, I know, it's weird when the worst people you know are right, even when they're right for the wrong reasons: like, the "Intelligence Community" is genuinely terrible, pharma companies are murderous crooks, and Big Tech really does have a dangerous grip on public debate. The swivel-eyed loons have a point, is what I'm saying:

https://locusmag.com/2023/05/commentary-cory-doctorow-the-swivel-eyed-loons-have-a-point/

When conspiratorialists and reactionaries holler about how the FBI are dirty-tricking creeps who are framing Trump, it's tempting to say, "well, if Trumpists hate the FBI, then I will love the FBI. Who cares about COINTELPRO and what they did to Martin Luther King?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter

It's a process called "schizmogenesis": forming new group identity beliefs based on saying the opposite of what your enemies say, and as tempting as that is, it's extraordinarily foolish and dangerous:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/18/schizmogenesis/

It means that canny reactionaries like Steve Bannon can trick you into taking any position merely by taking the opposite one. Bannon's followers are even more easily led, so it's easy for him to convince them that we have always been at war with Oceania. The right has created an entire mirror world of "I know you are but what am I?" politics.

Anti-vax co-opts "bodily autonomy." Climate denial becomes environmentalism ("wind turbines kill birds"). Transphobia becomes feminism ("keep women-only spaces for real women"). Support for strongmen becomes anti-imperialism ("don't feed the war machine in Ukraine"). These are the doppelgangers Naomi Klein warns us against:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

The far right has even managed to co-opt anti-corporate rhetoric. Culture warriors rail against "woke capitalism," insisting that when big businesses take socially progressive positions, it's just empty "virtue signalling." And you know what? They've got a point. Partially.

As with all mirror-world politics, the anti-woke-capitalism shuck is designed to convince low-information right-wing pismires into buying "anti-woke pillows" and demanding the right to pay junk fees to "own the libs":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

But woke capitalism is bullshit. Corporations – profit-maximizing immortal transhuman colony organisms that view workers and customers as inconvenient gut-flora – do not care about social justice. They don't care about anything, except for minimizing compensation for workers while maximizing the risk those workers bear; and locking in and gouging customers for products that are as low-quality as can be profitably sold.

Take DEI, a favored target of the right. It's undoubtably true that diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives have made some inroads on correcting bias in hiring decisions, with the result that companies get better employees who would have been excluded without this explicit corrective.

However, corporations don't value DEI because they abhor their history of hiring bias. Instead, DEI is how corporate management demonstrates to workers that their grievances are best addressed by trusting corporate leadership to correct their error of their ways – and not by forming a union.

Before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, corporations would create fake "Company Unions" whose leadership were beholden to the company executives. These were decoy unions: they looked and sounded like unions, but when they negotiated with management, they were actually working for the bosses, not the workers.

This is more mirror-world tactics. They're the labor equivalent of the "crisis pregnancy centers" that masquerade as abortion clinics in order to fool pregnant people and trap them with endless delays until it's too late to terminate their pregnancies. Company unions get workers to trust in negotiators who are secretly working for the bosses, who emerge from the bargaining table with one-sided, abusive contracts and insist that this is the best deal workers can hope for.

Company unions were outlawed 90 years ago, and for decades, labor had a seat at the table, with wages tracking productivity gains and workers getting protection for discrimination, unsafe labor conditions, and wage-theft. Then came the neoliberal turn, and 40 years of wage stagnation, increased inequality, and corporate rule.

Anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop. Finally, finally, we have reached a turning point in labor, with public approval for unions at levels not seen since the Carter administration and thousands of strikes and protests breaking out across the country:

https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

It's not just the Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA, either. For the first time in history, the UAW is striking against all the major automakers, and they are winning:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/striking-uaw-workers-win-key-battery-plant-concession-from-general-motors/

The automakers are getting desperate. Stellantis – Chrysler's latest alias, reflecting the company's absorbtion into corporate-human-centipede of global carmakers – has mobilized its DEI programs, trying to get marginalized people to believe that scabbing is a liberatory activity:

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/10/uaw-auto-strike-stellantis/

Stellantis calls each of its DEI silos a "Business Resource Group" (BRG): there's a "Working Parents Network," an "African Ancestry Network," "Asians Connected Together," a "DiverseAbilities Network," a "Gay & Lesbian Alliance" and more:

https://blog.stellantisnorthamerica.com/2021/07/20/business-resource-groups-drive-inclusion-and-diversity/

The corporate managers who lead these BRGs have established a scab rotation for each subgroup, calling on members to cross a UAW picket-line at a Michigan Parts Distribution Center run by Stellantis subsidiary Mopar:

Each BRG will pick a specific day of the week/weekend to volunteer as a team. Help continue to be the RESOURCE the BUSINESS can count on! Stellantis needs your help in running the Parts Distribution Centers (PDC) to ensure a steady supply of parts to our customers while negotiations continue. Working Parents Network has identified Friday, October 13 as WPN’s BRG Day at the PDCs!"

Now, these BRGs weren't invented by marginalized workers facing discrimination in the workplace. They come from literal union-busting playbooks produced by giant "union avoidance" firms that charge bosses millions for advice on skirting – or breaking – the law to keep workplace democracy at bay. All the biggest anti-union consultancies love BRGs, from Littler Mendelson to Jackson Lewis. IRI Strategies touts BRGs as a way to "union-proof" a business by absorbing workers' grievances in a decoy committee that will let them feel listened to.

