mintpressnews--2020-02-26--Is Wall Street Behind the Delay in Declaring the Coronavirus Outbreak a “Pandemic”?

A little known specialized bond created in 2017 by the World Bank may hold the answer as to why U.S. and global health authorities have declined to label the global spread of the novel coronavirus a “ pandemic.
” Those bonds , now often referred to as “ pandemic bonds , ” were ostensibly intended to transfer the risk of potential pandemics in low-income nations to financial markets .
Yet , in light of the growing coronavirus outbreak , the investors who purchased those products could lose millions if global health authorities were to use that label in relation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Tuesday , federal health officials at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) announced that they are preparing for a “ potential pandemic ” of the novel coronavirus that first appeared in China late last year .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has stated that an estimated 80,000 worldwide have contracted the disease , most of them in China , while more than 2,700 have died .
However , some have argued that the CDC ’ s concerns about a likely pandemic have come too late and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier .
For instance , in early February , Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease , had told the New York Times that the novel coronavirus is “ very , very transmissible , and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic , ” while former CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden had echoed those concerns at the time , stating that it is “ increasingly unlikely that the virus can be contained.
” Despite those warnings , among many others , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus could spread throughout the United States .
Their Tuesday announcement riled markets , wiping out $ 1.7 trillion in stock market value in just two days .
The CDC ’ s warning has reportedly angered President Trump , who accused the agency of needlessly spooking financial markets .
Notably , WHO officials have taken an even more cautious approach than the CDC in their recent comments , stating that it is still “ too early ” to declare the coronavirus outbreak a “ pandemic ” while also asserting that “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do in preparing for a pandemic.
” The refusal to label the outbreak a pandemic is odd , since it refers to an epidemic or actively spreading disease that affects two or more regions worldwide .
This currently describes the geographical spread of the highly contagious novel coronavirus , which has now resulted in significant clusters of cases far from China , namely in Italy and Iran .
Countries closer to China , like South Korea , have also recently experienced an explosion in novel coronavirus infections .
It is possible that concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could upset global markets and lead to economic turmoil , similar to what happened to the U.S. stock market following the CDC announcement on Tuesday .
Though such concerns are valid , there is also evidence that a particular class of bonds issued by the World Bank that are closely related to official declarations of pandemics may also be responsible for having steered WHO and CDC officials away from using this term , even though the consequences of doing so could negatively impact global public health .
In June 2017 , the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonds ” that would be used to fund the previously created Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility ( PEF ) in the event of an officially-recognized ( i.e .
WHO-recognized ) pandemic .
They were essentially sold under the premise that those who invested in the bonds would lose their money if any of six deadly pandemics hit , including coronavirus .
Yet , if a pandemic did not occur before the bonds mature on July 15 , 2020 , investors would receive what they had originally paid for the bonds back in addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they recieve between the date of purchase and the bond ’ s maturation date .
The PEF , which these pandemic bonds fund , was created by the World Bank “ to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic ” and the creation of these so-called “ pandemic bonds ” was intended to transfer pandemic risk in low-income countries to global financial markets .
According to a World Bank press release on the launch of the bonds , WHO backed the World Bank ’ s initiative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these “ pandemic bonds ” than meets the eye .
For example , PEF has a “ unique financing structure [ that ] combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties.
” The World Bank asserted that this structure was used in order “ to attract a wider , more diverse set of investors.
” Critics , however , have called the unnecessarily convoluted system “ World-Bank-enabled looting ” that enriches intermediaries and investors instead of the funds intended targets , in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
These critics have asked why not merely give these funds to a body like the Contingency Fund for Emergencies at the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , where the funds could go directly to affected countries in need .
Notably , WHO determines if a pandemic meets the criteria that would see investors ’ money be funneled into PEF as opposed to their own pockets , which would take place if no pandemic is declared between now and when the bonds are set to mature this upcoming July .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mechanism of “ pandemic bonds ” as follows : In 2017 , the World Bank issued $ 425 million in these “ pandemic bonds ” and the bond sale was reported to have been 200 percent oversubscribed , “ with investors eager to get their hands on the high-yield returns on offer , ” according to reports .
The premiums bondholders have received thus far were largely funded by the governments of Japan and Germany , who are also the top nation-state funders of WHO behind the United States and United Kingdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bondholders are firms and individuals based in Europe .
Some analysts have argued that these pandemic bonds were never intended to aid low-income pandemic-stricken countries , but instead to enrich Wall Street investors .
