The Roots of Catastrophe

M. Reza Behnam

Photograph Source: Hossam el-Hamalawy – CC BY 2.0

In my public presentations on the subject of Palestine-Israel, I am frequently asked to identify the force most responsible for the catastrophe we are witnessing today in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.  Audiences are surprised when I say that the source is easily identifiable—it is Zionism. 

Zionism is the political ideology that emerged in 19th-century Europe among a small minority of Jews determined to establish a Jewish homeland.  Twenty-two Zionist congresses were convened between 1897 and 1946.  Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), Viennese journalist and founder of the modern Zionist movement, began the process of implementing his vision of a Jewish utopia at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in August 1897.   

Confident in his success, Herzl proudly announced, “I founded the Jewish state in Basel.”  He helped build a campaign that transformed a popular movement to create a homeland for Jews into a political movement that shattered the homeland of Palestinians.   

Fundamental to understanding Israel’s massacre of Palestinians and the wasteland they are creating in Gaza is to discern the blueprint that Israel’s founders drew up to create their Jewish homeland; what they called Eretz-Israel. 

Early Zionist leaders were explicit about what they deemed “transfer” plans to effect a “Jewish majority” in Palestine.  Yosef Weitz (1890-1972)—known as the “architect of transfer”—served as director of the powerful Jewish National Fund’s Land Settlement Department.  As head of what he deemed Transfer Committees, Weitz set in motion long-held Zionist plans to “transfer” (ethnically cleanse) and dispossess Palestinians from their homes, land and businesses.  His diary entry from 12 December 1940 is revelatory:   “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples….If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us…. The only solution is a Land of Israel…without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises…There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps [a few].”  

Weitz also spoke about expanding the “Jewish state’s” borders to include areas in Lebanon and Syria. In a meeting on 22 June 1941 with Jewish National Fund Chairman, Menachem Ussishkin (1863-1941), Weitz wrote:  “The land of Israel is not small at all, if only the Arabs will be removed, and if its frontiers would be enlarged a little; to the north all the way to Litani [River in Lebanon], and to the east including the Golan Heights . . . . while the [Palestinian] Arabs be transferred to northern Syria and Iraq. . . . From now on we must work out a secret plan based on the removal of the [Palestinian] Arabs from here . . . [and] . . . to include it into American political circles. . . . today we have no other alternative. . . . We will not live here with Arabs.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 134-135) 

The history of Palestine is one of the most intentionally distorted histories of our time.  The European war of 1914-1918, the collapse and dissection of the Ottoman Empire (circa 1300-1923), the paucity of civil government in the Arab world, the hubris of European empires, Zionist intrigue, zeal and violence, all seeded the birth and growth of Israel.  Born in illegitimacy, Israel has been mired in violence and in mythical religious ideology ever since.

Palestinians, reeling from the collapse of the Ottomans, were unprepared to fight British encroachment and the waves of Jewish emigres who were progressively gaining influence as well as political control over Palestine.  The al-Buraq/ Western Wall uprising of August 1929 marks a turning point in the anti-Zionist, anti-colonial movement in Palestine.  It was the first large-scale uprising and clashes  among Arabs, Jews and the British mandate forces.

As Israel attempts to erase Palestinians from their homeland, it is important to reflect back on historical injustices and to also underscore the fact that Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together peacefully in Palestine before the forceful importation of European Zionism into the heart of the Middle East.   

Since 450 B.C., Arabs have lived in a geographical region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.  Palestinian roots are deeply embedded in the land they have lived on for centuries, long before the Ottoman period and the advent of Zionist colonialism following the First World War.  According to the records of the Government of Palestine, A Survey of Palestine, 1946, Volume I, page 144, by 1914, the population in Palestine numbered 689,000; of whom, 534,300 were Muslim Arabs; 70,000 Christian Arabs; and 84,700 Jews, who resided for the most part for religious reasons in four cities, Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron.  There were also some Zionists who had come to settle in agricultural colonies largely under the generous patronage of Baron Edmund James de Rothschild (1845-1934), French member of the Rothschild banking family and strong supporter of Zionism.  For centuries, religious tolerance and tranquility was the rule and animosity the exception in pre-Zionist Palestine.  

The world is awakening to the deadly consequences of past decisions, and of the judgments being made today through the same imperial, arrogant lens.      

For 17 years, the people of Gaza have had to wake up every morning—if they survived the Israeli aerial bombardments of 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2022— subjected to the whims of a foreign power determining if they will have the basics of life—food, medicine, electricity and clean water.  They have had to face the daily humiliation of being dependent upon outside aid because Israel restricts   goods entering the Gaza Strip.  Unable to plan for and seeing no hope for a future, some determined Gazans have spent their days not in school or gainful employment, but digging tunnels to resist and escape their unending imprisonment.  