BRGs, in other words, are the Crisis Pregnancy Centers of workplace discrimination. They're a Big Store Con, a company union dressed up as corporate social responsibility.

Now, let's not pretend that unions have a sterling record on race and gender issues. Giant labor organizations like the AFL had to be dragged into racial integration, and trade unions have sometimes been on the wrong side of anti-immigration panics:

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/summer/american-labor-movement.html

But unions have also been the most reliable way for people of color and women to win better workplace treatment. The struggle for racial and gender justice was fought through labor organizing. Remember that MLK's "I've Been To the Mountaintop" speech was given in support of striking sanitation workers in Memphis:

https://www.afscme.org/about/history/mlk/mountaintop

Black organizers have always been militant labor organizers. Labor Day commemorates the victory of the long, hard-fought Pullman strike, where Black workers brought one of the most powerful companies in America to its knees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

And women have always fought for gender justice through the labor movement: the New York shirtwaist strike is the Ur-example, when women-led unions fought thugs and scabs on icy New York streets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_shirtwaist_strike_of_1909

It's no surprise that labor activism, anti-racism and feminism go together. Since the earliest days, the labor justice struggle was also a social justice struggle. To learn more check out Kim Kelly's Fight Like Hell: The Untold History of American Labor:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Fight-Like-Hell/Kim-Kelly/9781982171063

The most exploited, underpaid, and abused workers in America are also the most marginalized (duh).

From nurses:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/kaiser-healthcare-union-says-week-long-strike-possible-early-next-month-2023-10-09/

To teachers:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-04-18/l-a-teachers-win-21-wage-increase-in-new-lausd-contract

To Amazon warehouse workers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Labor_Union

To publishing assistants:

https://apnews.com/article/harpercollins-union-strike-ends-0a94238718879066d9b21af6266be526

To baristas:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/business/starbucks-union-wages/index.html

To fast-food workers:

https://www.ufcw.org/about/

The vanguard of today's labor surge is Black, brown, female and queer. Without a union, workers who face discrimination are on their own, hoping that their bosses will voluntarily do something about it. Black workers in Tesla's rabidly anti-union shops face vicious racism, from slurs to threats to violence. Without a union, they have to rely on the shifting whims of an Apartheid emerald mine space-Karen for relief, or hope for help from the NLRB or a class-action lawyer:

https://apnews.com/article/tesla-racism-black-lawsuit-class-action-21c88bddf60eca702560be58429495de

The far right isn't wrong when they holler that woke capitalism is bullshit. As with so many of their mirror-world causes, they've got a point, but only a limited one. The problem with woke capitalism is that it's no substitute for a union. The problem with relying on Business Resource Groups to fight racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia is that these struggles are all class struggles, and a BRG is never going to fight against the company that created it.

To understand how bankrupt woke capitalism is, conside this: Stellantis is calling on its "Working Parents Network" to scab this Friday. Stellantis is also being sanctioned by the Department Of Labor for discriminating against nursing mothers – the same "working parents" that the BRG is meant to protect:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/02/08/investigation-finds-stellantis-violated-rights-of-nursing-mothers-at-sterling-heights-plant/

Woke capitalism is just another kind of "predatory inclusion," like Intuit's campaign defending its "Free File" tax-prep scam, where they're claiming that ending this ripoff is racist because it denies Black families the right to be tricked into paying for something they are entitled to get for free:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/27/predatory-inclusion/#equal-opportunity-scammers

When I learned about Intuit's wokewashing, I thought I'd found woke capitalism's rock bottom, but I was wrong. Stellantis's call for woke scabbing is a new low.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/11/equal-opportunity-class-war/#inclusive-scabbing

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[apas-95]

troops from many corners of the globe have been involved in afghanistan, iraq, vietnam etc but ppl dont call these world wars which is the only reason i singled out the imperial core, western europe in this case being under threat bc realistically thats why as far as i can tell ppl from the imperial core consider wwi and wwii to be “world wars” but not other global conflicts. like u just made fun of me for assuming by world war u meant one where the imperial core is under threat and then continued to talk about it as meaning just that? or am i misunderstanding lol. anyway sorry for sending on anon im just embarasaed by my uninformed opinions >//<

Don't worry, I'm not making fun of you. I apologise if my tone led you to believe otherwise.

The fact that many imperialist nations together invaded various poor countries does not make them 'world wars', just the same as the seven-nation alliance of european empires that invaded and looted China during the century of humiliation did not constitute a 'world war' - because these nations were all united in plunder, and, really, barely carrying out 'war' as much as simple banditry.

The world wars of the previous century were notable for being conflicts between empires - including, yes, the USA. The conflict between these empires does not necessarily need to manifest as a ground invasion of their territories, especially in this, the age of nuclear deterrence - and would much more likely appear as proxy conflicts in their imperial holdings, such as already occurs between French and Russian forces in Africa.