For instance , American economic forecaster Martin Armstrong has called the World Bank ’ s pandemic bonds “ a giant gamble in the global financial casino ” and a “ scheme like no other , ” recently arguing that these bonds could present a “ a structured derivative time bomb ” that could upend financial markets if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on to say that it is in WHO ’ s interest to declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic , but noted that , in doing so , they would cause bondholders to take significant losses .
Even establishment economists like former World Bank chief economist and Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers have criticized the World Bank ’ s program , dismissing the PEF as “ financial goofiness.
” Bodo Ellmers , the director of the Global Policy Forum ’ s sustainable development finance program , has similarly called pandemic bonds “ useless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked at the World Bank as an economist for over 30 years , said the program was “ designed to fail ” because the bonds were crafted in order “ to reduce the probability of payout.
” Economic and business analyst and host of the podcast “ Quoth the Raven ” Chris Irons told MintPress News that , with respect to the pandemic bonds , “ What ’ s important is to focus on who stands to benefit from this not being declared a pandemic , ” a difficult task given that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly available .
Irons also noted that , in his opinion , “ WHO and the CDC have been caught a little flat-footed here ” and that some governments that fund WHO , particularly the Trump administration , appear “ more concerned with the stock market than giving people information that may be necessary and vital.
” He added that behind-closed-doors pressure on WHO by those who stand to lose financially from an official declaration of a pandemic would be “ unsurprising.
” As the coronavirus outbreak grows , concern has grown among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to countries affected by coronavirus will be triggered , despite the clear delay by WHO in declaring the outbreak as a pandemic .
While WHO could theoretically alter the criteria that would trigger payout and cause bondholders to lose big , some recent reports have claimed that bondholders are seeking to rid themselves of the bonds prior to their July maturation date .
German media outlet Deutsche-Welle noted that the trigger for the first class of pandemic bonds , valued at $ 225 million , would normally have already been met due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a “ developing country.
” However , WHO has said this does not meet said criterion because it does not consider China to be a developing country , even though the World Bank ’ s own criteria do consider China to be a developing country .
For the second and riskier category of pandemic bonds , those bonds are triggered when the disease in question crosses an international border and causes more than 20 deaths in the second country .
At the time of publication of this article , Iran has recorded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have triggered this second category of pandemic bonds , valued at $ 95 million .
Yet , WHO yet to comment on how this criterion for the second category bonds has been met .
The WHO ’ s decision to refuse to use the “ p-word ” may be the result of several factors , though the pandemic bonds loom large as a $ 425 million incentive for not doing so .
While avoiding the use of the term may please pandemic bondholders , it is set to have major negative consequences for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that early action against epidemic and pandemic outbreaks is widely considered to be an imperative .
Feature photo | A worker wearing a protective suit sprays disinfectant as a precaution against the coronavirus at a bus garage in Seoul , South Korea , Feb. 26 , 2020 .
Ahn Young-joon | AP Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile .
She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research , EcoWatch , the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire , among others .
She has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism .

A little known specialized bond created in 2017 by the World Bank may hold the answer as to why U.S. and global health authorities have declined to label the global spread of the novel coronavirus a “pandemic.” Those bonds, now often referred to as “pandemic bonds,” were ostensibly intended to transfer the risk of potential pandemics in low-income nations to financial markets.
Yet, in light of the growing coronavirus outbreak, the investors who purchased those products could lose millions if global health authorities were to use that label in relation to the surge in global coronavirus cases.
On Tuesday, federal health officials at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that they are preparing for a “potential pandemic” of the novel coronavirus that first appeared in China late last year. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that an estimated 80,000 worldwide have contracted the disease, most of them in China, while more than 2,700 have died.
However, some have argued that the CDC’s concerns about a likely pandemic have come too late and that action should have been taken much earlier. For instance, in early February, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, had told the New York Times that the novel coronavirus is “very, very transmissible, and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic,” while former CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden had echoed those concerns at the time, stating that it is “increasingly unlikely that the virus can be contained.”
Despite those warnings, among many others, the CDC waited to announce its concerns that the virus could spread throughout the United States. Their Tuesday announcement riled markets, wiping out $1.7 trillion in stock market value in just two days. The CDC’s warning has reportedly angered President Trump, who accused the agency of needlessly spooking financial markets.
Notably, WHO officials have taken an even more cautious approach than the CDC in their recent comments, stating that it is still “too early” to declare the coronavirus outbreak a “pandemic” while also asserting that “it is time to do everything you would do in preparing for a pandemic.”