The myths of noble Israelis simply defending themselves, of the circumspect warrior and civilized aggressor do not correspond with the horrific images of destruction coming from Gaza. 

It is apparent that the goal of the Israeli regime is to make Gaza uninhabitable.  According to the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, the impact of the Israeli bombing campaign has had the equivalent effect of two nuclear bombs.  They have also documented Israel’s use of cluster and phosphorus bombs, internationally banned weapons.   Additionally, Israel is engaged in a genocidal effort to kill or forcibly remove the more than two million Palestinians living in Gaza.  Senior Israeli officials have openly expressed their genocidal intent.  Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for example, referred to the residents of Gaza as “human animals,” as he ordered a complete siege of the enclave.   

Gallant’s statement is an expression of what Israel thinks of Palestinian Arabs and by implication all Arabs. Israel’s genocidal war has put them on notice. If they do not demand an immediate end to the massacre of fellow Arabs, they will forever be servile to American and Israeli interests.  For far too long the Arab world has been obsequious and docile to foreign interests.  They have the opportunity now to shed that image.

Israel has survived on the bottomless pit of U.S. dollars.  It would be unable to conduct its genocidal warfare in Gaza without U.S. military hardware, intelligence, diplomatic assistance and, most consequentially, the oil that fuels its war machine.  It is time for the Arab world to use its formidable oil weapon to end the carnage. And much the same way that Israel employs its powerful lobby in the United States to corral American politicians, the Arab world needs to wield an oil lobby to do the same.

What the world is currently bearing witness to in Gaza is a progression of the systematic plan mapped out a century ago by Zionist theoreticians like Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Weitz, Ussishkin to create an Israel “without Arabs.”  Like Israel’s founders, who refused to recognize Palestinians, referring to them instead as Arabs, Israel’s current extremists continue the strategy of “transfer” (ethnic cleansing).  The regime’s intent can be heard in the statements of Israel’s extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich who in March 2023 denied the existence of a Palestinian people, while days before calling for the erasure of Huwara, a Palestinian town in the occupied West Bank. 

Until 7 October, Israel’s brutality and expansionist schemes had been largely hidden from the American public.  Hamas’s military campaign has laid bare the unbridled imperial and historical designs of Tel Aviv and Washington.  The conscience of the world has been stirred and the Middle East has been forever altered.

UK government prepares crackdown on political opposition with new “extremism” definition

Robert Stevens

The British government is broadening its definition of “extremism”. On Sunday, the Observer revealed that Communities Secretary Michael Gove is close to finalising a review of “non-violent extremism” which began in spring this year.

According to the newspaper, which has not released the full document, extremism will be defined as “the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values” or to “threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism”.

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Downing Street, January 16, 2023 [Photo by Rory Arnold/No 10 Downing Street / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

It will also include, “Sustained support for, or continued uncritical association with organisations or individuals who are exhibiting extremist behaviours.”

The existing definition of extremism is “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. This was published in 2011 as part of the antidemocratic “Prevent” strategy, enforced in schools and throughout the public sector under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and used to demonise Muslims in particular.

Every year, thousands of people are referred to Prevent, a total of 6,406 in the 12 months to March 2022, a 30 percent increase on the previous year.

In the document’s own words, the new definition broadens the focus from “active opposition” to so-called “British values” to “behaviours that enable the spread of extremist ideology.”

This is a deeply authoritarian definition, providing a pretext for the suppression of virtually any form of political opposition and eviscerating the rights to free speech and political association.

The Observer reports that one document “lists a number of organisations which it considers would be ‘captured’ by the new definition.” Among them are “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Palestine Action and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development).” Palestine Action has helped to organise numerous protests in recent years against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, including during the ongoing genocidal assault on Gaza.

Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, explained that the existing definition of extremism “is already being applied so broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising and mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further and could criminalise any dissent.”

The Tory government has sought to broaden the definition of extremism for years, specifically to outlaw “left-wing extremism”. This has been an over-riding pre-occupation of successive prime ministers and home secretaries.

In May 2017, the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) was announced by then Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. Three years prior, as home secretary, May promised that a Counter Extremism Strategy would tackle “the whole spectrum of extremism, violent and non-violent, ideological and non-ideological.” 

In 2019, the World Socialist Web Site explained how a report on “left-wing extremism” submitted to the Commission “set out to brand as suspect views held by millions of people”, among them that “The greatest threat to democracy has always come from the far right” and that “Zionism is a form of racism”.

In February 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government announced a review into “left-wing extremism” to be led by former Labour MP John Woodcock, now Baron Walney, in his post as UK Special Envoy for Countering Violent Extremism.

Last month, as anti-Gazan war protests escalated in Britain, with successive national demonstrations in London attracting 150,000, then 350,000, then 500,000 people, head of the Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley declared, “I think there is scope to be much sharper in how we deal with extremism in this country. The law was never designed to deal with extremism. There’s a lot to do with terrorism and hate crime but we don’t have a body of law that deals with extremism and that is creating a gap.”