Nobody ever attempted an invasion of the US in the previous two world wars because it was impractical, and now similarly it is impractical to attempt an invasion of any given nuclear state - but the point of the inter-imperialist conflict is the acquisition of competitor's imperial territories, not necessarily the cannibalisation of the competitor itself.

Given modern military technologies and the conception of greyzone warfare, indirect fires against the imperial core could be carried out - so, cruise missile strikes, etc - but as has been demonstrated in the Ukraine, actual red lines tend to lean more towards a 'sustainable' type of war (whose existence is entirely uncertain at this point).

To summarise: firstly, world war generally refers to conflict between imperialist states, and between imperialist spheres of influence; secondly, world war does not necessarily mean invasion of the imperial core; and thirdly, you are my friend and I love you, do not be embarrassed.

[still-searching-for-something]

I think a lot of people don't realize the Pax Americana, the massive decline in the frequency and severity of interstate wars since the end of the Second World War, is not a coincidence or happenstance. It is not an act of G-d, an unalterable status quo, or an accident. It is the product of decades of careful, hard work by diplomats, world leaders, civil servants, and political figures. And the primary guarantor of this peace, the product of their hard work is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

And NATO is precisely what Vladimir Putin is waging a targeted hybrid war to destroy.

The binding principle of NATO, of course, is that an attack against one is an attack against all. An assault against Poland will get America, Britain, Canada, Germany, and all of the other 32 member states to respond. This creates a tangible disincentive to attack, obviously. To be in NATO is to be assured that when shit hits the fan, you have the most powerful military in the history of mankind on your side, that you are protected from any expansionist neighbors. All across the world are nations that would likely be subject to hostile takeovers if their larger neighbors felt free to invade—Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Israel, Finland, etc. Some of these nations are not in NATO, but they are all American allies, and the American military is the bedrock of global peace today. You ever wonder why the US spends so much on a massive military in peacetime? Because they're paying for the defense of themselves, and Western Europe, ANDcontributing to the self defense capabilities of their allies—many of whom do have competent militaries of their own, but mutually benefit from the American security umbrella.

Today, of course, we're dealing with the problem of an expansionist Russia guided by an irredentist ideology that views Russia as holding a unique, privileged position between the decadent, declining West (Europe) and the foolish, ungovernable Asia. Eurasianism holds that Russia is the center of both worlds, and is both destined and obligated to take the reins of Europe and Asia and guide it to Russian-approved greatness. The Russian government systematically denies the legitimacy of Eastern Europe's national aspirations and cultures, arguing that it is no different from Russian culture and therefore deserves Russian governance. And if they can't take over these nations by unequal treaties and puppet regimes and troll farms, they'll do it directly with force.

But, of course, there's a problem. NATO. NATO is the obstacle in Putin's plans. A war with NATO would be, well, World War III. Russia can't afford to go to war with NATO, and they know that.

But what if... they could make NATO politically irrelevant?

And this is what brings us to our good friends Donald Trump and the Republican Party. The links between the Republican Party and the Russian state apparatus are a bit lengthy for the scope of this post, but the point is, Donald Trump has displayed a consistent admiration for Vladimir Putin, and a derision for NATO unheard of for any American president since 1949. Trump has described NATO as "obsolete" and even stated he would allow Russia to "do whatever they wanted" to nations that don't pay enough into NATO.

This is bad. Real bad.

Trump is doing what is in Putin's interest and trying to turn back the clock to the pre-NATO days—where nations were invaded by stronger neighbors, and there was no massive military alliance to block it. Putin is working to undo the Long Peace and create the circumstances that would allow him to bring back the dead Soviet empire by force. Yes, NATO would intervene if Russian troops set foot in Poland, but that will mean a lot less if the main backbone of NATO, the United States, has announced to the world that it will abandon its allies.

This is what makes European leaders so invested in the 2024 presidential election, and why the invasion of Ukraine shocked them so much—Putin was demonstrating he seriously wants to wage war for territorial expansion, and is willing to kill to do so. If Trump wins in 2024, not only will he enact Project 2025 and cause all kinds of damage to the United States' democracy, he will also create a world where autocrats are free to invade their neighbors if they want. China can invade Taiwan. Russia can invade the Baltics. North Korea can invade South Korea. Venezuela can invade Guyana. Azerbaijan can invade Armenia. He won't bring about World War III, he'll bring about a bunch of smaller wars, all over the world.

If you want peace and democracy, vote for Harris. If you want war and authoritarianism, vote for Trump.

It's as simple as that.

[mariacallous]

In the space of four days, the Russia-Ukraine war has dramatically shifted. The incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russia’s Kursk region has quickly turned into the largest territorial gain by either side since the successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in the fall of 2022. As of this writing, it is still unclear whether thinned-out and poorly prepared Russian forces have been able to halt the Ukrainian advance, with reports of burning columns of Russian reinforcements reminiscent of the early days of the war.

The operation demonstrates Ukraine’s ability to achieve surprise and exploit sudden breakthroughs, something at which Russia has consistently failed since the start of its invasion. It is also the first time Russia has been invaded by foreign troops since World War II, showing Russians in no uncertain terms that the bloody war they unleashed against their neighbor has come home. Ukraine’s Western supporters seem to be on board, with the White House and European Union headquarters issuing statements that it was up to Ukraine to decide on the operation.