The refusal to label the outbreak a pandemic is odd, since it refers to an epidemic or actively spreading disease that affects two or more regions worldwide. This currently describes the geographical spread of the highly contagious novel coronavirus, which has now resulted in significant clusters of cases far from China, namely in Italy and Iran. Countries closer to China, like South Korea, have also recently experienced an explosion in novel coronavirus infections.
It is possible that concerns over using the word “pandemic” could upset global markets and lead to economic turmoil, similar to what happened to the U.S. stock market following the CDC announcement on Tuesday. Though such concerns are valid, there is also evidence that a particular class of bonds issued by the World Bank that are closely related to official declarations of pandemics may also be responsible for having steered WHO and CDC officials away from using this term, even though the consequences of doing so could negatively impact global public health.
Pandemic Bonds: a “scheme like no other”
In June 2017, the World Bank announced the creation of “specialized bonds” that would be used to fund the previously created Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) in the event of an officially-recognized (i.e. WHO-recognized) pandemic.
They were essentially sold under the premise that those who invested in the bonds would lose their money if any of six deadly pandemics hit, including coronavirus. Yet, if a pandemic did not occur before the bonds mature on July 15, 2020, investors would receive what they had originally paid for the bonds back in addition to interest and premium payments on those bonds that they recieve between the date of purchase and the bond’s maturation date.
The PEF, which these pandemic bonds fund, was created by the World Bank “to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic” and the creation of these so-called “pandemic bonds” was intended to transfer pandemic risk in low-income countries to global financial markets. According to a World Bank press release on the launch of the bonds, WHO backed the World Bank’s initiative.
However, there is much more to these “pandemic bonds” than meets the eye. For example, PEF has a “unique financing structure [that] combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties.” The World Bank asserted that this structure was used in order “to attract a wider, more diverse set of investors.”
Critics, however, have called the unnecessarily convoluted system “World-Bank-enabled looting” that enriches intermediaries and investors instead of the funds intended targets, in this case low-income countries struggling to fight a pandemic. These critics have asked why not merely give these funds to a body like the Contingency Fund for Emergencies at the World Health Organization (WHO), where the funds could go directly to affected countries in need.
Notably, WHO determines if a pandemic meets the criteria that would see investors’ money be funneled into PEF as opposed to their own pockets, which would take place if no pandemic is declared between now and when the bonds are set to mature this upcoming July.
In 2017, the news site Quartz described the mechanism of “pandemic bonds” as follows:
Investors buy the bonds and receive regular coupons payments in return. If there is an outbreak of disease, the investors don’t get their initial money back. There are two varieties of debt, both scheduled to mature in July 2020. The first bond raised $225 million and features an interest rate of around 7%. Payout on the bond is suspended if there is an outbreak of new influenza viruses or coronaviridae (SARS, MERS). The second, riskier bond raised $95 million at an interest rate of more than 11%. This bond keeps investors’ money if there is an outbreak of Filovirus, Coronavirus, Lassa Fever, Rift Valley Fever, and/or Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. The World Bank also issued $105 million in swap derivatives that work in a similar way. (emphasis added)”
In 2017, the World Bank issued $425 million in these “pandemic bonds” and the bond sale was reported to have been 200 percent oversubscribed, “with investors eager to get their hands on the high-yield returns on offer,” according to reports. The premiums bondholders have received thus far were largely funded by the governments of Japan and Germany, who are also the top nation-state funders of WHO behind the United States and United Kingdom. Reports have claimed that most of the bondholders are firms and individuals based in Europe.
Some analysts have argued that these pandemic bonds were never intended to aid low-income pandemic-stricken countries, but instead to enrich Wall Street investors. For instance, American economic forecaster Martin Armstrong has called the World Bank’s pandemic bonds “a giant gamble in the global financial casino” and a “scheme like no other,” recently arguing that these bonds could present a “a structured derivative time bomb” that could upend financial markets if a pandemic is declared by WHO. Armstrong went on to say that it is in WHO’s interest to declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, but noted that, in doing so, they would cause bondholders to take significant losses.
Even establishment economists like former World Bank chief economist and Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers have criticized the World Bank’s program, dismissing the PEF as “financial goofiness.” Bodo Ellmers, the director of the Global Policy Forum’s sustainable development finance program, has similarly called pandemic bonds “useless,” while Olga Jonas, who worked at the World Bank as an economist for over 30 years, said the program was “designed to fail” because the bonds were crafted in order “to reduce the probability of payout.”
Economic and business analyst and host of the podcast “Quoth the Raven” Chris Irons told MintPress News that, with respect to the pandemic bonds, “What’s important is to focus on who stands to benefit from this not being declared a pandemic,” a difficult task given that the identity of most bondholders are not currently publicly available.