What it would mean to close the gap is indicated by the dictatorial statements of government officials in regard to the protests.

Fascistic Home Secretary Suella Braverman has repeatedly denounced the national demonstrations as “hate marches”, and described participants in a Times piece on Wednesday as “pro-Palestinian mobs.” She declared, “The issue is how do we as a society police groups that insist that their agenda trumps any notion of the broader public good—as defined by the public, not by activists.”

Braverman’s ravings follow those of Commissioner for Countering Extremism Robin Simcox, who wrote in the Times, “Hate marches in Britain are a wake-up call to all decent people.” Anti-war protesters, he said, had “been careful to construe their public displays of support just below the legal threshold for hate crime, glorification of terror, or public order offences… exploiting one of our proudest British values, freedom of expression, to pursue a shameful extremist agenda, the normalisation and promotion of antisemitism.”

Simcox and the home secretary were joined in their slanderous denunciations by former prime minister Boris Johnson. During a trip to Israel to offer the Netanyahu regime his support, he advocated for the banning of the planned November 11 march, accusing protestors of demonstrating “in favour of an anti-Semitic pogrom”.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism, a right-wing Zionist organisation, said the Met should ban the upcoming march under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, but that if it was allowed then Braverman should invoke special powers to direct London’s mayor to call in the military to reinforce the police.

Unable to dismiss the overwhelming opposition within the population to Israel’s war of annihilation, the police announced Wednesday evening that Saturday’s march would go ahead. The home secretary can only intervene to ban the march if recommended to do so by the Met.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak responded by reiterating his personal opposition to the “disrespectful” march and stressing that Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley had “committed to keep the Met police’s posture under constant review based on the latest intelligence about the nature of the protests.”

While currently unable to prevent this Saturday’s march from proceeding, the hysterical attack on anti-war protestors and plans to massively broaden what can be defined as “extremism” are an urgent warning of the direction of travel in the ruling class—hellbent on crushing all forms of dissent to impose its agenda of war and austerity. In this, they can rely totally on a pro-war, pro-“law and order” Labour Party, expected to win a general election next year.

It is no coincidence that rolling out a new dragnet definition of extremism takes place at this juncture, with Britain deeply involved in NATO’s war against Russia in Ukraine and Israel’s attack on Gaza. With millions on the streets around the world to protest Israel’s genocide, the ruling class fears the development of a mass, international anti-war movement. Above all, it is terrified that such a movement will take up a socialist perspective, animating a working class which has engaged in major battles over wages, working conditions and job losses in the last two years.

A raft of legislation is already on the statute book to deny this emerging movement its democratic rights to organise and promote its perspective—the Public Order Act (2023), the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022), the Online Safety Bill (2023) and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act (2023).

Australian critical minerals vital for US war plans against China

Mike Head

A report issued in June by the government-sponsored Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has provided a revealing insight into the intensifying US preparations for war against China and the centrality of Australia to those plans.

Aukus and Critical Minerals report [Photo: ASPI]

Co-authored by former Australian Labor Party leader and defence minister Kim Beazley, who has life-long links with the US political and military-intelligence apparatus, the report demands a much faster ramping up of weapons making and other military-related production in the US and Australia.

The think tank report also calls for accelerated measures to deprive China of supplies of the critical minerals that are essential for modern warfare, including the manufacture of nuclear warheads, and to divert Australia’s substantial volumes of such resources away from processing in China.

This is part of a broader US drive to cut off Chinese access to hi-tech industrial development and cripple its economy. That includes ending, as soon as possible, its current alleged global monopoly over the processing of many rare earths and other critical minerals that are essential for war, as well as for super-computers, AI, batteries and industrial and vehicle electrification.

The ASPI report sheds light on the US drive for war against China, which Washington has designated as an existential threat to American global hegemony. It warns that US industrial and military capacity must be massively increased to develop and sustain the huge military production needed to win what would be a catastrophic war, almost certainly involving nuclear weapons.

The report by Beazley and former prime ministerial advisor Ben Halton is explicit on the urgent necessity for the US to establish control over critical minerals and their processing. “Mass military production wins wars,” it declares.

“This is where Australia comes in. Australia has the essential minerals, which are more readily exploitable because they’re located in less densely populated or ecologically sensitive areas.” Moreover, “Australia is yet to explore 80 percent of the continent for critical minerals.”

This is a vision of Australia as a giant quarry for war purposes, as well as a base for US forces and warships.