Previously, there had been much debate in Washington, Berlin, and among a wildly speculating media about the Kremlin’s supposed red lines that would set off World War III and nuclear Armageddon, with one of the lines being taking the war to Russia with Western weapons. The latter has now occurred. The belief in uncontrolled escalation led the Biden administration and some of its partners to severely restrict both the types of weapons delivered to Ukraine and their permitted range; Ukraine has not been allowed to use Western missiles to hit military installations on the Russian side of the border, for example. Part of the effect and purpose of the Kursk operation could be to demonstrate, once again, the fallacy of the red-line argument.

As the offensive unfolds and Kyiv stays mostly mum on events, it’s still too early to say what strategic goals Ukraine is hoping to achieve. One speculation that has gained a lot of traction is that it could lead to a quicker end to the war. The operation makes it clear to Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine retains significant potential to inflict pain on Russia. And if Ukrainian forces can hold on and maintain control of Russian territory—for which they appear to be digging in as they bring in more equipment and build new defensive lines—it could strengthen Ukraine’s leverage in any potential negotiations to end the war. Already, Ukraine’s lightning foray into Russia undermines the widespread idea that Putin holds all the cards to dictate the terms of a cease-fire.

Kyiv seems to be signaling that leverage in negotiations is one of the goals of the offensive. An unnamed advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the Washington Post: “This will give them the leverage they need for negotiations with Russia—this is what it’s all about.” This dovetails with recent hints by Zelensky that Kyiv was ready to negotiate. In an interview with BBC News in July, he said, “We don’t have to recapture all the territories” by military means. “I think that can also be achieved with the help of diplomacy.” Occupied Russia could be traded for occupied Ukraine: As former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt suggested on X, “Would an idea be for both states to retreat to within their respective recognized border?”

If Kyiv seems to be preparing the ground for potential negotiations—by seeking to strengthen its hand and publicly declaring its willingness—it is also a response to several factors.

One is growing war weariness among the Ukrainian population. Although the majority of Ukrainians favor fighting on until all the territories Russia has occupied since 2014 are liberated, the number saying that Ukraine could trade some of that territory for peace has been rising.

Second, there has been growing criticism, particularly in Western Europe and the global south, of the way Ukraine has repeatedly ruled out talks with Moscow. Major substantive issues aside, with the Kremlin apparently back-channeling openness to talks, Kyiv risked being seen as intransigent in preventing an early end to the war.

Finally, Ukraine’s strategic position is risky, even if it holds back Russia and maintains the flow of Western weapons. A victory by Donald Trump in the November U.S. presidential election and a sudden stop of U.S. aid cannot be ruled out, and even a Harris administration may have trouble cobbling together future support packages if the Republicans keep their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Zelensky may have decided to gamble to change and accelerate the dynamics of the war, including greater leverage if negotiations end up taking place sooner than anticipated.

Without much leverage, Kyiv has had to appeal to moral, normative, and legal arguments when communicating with its foreign partners about any peace short of full liberation. In the past, this has led to highly skewed negotiations. In the talks that produced the Minsk I and II accords in 2014 and 2015, Ukraine had such a weak hand that it had to agree to impossible terms: It could only get the Russian-controlled Donbas back if it allowed Moscow’s proxies to become part of the Ukrainian polity through local elections manipulated by the Kremlin, which would have given Moscow a permanent veto over Kyiv’s politics. Previously occupied and annexed Crimea was not even included in the discussion.

In March 2022, direct talks between Ukraine and Russia on the Belarusian border were not a negotiation but Russia’s delivery of surrender terms to Ukraine. In April 2022, negotiations brokered by Turkey in Istanbul also went nowhere: Russia’s price for ending its invasion was a considerable limitation of Ukrainian sovereignty and ability to defend itself. Since then, Russia’s proposal has been for Ukraine to permanently cede, in addition to Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts—including substantial parts that Russia has never occupied.

Not only has Ukraine lacked negotiation leverage, but Russia has also been successful in promoting, to audiences around the world, its land-for-peace approach to ending this round of the war. As Ukrainian counteroffensives after 2022 largely failed and the Russian war machine slowly but steadily took more territory in Ukraine’s east, another Minsk-type deal limiting Ukrainian territorial integrity and political sovereignty seemed to loom on the horizon.

Kyiv has not only changed the military narrative on the ground but may also be trying to change the narrative on negotiations—from a “land for peace” deal to a “land for land” deal. This puts Putin in a bind: Loss of control over parts of Russia proper is an enormous embarrassment for the Kremlin. But since their illegal annexation by Russia, the Ukrainian territories Putin seeks to keep are also part of the state territory he is obliged to defend. That said, in terms of Russian elite and popular perception, the restoration of Russia’s legitimate state territory will take precedence over continued occupation of recently conquered domains—especially if a land swap opens an avenue to the end of Western sanctions.

In a way, the new Ukrainian strategy may provide an opening for doves in the Russian leadership—assuming they exist and have any influence over Putin—to argue that the annexations should be reversed in order to restore Russia’s territorial integrity. As long as Ukraine can hold on to its captured territories in Russia, there will a strong pressure on Putin to return them under Moscow’s control.