Irons also noted that, in his opinion, “WHO and the CDC have been caught a little flat-footed here” and that some governments that fund WHO, particularly the Trump administration, appear “more concerned with the stock market than giving people information that may be necessary and vital.” He added that behind-closed-doors pressure on WHO by those who stand to lose financially from an official declaration of a pandemic would be “unsurprising.”
How to trigger a payout
As the coronavirus outbreak grows, concern has grown among those invested in pandemic bonds that payout to countries affected by coronavirus will be triggered, despite the clear delay by WHO in declaring the outbreak as a pandemic. While WHO could theoretically alter the criteria that would trigger payout and cause bondholders to lose big, some recent reports have claimed that bondholders are seeking to rid themselves of the bonds prior to their July maturation date.
German media outlet Deutsche-Welle noted that the trigger for the first class of pandemic bonds, valued at $225 million, would normally have already been met due to the criterion of more than 2,500 deaths in a “developing country.” However, WHO has said this does not meet said criterion because it does not consider China to be a developing country, even though the World Bank’s own criteria do consider China to be a developing country.
For the second and riskier category of pandemic bonds, those bonds are triggered when the disease in question crosses an international border and causes more than 20 deaths in the second country. At the time of publication of this article, Iran has recorded at least 50 deaths, which should have triggered this second category of pandemic bonds, valued at $95 million. Yet, WHO yet to comment on how this criterion for the second category bonds has been met.
The WHO’s decision to refuse to use the “p-word” may be the result of several factors, though the pandemic bonds loom large as a $425 million incentive for not doing so. While avoiding the use of the term may please pandemic bondholders, it is set to have major negative consequences for global public health, particularly given the fact that early action against epidemic and pandemic outbreaks is widely considered to be an imperative.
Feature photo | A worker wearing a protective suit sprays disinfectant as a precaution against the coronavirus at a bus garage in Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 26, 2020. Ahn Young-joon | AP
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


mintpressnews--2020-02-26--As Coronavirus Hits Italy, Hand Sanitizer Rises to €30 per Bottle on Amazon

The coronavirus has hit Italy .
As of today , the country has confirmed at least 325 cases and 11 deaths already .
The large majority of these are in the northern regions of Lombardy and Veneto .
In response , Italian authorities have put several northern cities on lockdown , effectively quarantining around 100,000 people .
The Venice Carnival was terminated early and many flights have been suspended .
Top division football matches have been canceled , as has Italy ’ s Six Nations rugby match .
Other buildings and events where large numbers of people congregate , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down until further notice .
But in crisis there is opportunity .
Following the dictates of supply and demand , vendors on Amazon have increased the price of simple hand sanitizer to over €30 for ( $ 33 ) for an 80ml ( 2.8 oz . )
bottle , capitalizing on the fear and concern of locals .
The basic gel soap usually sells for a tiny fraction of that sum , but the uncontrolled escalation in price now makes the liquid more expensive than the finest single malt whiskeys and all but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are probing the price increases of other products too , some of which have seen rises of up to 10,000 percent .
Milan deputy chief prosecutor Tiziana Siciliano said that “ The price of masks online has risen from one cent to 10 euros each and a one-liter bottle of disinfectant that last week was on sale for 7 euros , was up to 39 euros yesterday.
” Businesses taking advantage of crises for economic gain is nothing new .
After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017 , there were widespread reports of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline and $ 99 for a case of water .
And during Hurricane Dorian last year , Florida ’ s Attorney General received over 2,400 complaints of price gouging .
Disasters can also prove extremely profitable for some ; during famines in Ireland and India during the 19th century , unscrupulous businessmen were able to make a fortune buying up land and other properties in exchange for tiny amounts of food .
The practice is almost universally condemned as immoral .
Siciliano described the increases she had seen as “ insane.
” Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there appears to be a cadre of columnists and economists willing to defend it .
The Boston Globe ’ s Jeff Jacoby , for example , claims that it is not a problem at all , but a solution to one !
He argues that any behavior to try to stop it is foolish .
Pamela Villareal of the Dallas Morning News argues that price gouging actually helps victims of disasters and any laws against them should be abolished .
And economics professor Lili Carneglia says that neighborhood 7-Elevens charging $ 20 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a good thing , claiming without them there would be shortages in supply ( although she admits , she is unable to convince most of her class of her position ) .
While these arguments might arguably have merit in a perfectly equal society , the reality is that in a country with differences in wealth , crisis situations inherently favor the rich who are best able to ride out rough patches or use their wealth to get what they need .