The report emphasises that the critical mineral supply issue is of paramount importance to the AUKUS military pact between the US, UK and Australia to provide long-range, nuclear-powered attack submarines, hypersonic missiles and other cutting-edge weaponry to be based in Australia.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, meets with Kim Beazley, the then Australian Ambassador to the United States, in Sydney, Monday, Aug. 11, 2014. [AP Photo/Peter Parks, Pool]

“Australia is ground zero for AUKUS because the alliance is based on supply-chain security that enables war-winning capabilities,” it says.

Titled “AUKUS and critical minerals: Hedging Beijing’s pervasive, clever and coordinated statecraft,” the report urges a much quicker pace of industrial war preparation, because “establishing a viable non-Chinese supply chain will take years.”

This was one of the crucial lessons of the increasingly disastrous US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine, the report insists, indicating the linkage between the US war operations against Russia and China.

“Suggestions that mass military production is less pertinent in the nuclear age are debatable: the capacity for mass production is as relevant as ever, as highlighted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The emerging risk of global war aside, the war in Ukraine has at times resembled an emerging war of attrition based not on casualties, but on the ability to resupply the war fighter. Nations such as Russia, Ukraine and even the US are depleting their arsenals to various degrees—remedies include mass industrial production.”

A footnote adds: “For instance, the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests that some 7,000 US Javelin advanced anti-tank weapon systems have been sent to Ukraine as at April 2022, or about one-third of the US arsenal, which will take years to replenish.”

Because of its large deposits of critical minerals, as well as its geographic location and bullying pro-US role in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia is pivotal to US war plans.

The report defines critical minerals as “metals, non-metals and minerals essential to economic and national security, the supply chain for which is vulnerable to disruption and serves an essential function in the manufacturing of products, the absence of which would have significant consequences for our economy or our national security.”

For example, “some 3,300 items of US military equipment depend on rare earths, which have few known or potential substitutes. They include almost every weapon being used by combatants in Ukraine as well as every fighter jet, navy vessel and nuclear weapon on Earth.”

But “China has control over about 94 percent of the world’s (usable) rare-earth production.”

Also, among the developments at stake is “nanotechnology, which requires extraordinarily compact components with extraordinary performance.” It is “dependent upon critical-mineral-based materials. The absence of some minerals may also reduce the option of mass military production to boutique quantities.”

Currently, mines in Australia produce a significant proportion of the world’s critical minerals, but nearly all are shipped to China for processing. For example, Australia supplies more than half of the world’s lithium, yet 96 percent of it goes to China.

Lithium has surpassed liquefied natural gas as Australian capitalism’s second biggest export to China behind iron ore, with sales soaring to $7.4 billion between January and June this year, from only $300 million in the same period of 2021.

“Lithium isn’t just for batteries,” the report points out, “even though batteries account for 74 percent of its global end-use market. It’s also essential for armour, airframes, jet engines and nuclear reactors, too.”

The report declares that “all AUKUS capabilities and the rules-based order that they uphold, depend heavily on critical minerals.” The “rules-based order” is a euphemism for the US-dominated framework imposed internationally to uphold the interests of Wall Street after the American victories over Germany and Japan in World War II.

The report sounds an alarm: “China eclipses not only AUKUS for processing those minerals into usable forms, but the rest of the world combined. Without critical minerals, states are open to economic coercion in various technological industries, and defence manufacturing is particularly exposed to unnecessary supply-chain challenges…

“Currently, China dominates critical-mineral supply chains and has production lines that are secure from ‘mine to battlefield.’ Its enormous economic reserves of minerals such as rare earths and magnesium also support China’s dominant position. Australia is the only nation able to challenge it, and often vastly exceed it, based on proven mineral reserves (and with considerable specialist mineral expertise).”

Australia, the report states, is pivotal not only because of its essential minerals, but because it has supportive universities and other facilities—a revealing comment on the accelerating integration of universities and other services into the development of a war economy—and the capacity to exploit resources in Asia and Africa.

“Australia also has the right expertise, including universities offering the appropriate advanced geoscience degrees, as well as advanced infrastructure, world-class resources technology and deep industry connections with Asia and Africa, which are also vital global sources of critical minerals.”

The primary problem confronting the US and its Australian ally, according to the report, is the need to shift to huge government spending and corporate subsidies because of the hefty amounts involved in building critical minerals processing plants, estimated at $1 billion each.

“This issue can only be dealt with strategically, not commercially. We haven’t done this since World War II. We didn’t need to in the Cold War because the AUKUS nations had negligible dependence on the Soviet Union.”

The report adds: “Furthermore, modern weapons systems (as well as vital green technologies) are more dependent on critical minerals than those in service during the Cold War, and current supply chains are beholden to processing in China.”

China accused of creating a stranglehold over war-related industries

Bluntly, the report states: “The challenge lies in the need to diversify from China. The many attributes of China’s dominance in critical minerals include complex and carefully guarded processing capabilities that make critical minerals usable. That extends to the manufacturing of essential inputs to technologies such as rare-earth permanent magnets, which enable technologies such as leading-edge missile guidance, satellites and aircraft.”