None of this, however, changes the most fundamental problem with a negotiated outcome: the fact that Russia has ignored just about every agreement it has signed with Ukraine. But for Ukrainians and their Western supporters hoping for an end to the war, some intriguing possibilities may soon be on the table.

[pissditching]

when gerard stomped on that printer on stage in warsaw as a strange and confusing yet earnest attempt at a political demonstration against russia invading ukraine that was very sex i'm wanting more tell the world stop the war of them.

[warsofasoiaf]

What are your thoughts on the Donbass war (2014-2022)? Were the separatists russian puppets or the expression of (parts) of the local population? And what’s your views on the non-implementation of the Minsk agreement ?

The separatists were Russian proxies, full stop. The tapes from Glazyev clearly prove that, and opinion polls in those provinces show that even in Crimea, native Russian weren't enthusiastic on the idea of being annexed or controlled by Russia. Hence, the rebellion was largely manufactured out of whole cloth, and when paid demonstrations failed, Russia responded with importing irregulars to pose as native separatists. Here is an exhaustively well-researched report on exactly what went down with that, and when even irregulars failed, Russia had no choice but to launch its own invasion with its regular forces in 2014.

The idea of a "Donbas genocide" or "Donbas shelling" is a myth. It's a blatantly revisionist take that argues that while the Russian-led separatist forces were allowed to attack and shell the Ukrainians (more casualties were caused by Russians and Russian-led separatists), Ukraine was not allowed to defend itself or conduct counter-insurgency operations against an insurgency in its own territory.

The idea that "the Minsk agreements secured peace, but Ukraine refused to implement it" is likewise false. For one, Russia also habitually failed to implement its own provisions, conducting its own rigged elections in Donetsk and Luhansk contrary to the stated provisions of Minsk. For two, all foreign groups, i.e. Russia's imported forces, were to be removed, and they weren't. For three, Ukraine was supposed to have full sovereignty over its border, which Russia routinely transgressed to resupply its forces. It also blatantly broke the ceasefire to seize more territory. Russia pretended that it held no control over the separatist forces, but that was a transparent lie - repeated investigations and even testimony from the separatists themselves said that they took orders from Moscow.

Pretty much all the arguments are largely post-facto justifications to support Russian deniable asset wars. For all the claims of the Euromaidan being a "CIA-sponsored color revolution" (pro-tip: if someone uses those words unironically, you don't have to take anything they say seriously, they're just an unthinking consumer of Russian disinformation), the "Donbas separatists" were actually far closer to what that operation would be like in reality - imported agitators to create a false appearance of a separatist movement with military support to overthrow an existing government.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lauren Gambino at The Guardian:

Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that rushes $95bn in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, a bipartisan legislative victory he hailed as a “good day for world peace” after months of congressional gridlock threatened Washington’s support for Kyiv in its fight to repel Russia’s invasion. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure in a 79 -18 vote late on Tuesday night, after the package won similarly lopsided approval in the Republican controlled House, despite months of resistance from an isolationist bloc of hardline conservatives opposed to helping Ukraine. “It’s going to make America safer. It’s going to make the world safer,” Biden said, in remarks delivered from the White House, shortly after signing the bill.

“It was a difficult path,” he continued. “It should have been easier and it should have gotten there sooner. But in the end, we did what America always does. We rose to the moment, came together, and we got it done.” The White House first sent its request for the foreign aid package to Congress in October, and US officials have said the months-long delay hurt Ukraine on the battlefield. Promising to “move fast”, Biden said the US would begin shipping weapons and equipment to Ukraine within a matter of hours. Biden admonished “Maga Republicans” for blocking the aid package as Ukrainian soldiers were running out of artillery shells and ammunition as Iran, China and North Korea helped Russia to ramp up its aerial assault on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. Rejecting the view that Ukraine is locked in an unwinnable conflict that has become a drain on US resources, Biden hailed Ukraine’s army as a “fighting force with the will and the skill to win”. But the president also pressed the case that supporting Ukraine was in the national security interest of the US.

[...] In an effort to attract Republican support, the security bill includes a provision that could see a nationwide ban on TikTok. The House also added language mandating the president seek repayment from Kyiv for roughly $10bn in economic assistance in the form of “forgivable loans”, an idea first floated by Donald Trump, who has stoked anti-Ukraine sentiment among conservatives. Although support for the package was overwhelming, several Democrats have expressed their concern with sending Israel additional military aid as it prosecutes a war that has killed more than 34,000 people in Gaza and plunged the territory into a humanitarian crisis. Three progressive senators, Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch of Vermont and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voted against the bill for its inclusion of military support to Israel.

On Wednesday, Biden called the aid to Israel “vital”, especially in the wake of Iran’s unprecedented aerial assault on the country. Israel, with help from the US, UK and Jordan, intercepted nearly all of the missiles and drones and there were no reported fatalities. The attack had been launched in retaliation against an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular site in Syria. “My commitment to Israel, I want to make clear again, is ironclad,” Biden said. “The security of Israel is critical. I will always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and terrorists who it supports.” Biden’s abiding support for Israel’s war in Gaza has hurt his political standing with key parts of the Democratic coalition, especially among young people. As he spoke, students at some of the nation’s most prestigious universities were demonstrating against the war. Biden emphasized that the bill also increases humanitarian assistance to Gaza, touting his administration’s efforts to pressure Israel to allow more aid into the devastated territory. But House Republicans added a provision to the bill prohibiting funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Unrwa, a “lifeline for the Palestinian people in Gaza” that Israel has sought to disband.