These problems “are compounded by the unprofitability of much of the critical-mineral markets.” The report complains of the failure of most critical minerals start-ups, while accusing China of being responsible for these corporate bankruptcies.

“China’s enormous economies of scale, including through the state amalgamation of companies, is remarkable. Beijing has merged 150 private companies into six state-owned enterprises in the rare-earths sector alone. While Beijing’s subsidies keep prices low, they also maintain its vast influence over market prices, which disrupts the viability of new entrants, upholding China’s monopsony [a market situation in which there is only one buyer]…

“For instance, only one major rare-earth producer independent of China’s supply chain survives to this day: Lynas Rare Earths Ltd, a public company registered in Western Australia (WA). It took 11 years for Lynas to turn a profit and enormous strategic foresight and financial support from the Japanese Government totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The solution “is for AUKUS and its partners to engage Australia as the spearhead of mineral diversification.” No price tag is suggested for this war effort, but it must involve hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, both American and Australian. That money could only come from slashing the social services and conditions of the working class.

The report cites Jeffrey Wilson, a former Director of Research at the US and Australian government-funded Perth USAsia Centre in Western Australia:

Establishing a viable non-Chinese supply chain will take years and require major government support, international co-operation and collaboration from industrial giants… The Chinese state-owned producers can do the Saudi oil trick: they turn on the taps, flood the market, the price of dysprosium crashes, the new entrant is washed out, and then they’ve re-established their monopoly.

Also cited is James Kennedy, writing for National Defense Magazine, who suggested in 2019 that:

Out of more than 400 rare earth start-ups publicly listed in 2012, less than five reached production. Of those, only two reached significant volumes. Of those two, one became bankrupt [allegedly because of Chinese market-price manipulation] and resurrected with Chinese financing, and the other lost its operating permit for a short period.

This is a recipe for accusing China of coercively seeking a stranglehold over war-related industries, while going into overdrive to build the expensive plants needed in the US and Australia for amassing vast military stockpiles.

The report concludes: “It’s time for AUKUS to act. It’s time to allay immediate strategic risk. It’s time to secure the liberal-democratic order for the next 75 years. Failure to do so would be unforgivable.”

Despite its claims of “stabilising” relations with China, the Albanese Labor government in Australia has already moved aggressively in this direction. This year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has blocked two investment proposals from Chinese-linked companies dealing with rare earths and lithium. “We’ll need to be more assertive about encouraging investment that clearly aligns with our national interest in the longer term,” he said in a speech last November.

But much more is being demanded, and much faster, to prepare for what would be a cataclysmic war against China.

Massive protests in Indonesia against Gaza genocide

Owen Howell & Aditya Syed

On November 5, an enormous rally was held at National Monument Square in Indonesia’s capital Jakarta opposing Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians in Gaza. The square, located near the United States embassy, was filled with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. Rally organisers placed the attendance at over two million people.

Protesters shout slogans and wave Palestinian flags during a rally in support of the Palestinians in Gaza, at the National Monument in Jakarta, Indonesia, Sunday, Nov. 5, 2023. [AP Photo/Dita Alangkara]

As is the case worldwide, the fascistic policies of the Netanyahu government and its imperialist backers that led to the ongoing slaughter in Gaza are provoking widespread outrage in Indonesia, encompassing people of all ethnicities, religions and ages, but particularly among workers and youth.

The Jakarta rally, organised by the Indonesian Peoples Alliance to Defend Palestine, is the largest yet in the country, where demonstrations have taken place since Israel seized on the October 7 Palestinian mass uprising to launch its assault on the population of Gaza. The same day, demonstrations were also held in other cities throughout the archipelago, including Surabaya, where thousands rallied outside the US consulate.

Many of the protesters at the Jakarta rally came to the capital from various cities across Java by bus or motorcycle, some travelling great distances to participate. Protesters waved Palestinian flags and called for a ceasefire. People carried placards with such slogans as “Bombing kids is not self-defence!”

Conscious of the broad opposition that exists around the world to the genocide in Gaza, Sunday’s massive protest has been met with a deafening silence in all the major Western media outlets. The ruling class fears that workers and youth will draw inspiration from the mass demonstrations in Indonesia, as well as from the tens of thousands who have protested in neighbouring Malaysia.

Mainstream media platforms in Southeast Asia that did cover the event gave a vast undercounting of the rally’s attendance. The Jakarta Post reported “thousands” while the Strait Times claimed “tens of thousands.” Images and aerial video of the protest, widely circulated on social media, clearly showed otherwise.

Social media activity is playing a major role in the organisation of protests and sharing of video coverage, with the hashtag #IndonesiaBelaPalestina (“Indonesia defends Palestine”) being used widely on Twitter.

In addition, where the protest has been reported, attention has been focused on Indonesia’s status as the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country, with a population of 279 million people. However, as interviews with participants indicate, the protests in Indonesia are not being fueled by religion but by disgust toward Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians.

At the Sunday rally, teachers Endro Sasongko and Maelani Kusuma told reporters from the Straits Times: “It’s not about religion, it’s about humanity.” Another protester, Nunung Normawati, aged 61, made similar remarks: “You don’t have to be a Muslim to support Palestine, but just be a human, a human with a heart.”

Berlian Idriansyah Idris, 46, a cardiologist, spoke to Arab News about the images he had seen online of wounded Palestinian children and the devastating impact of Israel’s relentless bombing. “We are still humans with conscience,” he said. “We condemn Israel’s atrocities, we support Palestine, and we demand an immediate ceasefire.”

The rally was largely composed of young people, according to local media. Sumayah, 26, a social media content creator attending the rally with her parents, said: “I want to come in person, and not just post on social media, to show I stand with the Palestinians. I have so many emotions right now—sad and angry at the senseless cruelty.”

Protests have been held repeatedly over the past weeks in Jakarta outside the US embassy, gathering thousands of people and growing in size. Demonstrators have denounced Israel, with which Jakarta has no formal diplomatic relations, as the “real terrorist” in the current war.

Another significant factor no doubt animates protest participants. Indonesia suffered as a Dutch colony from the 17th century until the mid-20th century, while also facing the predatory interests of other imperialist powers in the region.

Indonesia also became the site of one of the most brutal imperialist crimes of the 20th century: the mass murder of up to one million workers, peasants and members of the Indonesian Communist Party that took place as a result of the 1965‒1966 CIA-backed military coup headed by General Suharto. Workers and young people now participating in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations are drawing connections between the horrific crimes of the past and those taking place today.

The Indonesian ruling class is clearly concerned that the mass support demonstrated for the Palestinians will end up cutting across its political interests domestically. Expressing this, in the lead-up to last Sunday’s demonstration, Indonesia’s anti-terror police issued a public warning against taking part in the rally, the Straits Times reported.

Unable to stop it, government figures then took part in the demonstration, attempting to channel the broad anti-war sentiment into harmless channels.

Speakers included leading members of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), one of the event’s coordinators, an organisation comprised of Muslim groups such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah. The organisation is attempting to put forward religion as the basis of support for Palestinians, obfuscating the role of capitalism and imperialism in the barbarism. Former MUI leader Ma’ruf Amin is currently Indonesia’s vice president.

Several government ministers attended, including Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi and House of Representatives Chair Puan Maharani. Also present was former Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan, a candidate in the upcoming 2024 presidential elections. Anies was the only candidate to accept an invitation to participate.

Labour groups connected with bourgeois politics have organised some demonstrations, gathering in front of the US embassy. They have called on the Biden administration in the US to not send troops to Israel and denounced US imperialism’s support for Israel’s genocide. The Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KPSI) and the Labour Party organised additional actions, including marching to the United Nations offices. Heavy police presences were reported at these rallies.

The KSPI, however, is intent on diverting workers away from the anti-war struggle. It is planning to stage indefinite workers’ protests in cities across Indonesia, starting this week. They are centred on demanding a 15 percent minimum wage increase, not on Israel’s genocide. Union leaders have announced upcoming demonstrations in Jakarta, Bandung, Semarang, Pasuruan, Surabaya, Medan and Makassar.

Deepening uncertainty and fear in ruling financial circles

Nick Beams

Pedestrians walk past Hong Kong Stock Exchange electronic screen in Hong Kong, Thursday, June 29, 2023. [AP Photo/Louise Delmotte]

There is a swirl of uncertainty surrounding financial markets and the entire global financial system amid fears that one or other or a combination of ongoing inflation, rising interest rates, growing government debt, decoupling from China, a significant loss by firms involved in the so-called shadow banking system, and the escalation of war could set off a major crisis.

And on top of this there is concern in ruling financial and economic circles, ever-present but seldom discussed publicly, of an eruption of struggles by the working class which break out of the efforts of the trade union apparatuses to contain them.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported on a conference of global bankers in Hong Kong. It was convened to deal with how they were handling the “complexities” of the financial world but “ended up dwelling on the potential for financial blowups instead.”

This was evident from a number of comments from major participants.

Deutsche Bank chief executive officer Christian Sewing told the meeting: “My biggest fear is there’s one more geopolitical escalation and there’s a market event.”

The Bloomberg report stated that the meeting, one of the largest gatherings of banking heads since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, was “dour as banking chiefs traded observations and fears.”

Bridgewater co-chief investment officer Bob Prince said markets were “under-discounting” how long the tightening of interest rates in the US and Europe would last—a reaction to what is still a significant view that central banks will have to ease up next year.