President Biden signed a foreign aid package worth $95BN containing foreign aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel and provisions to a TikTok ban.

The good: Ukraine and Taiwan funding. The bad: TikTok ban and Israel funding.

See Also:

Vox: Ukraine aid and a potential TikTok ban: What’s in the House’s new $95 billion bill

[shithowdy]

i always feel kind of performative reblogging tumblr posts about current events or other human rights issues because this is my silly little blog where i post silly little elf doodles and pictures of animals i see, and i can't reasonably be a good resource for news or insightful thoughts-- there are already good resources for those for which i could never be a stand-in. i don't follow news resources on tumblr because i get my news elsewhere, so the posts that do reach my dash are sparse and often already outdated.

but is there merit to performance? perhaps. it demonstrates who is and is not safe, who views you as a human being, if not in a way that lacks the ardent fervor of real activism. i don't think i'm a very good activist, but i try my best to be a good person, and i do want those who visit my blog to look at my silly doodles to know that I unequivocally stand with the people of gaza, of congo, of sudan, of north american tribes, of all indigenous people having their land stolen and their children kidnapped and their histories erased. i stand against antisemitism and the conflation of judaism with netanyahu's crimes. i stand against the war crimes of putin, but also the grotesque use of ukraine and its people as a prop for western political interests as a result. i stand with black and indigenous americans and their fight for systemic racial and environmental justice. i stand with the endless, ongoing effort of labor organizers worldwide to see those who keep our comfortable world rotating duly compensated. i stand with my disabled peers and their advocates, and against "ability" being a virtue. i stand with my trans siblings and our fight for recognition to simply exist.

i am sorry i am not a better resource. but i want to make my beliefs clear: this is a safe space for the marginalized, and i'm not here to play moderate just because i try to separate my hobbies from the distressing reality of living on earth under capitalism. do not assume because i am not a "political blog" that you can put your ugly thoughts in my activity.

enjoy the cat pictures and sad wet elves.

[hassibah]

https://commons.com.ua/en/ukrayinskij-list-solidarnosti/

Ukrainian Letter of Solidarity with Palestinian people

"Our solidarity comes from a place of anger at the injustice, and a place of deep pain of knowing the devastating impacts of occupation, shelling of civil infrastructure, and humanitarian blockade from experiences in our homeland. Parts of Ukraine have been occupied since 2014, and the international community failed to stop Russian aggression then, ignoring the imperial and colonial nature of the armed violence, which consequently escalated on the 24th of February 2022. Civilians in Ukraine are shelled daily, in their homes, in hospitals, on bus stops, in queues for bread. As a result of the Russian occupation, thousands of people in Ukraine live without access to water, electricity or heating, and it is the most vulnerable groups that are mostly affected by the destruction of critical infrastructure. In the months of the siege and heavy bombardment of Mariupol there was no humanitarian corridor. Watching the Israeli targeting the civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the Israeli humanitarian blockade and occupation of land resonates especially painfully with us. From this place of pain of experience and solidarity, we call on our fellow Ukrainians globally and all the people to raise their voices in support of the Palestinian people and condemn the ongoing  Israeli mass ethnic cleansing.

We reject the Ukrainian government statements that express unconditional support for Israel's military actions, and we consider the calls to avoid civilian casualties by Ukraine's MFA belated and insufficient. This position is a retreat from the support of Palestinian rights and condemnation of the Israeli occupation, which Ukraine has followed for decades, including voting in the UN.  Aware of the pragmatic geopolitical reasoning behind Ukraine’s decision to echo Western allies, on whom we are dependent for our survival, we see the current support of Israel and dismissing Palestinian right to self-determination as contradictory to Ukraine’s own commitment to human rights and fight for our land and freedom. We as Ukrainians should stand in solidarity not with the oppressors, but with those who experience and resist the oppression.

We strongly object to equating of Western military aid to Ukraine and Israel by some politicians. Ukraine doesn't occupy the territories of other people, instead, it fights against the Russian occupation, and therefore international assistance serves a just cause and the protection of international law. Israel has occupied and annexed Palestinian and Syrian territories, and Western aid to it confirms an unjust order and demonstrates double standards in relation to international law.

We oppose the new wave of Islamophobia, such as the brutal murder of a Palestinian American 6-year old and assault on his family in Illinois, USA, and the equating of any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. At the same time, we also oppose holding all Jewish people all over the world accountable for the politics of the state of Israel and we condemn anti-Semitic violence, such as the mob attack on the airplane in Daghestan, Russia. We also reject the revival of the “war on terror” rhetoric used by the US and EU to justify war crimes and violations of international law that have undermined the international security system, caused countless deaths, and has been borrowed by other states, including Russia for the war in Chechnya and China for the Uyghur genocide. Now Israel is using it to carry out ethnic cleansing."

[dontforgetukraine]

A Twitter Thread on Peace by Dietmar Pichler

We need to talk about peace.

Peace, the state of existence all sane human beings desire, yet not everyone shares the same understanding of what it truly means.