Citadel founder Ken Griffin said that “deglobalisation”— sharply expressed in the moves out of China—was a “giant wild card.”

“We don’t know what a world looks like that involves deglobalisation,” he said, and that included how much it “increased inflation systemically.”

Colm Kelleher, the chairman of the Swiss bank UBS, which is still embroiled in the fallout from its takeover of Credit Suisse after it collapsed earlier this year, directed attention to the “shadow banking” sector which involves lending by hedge fund and private equity groups.

Shadow banking, which is largely outside the financial regulatory system, has had an explosive growth since the crisis of 2008 with roughly half of global financial assets now in the “shadow sector.”

“It’s a real cause of concern,” Kelleher said. “The next crisis, when it happens, will be in that sector. It’ll be a fiduciary crisis.”

A fiduciary crisis is one in which the various organisations trading in the market have no trust in each other. Kelleher did not elaborate but such a crisis of confidence can rapidly extend from the shadows and into the broader financial system.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon raised concerns about the growth of US government debt and its refinancing in a much less liquid environment, that is, a situation where there is a contraction in the capacity of financial markets to buy Treasury bonds.

The head of Morgan Stanley, James Gorman, summed up the general air of perplexity and uncertainty saying that big disruptions were often caused by unforeseen forces.

This week the Financial Times (FT) has devoted a major series of articles on new conditions in the global financial system, examining key areas including corporate debt, deal making by private equity groups and the funding of ever-growing government debt.

It noted that takeover deals, forged when interest rates were at historic lows, were starting to come apart. Some participants see so-called “financial engineering” as a way round the problems.

But as the FT report commented, “others view the financial engineering as a symptom of a deepening crisis,” and that a “modus operandi that thrived in an environment of low interest rates will look very different if rates stay high for some time.”

One article in the series posed the question: “Can corporate America cope with its vast debt pile?” It noted that default rates were starting to trend above their historical average.

Another dealt with the financial reckoning for governments being delivered by bond markets as interest rates rise, pointing out that according to the S&P rating agency, whereas the interest bill for G7 countries was $905 billion a year in 2018, it would rise to $1.5 trillion by 2026.

And there will be a rapid escalation in future years with the rating agency Moody’s estimating that the US government’s interest bill as a proportion of its revenues will jump from under 10 percent in 2022 to 27 percent by 2033.

There is no prospect for the US economy to grow its way out of the mounting debt problem because, as the article commented, “economic growth forecasts for next year are anemic at just 1.5 percent.”

The FT did not point to the consequences, but they are already under discussion with a developing clamour in financial circles for an attack on government spending starting with social facilities, in particular Social Security payments in the US.

On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic advisor to the global insurance and financial services giant Allianz and a well-known financial commentator and analyst.

The main feature of his comment was not his warning of a recession in the US next year but the state of disarray in policy making circles, particularly at the US Federal Reserve.

He criticised the Fed for at least six policy and forecasting errors starting from its claim that inflation, which started to take off in 2021 due to the impact of the pandemic on supply chains, was “transitory.”

After noting that the CEO of the failed Silicon Valley Bank told Congress the reason the bank collapsed in March was because he believed the Fed when it said inflation was “transitory,” El-Erian turned to the serious nature of the banking crisis.

Had it not been for the decision by authorities to essentially guarantee all bank deposits, there would have been a banking crisis, a financial accident.

He described the state of the $25 trillion US bond market—the basis of the global financial system—as “confused.” Last year was about the bond market realising the central banks were behind and they would be raising rates aggressively. This year the market’s understanding was that interest rates would remain high for longer.

“And then we pivoted to people worrying about the deficit, and worrying about the amount of issuance we are going to and who was going to buy that,” El-Erian said.

He then went on to raise what he considered a more fundamental question—the formulation of policy.

Noting that the US was the largest economy in the world with the most mature institutions, he continued: “What consensus has been expecting, has gone from a soft landing to a hard landing, to no landing, to crash landing, back to hard landing, back to soft landing. That’s an incredible sequence and it tells you we’ve lost our anchors. We’ve lost our economic anchors, we’ve lost our policy anchors, and we’ve lost our technical anchors.”

Many analysts ignore the social effects of economic policy and its impact on the class struggle. El-Erian is not one of those and drew attention to the broader social and political issues contained in the deepening crisis of the capitalist economy and its policy-making bodies.

He warned that there was a climate change crisis and an inequality crisis.

Inequality was not just an economic problem it was also a social and political problem.

“And you start getting bad outcomes because a bigger part of the population feels alienated, feels marginalised. And then the next thing you know, your economic issues including the reality of people of the most vulnerable segments being very, very exposed to any shock becomes also social and political.”

And then perhaps in an endeavour to reassure himself as well as others, he added: “And I think that there’s a greater awareness today that we should continue to pursue capitalism, but keep on the radar screen, equity and sustainability.”

Of course, the ruling circles are determined to “pursue capitalism” whatever brutal methods they consider necessary. But it is precisely those methods and the growing understanding that they are endemic to the profit system itself which is leading to a growing anti-capitalist and socialist sentiment.

El-Erian might keep inequality “on the radar screen,” but he could offer no answers to deal with it and in conclusion emphasised the necessity for “hope.” But as the economic and geopolitical crisis deepens, working people are not going to seek to get by on a “wing and a prayer” but will increasingly turn to action.

Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellowship Program 2024

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

29th November 2023 (11:59:59 PM ET)

Tell Me About Award:

Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellowship Program 2024. The Microsoft Research AI & Society fellows program aims to catalyze research collaboration between Microsoft Research and eminent scholars and experts across a range of disciplines core to discussions at the intersection of AI and its impact on society.

Microsoft recognizes the value of bridging academic, industry, policy, and regulatory worlds and seeks to ignite interdisciplinary collaboration that drives real-world impact

TYPE:

Fellowship

Who Can Apply?

Microsoft is seeking eminent scholars and leading experts from a wide range of fields and disciplines to join a variety of interdisciplinary collaborations focused on key research challenges.

The submission criteria and eligibility guidelines vary by research challenge for this program. Please review the research challenge descriptions and eligibility details below for more information.

In general, our research challenges seek eminent scholars from academia as well as experts from non-academia.

• Leading experts from non-academic disciplines
• Eminent scholars pursuing research and instruction in academic venues

To be eligible to apply, candidates will be required to confirm they are actively pursuing (enrolled in program) or have already earned their terminal degree in their respective field or discipline. A terminal degree is defined as the highest-level college degree that can be achieved within your academic discipline or professional field.

A fellow selected to be a part of the Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellows program is subject to disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate behavior, including but not limited to discrimination, harassment (including sexual harassment), or plagiarism will forfeit their funding.

Microsoft actively seeks to foster greater levels of diversity in our workforce and in our pipeline of future researchers and collaborators. We are always looking for the best and brightest talent and celebrating individuality. We invite candidates to come as they are and do what they love.

HOW ARE APPLICANTS SELECTED?

All proposals should be submitted via the submission portal (see above). Proposals will not be accepted by email.

Each submission will include:

• Candidate information (region, institution, research/work focus, etc.)
• “Statement of Interest” title (80 characters or less)
• Submission of a “Statement of Interest” document.
  • This document should be 3 pages (or less) in length, which may include appendix and citations if applicable.
  • See additional instructions and guidance in the “Statement of Interest Requirements” section below.
• Candidate CV/resume to be uploaded in the submission portal.

A strong submission will:

• Demonstrate a clear understanding of the research challenge and its aims for societal impact.
• Describe relevant work/accomplishments, demonstrate the alignment one’s motivation to the research challenge, and outline the potential impact achieve through collaboration.
• Be clearly written, in alignment with program guidelines.
• Consider that readability and clarity are valued in the review process.

HOW MANY AWARDS?

Not specified

What Is The Benefit Of Award?

The purpose of this program is to support interdisciplinary research collaboration across academia and industry in pursuit of addressing significant research opportunities at the intersection of AI and society.

The fellowship is intended to provide a range of opportunities to collaborate with Microsoft Research to pursue cross-disciplinary discourse and drive impactful research outcomes in a range for formats. Collaboration opportunities will vary by research challenge but may include working sessions meetings, asynchronous collaboration, workshops, events, etc.

Funding amounts vary by the region a fellows’ organization/institution of employment is located in. All funds are distributed as unrestricted gifts as a one-time payment.

• Africa – $15K (USD)
• Australia & New Zealand – $15K (USD)
• Canada – $45K (USD)
• Europe – $15K (USD)
• India – $15K (USD)
• Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan – $15K (USD)
• United States – $45K (USD

The program offers opportunities for fellows from fields beyond core computer sciences to join and support interdisciplinary research conversations with Microsoft Researchers. By facilitating these new collaborations, Microsoft aims to scale the impact of collective research efforts at the intersection of AI & Society.

HOW LONG WILL AWARD LAST?

• November 2, 2023 | Call for proposals opens globally
• November 29, 2023 (11:59:59 PM ET) | Proposal deadline
• January 30, 2024 | Global announcement of the 2023 Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellows
• February 2024 – February 2025 | Research collaboration between Microsoft Research and selected fellows

How To Apply:

Through a global, open call for proposals targeting a specific set of research challenges, Microsoft will facilitate strategic collaborations, catalyze new research ideas, and contribute publicly available works to benefit scholarly discourse and benefit society more broadly.

The details of the program vary by research challenge. Please review the “Research Challenges” for more information and eligibility, “How to apply” to submit a proposal, and our “FAQ” for answers to commonly asked questions.

Visit Award Webpage for Details