For the Kremlin, "peace" is a useful term for subjugation, aided by certain Western useful idiots. This is how:

The KGB's infiltration, financing, and control of parts of the so-called "peace movement" began more than half a century ago.

Today, we still particularly feel the effects of the anti-Pershing missile movement of the 1980s.

Not everyone noticed the Soviet influence and unbalanced narrative within the peace movement; some genuinely desired peace. Yet Soviet, East German, and Czech intelligence shaped its anti-Western direction.

"Generals for Peace," founded in 1980/81, was backed by the KGB and East German Stasi. Led by Stasi agent Gerhard Kade, the group aimed to push anti-American sentiment in the peace movement, featuring former NATO generals.

The World Peace Council (WPC), founded in 1949 by the Cominform and backed by the Soviet Union, acted as a Cold War propaganda tool, criticizing the U.S. and its allies while defending Soviet actions in various conflicts.

There were many other organizations with close ties to the Kremlin. Marxist groups and openly communist parties were traditionally pro-Moscow and exclusively criticized the West. Russian embassies in Europe supported and covertly financed their activities.

Some participants in peace demonstrations against "mutual destruction" criticized the movement's pro-Soviet bias and lack of solidarity with those trapped behind the Iron Curtain.

On the other hand, individuals from the Social Democrats, "Young Socialists," and Christian groups participated without criticizing the anti-Western bias.

Many of them are still alive today, maintaining their old networks, and perhaps more significantly, they have retained their anti-Western, anti-NATO, and pro-Moscow mindset, at least to a certain extent. For some, it doesn't matter that the USSR no longer exists.

We know of individuals from the Communist and Social Democratic parties and the church who participated in the "Peace Marches" against NATO rockets in the 1980s and now advocate against weapons support for Ukraine.

Let’s jump to 2014 — after the Russian annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of Eastern Ukraine, new peace rallies emerge in Germany and Austria, but this time they face criticism for being infiltrated by far-right individuals, conspiracy theorists, and antisemites.

Besides parroting the usual Kremlin talking points, speeches were given about the "world finance conspiracy," "chemtrails disseminated by airplanes," and, of course, how evil the West, the U.S., and the "lying mainstream media" are.

2022, after the full-scale invasion, Russian aggression against Ukraine became undeniable. Previously, many peace activists had denied Russia's actions in Donbass. Now, we hear, similar like after Crimea 2014: "The US, NATO, Ukraine provoked it or share equal blame for the war."

Now the far right seeks to participate as well. Some far-left peace activists collaborate with them due to their shared positive stance on Russia, while others exclude them from their events despite their common views on foreign policy.

There are several "peace organizations" around the world that have shared the same view for decades: The West is to blame, the West needs to negotiate with Russia (as well as Iran and China), and we need to disarm. A strong condemnation of dictators is missing.

Their message—"we need to negotiate," "diplomatic solutions," "weapons don't bring peace"—is accompanied by a collection of Russian talking points, disinformation, and propaganda myths that aim to at least partly "justify" the Russian invasion.

These peace rallies and movements always defend themselves against legitimate criticism in the same way: "Are you against peace?" "You are a warmonger," "We are not on the Russian side; we are on the side of peace."

Peace is undeniably good—who wouldn’t agree? But a certain kind of "hardcore pacifism" allows aggressors to succeed, subjugate, occupy, torture, and kill those who don't defend themselves, yet these questions don’t arise when you think "weapons are always bad" & "hug your enemy".

It’s not just about what they say, but also what they leave out. Russian imperialism, the Kremlin's genocidal propaganda, and the terror of the occupation regime—these are all incompatible with the "peace at all costs" narrative and remain unmentioned.

Then we have to ask ourselves: Why are there participants waving Russian flags or displaying the war symbol "Z"? Why are there speakers at peace rallies and "peace conferences" who have appeared on Russia Today or even on the show of the notorious Russian warmonger Solovyov?

This is only a superficial overview of the activities and narratives of the pro-Kremlin 'Peace Movement.' You are welcome to add further insights.

I believe there is much to discuss, and I should note that much of the information about the flaws and misguided direction of this movement comes from former members who have left it.

One question remains: How can we reclaim the word "peace"? For everyone who supports a sustainable, just peace, this must also mean freedom.

—Dietmar Pichler, disinformation analyst

[zvaigzdelasas]

[BBC is UK State Media]

Protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza interrupted US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a Senate hearing on Tuesday. Numerous people stood in the crowd and repeatedly yelled "Ceasefire now!" Secretary Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are testifying about the White House's $106bn (£87.4bn) national security funding request. It includes $14.3bn to support Israel's military efforts against Hamas.

Standing up one by one, protesters waited for Mr Blinken to begin his testimony before shouting over him again. The Secretary of State paused and lawmakers were forced to suspend the hearing several times. Capitol Police quickly escorted the demonstrators from the room. Police said 12 people had been arrested for illegally protesting inside the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Some of those who interrupted the proceedings were affiliated with the anti-war group CODEPINK, which has also called for the US to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Many protesters wore pink and held signs reading "No to the siege of Gaza", as they called for the US to stop sending funds to Israel. CODEPINK confirmed that some of its members were arrested. Some had painted their hands red "to symbolise blood", the group said.

Mr Blinken acknowledged the protesters and "the passions expressed in this room" at the end of his statement. "All of us are committed to the protection of civilian life. All of us know the suffering that is taking place as we speak, all of us are determined to see it end," he said. He added, however, that it was imperative that the US stand with its allies.

31 Oct 23

[probablyasocialecologist]

War reporting always carries risk. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented the deaths of media workers in the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. Middle East conflicts have always been dangerous places for journalists; it’s hard to ignore high-profile deaths of journalists like Marie Colvin of London’s Sunday Times in Syria, or freelance photographers Chris Hondros and Tim Hetherington in Libya. In that sense, the war in Gaza and a possible war in southern Lebanon are no exceptions. But as FAIR documented during the previous Israeli military operation against Gaza, Israel has a long history of targeting Palestinian journalists, as well as harassing foreign journalists and human rights activists entering the country. Over the summer, the International Federation of Journalists reported that “several journalists have been directly targeted by Israeli snipers as they were reporting on Israel’s large-scale military operation in Jenin.” Inside Israel, the situation for journalists is relatively safer, but the far-right government has—like authoritarian governments in Poland and Hungary—attacked journalists and the ability to critically cover institutions in power. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2019 accused the owners of Israel’s Channel 12 of committing a “terror attack against democracy” for reporting on the corruption charges against him. In 2020, Netanyahu indicated that “Channel 13 journalist Raviv Drucker should be arrested and jailed” for airing “recordings of Netanyahu crony Shaul Elovich and his wife, which demonstrated how they sought to tilt news coverage in the prime minister’s favor.” Galit Distel-Atbaryan, who recently resigned from her role as public diplomacy minister, reportedly said this summer that she wanted the “authority to deny press credentials to foreign journalists critical of Israel”.

[leo-fie]

The sheer state of the German left right now...

Seriously, if I wouldn't see it, I would not believe it. And I'm only seeing the small sample on Mastodon.

Antizionism, critique of Israel, suppost for Palestine get's thrown in with antisemitism so much that's it's basically impossible to figure out what's going on anymore.

Examples from Mastodon:

This picture shows a pro-palestine demonstration, we see people, palestinian flags and two signs reading "freedom for palestine" and "stop the israeli massacres in palestine". The left research network RABA writes: "After the attempted genocide of Jews with thousands of victims by the barbarous Hamas, the palestinian community Bonn and Cologne shows their ideological and personal closeness to the Hamas war. Replaying antisemitic, djihadi propaganda: transparent victim blaming"

Did they see the same picture as me? Do they know more than me? Or do they think any support of palestine is antisemitic by default?

This account called "punch a nazi" is in solidarity with Israel and against antisemitism. Thereby implying that anyone against Israel is antisemitic.

Same account saying: "The antisemitism bubbling to the surface all over the world right now is nothing less than disgusting. Openly disguised as "critique of Israel" or between the lines. Against all antisemitism!"

So no critique of Israel allowed ever? But no one is above criticism, especially not governments. Or do we make an exception for Israel?

Amadeu Antonio Foundation is a widely respected antiracist, antifascist group founded in the memory of a man murdered by nazis in 1990, Amadeu Antionio Kiowa. Here they say as part of a thread for teachers: "The antisemitism refering to Israel is to be differentiated from critique at Israeli government policy, a big challenge for teachers. With the practical handout teachers can react to slogans like "With the policy Israel is doing, I can understand why someone wouldn't like jews" or "Israel is an apartheid state" and catch insecurities and emotions."

Now, if you ask me, the first slogan is clearly antisemitic, the second is just true. How is that differenciating anything?

taz is a left leaning daily newspaper, basically the only one with any reach in Germany. It's staunchly zionist. While it is also showing the plight of the palestinian people, it is also joining in the chorus of other newspapers comparing Israel to Ukraine and therefore Hamas to Putin's Russia. This reads: The German peoples' demostration of solidarity with Israel are poor compared to the war in Ukraine. The actual test is still pending." The headline reads: Pro-Israel-Demonstrations: We don't care"

Same newspaper: "Dozens chant "free Palestine", a schoolground conflict get's political - but there are also other, quieter voices. A week in Neukölln (a neighborhood in Berlin)" With the headline: "Near-East-Conflict in Berlin: Symbol Sonennallee (a street)"

What's wrong with "free Palestine"? Does the palestinian people not have a right to self determination?

Rote Flora is an autonomous center in Hamburg since 1989. They fly a banner reading "Killing Jews is not fighting for freedom! We are in solidarity with all humans in Israel and all jews in the world. You are not alone." Someone posted this picture with the caption: Rote Flora stabil. which is kinda like saying it's based.

Examples end.

This is what I get from left and left leaning groups. Our public broadcast is of course zionist af, but to the point where American news like CNN are nuanced in comparasion.

The conflation of antisemitism and antizionism is just off the charts. I already lost one account for pointing out that these are different things, so I have to mute everything lest I blow up at any of these.

How can anyone look at the situation of the palestinian people and come away with anything but antizionism? That's why we have the term. Who but left and left leaning folks can look at this though a materialist lens? Isn't that our thing?