No matter how much they need it , a poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for food , water or shelter , meaning that historically , it is always the poor that starve in famines or die in natural disasters at a higher rate .
Thus , it is unlikely , given the public outcry and Italian authorities ’ response of checking warehouses for the hoarding of medical supplies , that the market fundamentalists in think tanks and on the boards of newspapers have been able to win many converts to their position .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has condemned the media response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of hysteria and xenophobic sentiment .
Earlier this month it took the step of declaring an “ infodemic ” of scaremongering news about the condition .
Only three percent of Italian coronavirus patients have died , and all of them had pre-existing conditions , noted the WHO ’ s Walter Ricciardi at a press conference in Rome yesterday , reminding journalists that the vast majority of those infected recover quickly and easily .
“ We must scale back this great alarm , ” he said .
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

The coronavirus has hit Italy. As of today, the country has confirmed at least 325 cases and 11 deaths already. The large majority of these are in the northern regions of Lombardy and Veneto. In response, Italian authorities have put several northern cities on lockdown, effectively quarantining around 100,000 people. The Venice Carnival was terminated early and many flights have been suspended. Top division football matches have been canceled, as has Italy’s Six Nations rugby match. Other buildings and events where large numbers of people congregate, such as museums, have also been shut down until further notice.
But in crisis there is opportunity. Following the dictates of supply and demand, vendors on Amazon have increased the price of simple hand sanitizer to over €30 for ($33) for an 80ml (2.8 oz.) bottle, capitalizing on the fear and concern of locals. The basic gel soap usually sells for a tiny fraction of that sum, but the uncontrolled escalation in price now makes the liquid more expensive than the finest single malt whiskeys and all but the most expensive perfumes.
Government officials are probing the price increases of other products too, some of which have seen rises of up to 10,000 percent. Milan deputy chief prosecutor Tiziana Siciliano said that “The price of masks online has risen from one cent to 10 euros each and a one-liter bottle of disinfectant that last week was on sale for 7 euros, was up to 39 euros yesterday.”
peak capitalism is amazon setting the price of a hand sanitiser at 30E/80ml as italy is going through a huge covid19 breakout pic.twitter.com/ih1Yy8nvH0 — mars (@mareidolia) February 23, 2020
Businesses taking advantage of crises for economic gain is nothing new. After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017, there were widespread reports of establishments charging $20 per gallon of gasoline and $99 for a case of water. And during Hurricane Dorian last year, Florida’s Attorney General received over 2,400 complaints of price gouging. Disasters can also prove extremely profitable for some; during famines in Ireland and India during the 19th century, unscrupulous businessmen were able to make a fortune buying up land and other properties in exchange for tiny amounts of food.
The practice is almost universally condemned as immoral. Siciliano described the increases she had seen as “insane.” Yet after every instance of price gouging, there appears to be a cadre of columnists and economists willing to defend it. The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby, for example, claims that it is not a problem at all, but a solution to one! He argues that any behavior to try to stop it is foolish. Pamela Villareal of the Dallas Morning News argues that price gouging actually helps victims of disasters and any laws against them should be abolished. And economics professor Lili Carneglia says that neighborhood 7-Elevens charging $20 for a case of water after a hurricane is a good thing, claiming without them there would be shortages in supply (although she admits, she is unable to convince most of her class of her position).
While these arguments might arguably have merit in a perfectly equal society, the reality is that in a country with differences in wealth, crisis situations inherently favor the rich who are best able to ride out rough patches or use their wealth to get what they need. No matter how much they need it, a poor person cannot outbid a rich one for food, water or shelter, meaning that historically, it is always the poor that starve in famines or die in natural disasters at a higher rate.
Thus, it is unlikely, given the public outcry and Italian authorities’ response of checking warehouses for the hoarding of medical supplies, that the market fundamentalists in think tanks and on the boards of newspapers have been able to win many converts to their position.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has condemned the media response to the virus, claiming they are creating a wave of hysteria and xenophobic sentiment. Earlier this month it took the step of declaring an “infodemic” of scaremongering news about the condition. Only three percent of Italian coronavirus patients have died, and all of them had pre-existing conditions, noted the WHO’s Walter Ricciardi at a press conference in Rome yesterday, reminding journalists that the vast majority of those infected recover quickly and easily. “We must scale back this great alarm,” he said.
Feature photo | Tourists wearing sanitary masks walk in downtown Milan, Italy, Feb. 23, 2020. Antonio Calanni | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-02-26--Dozens Dead as Hindu Mobs Launch Anti-Muslim Pogroms Amid Trump Visit to India

Much of India ’ s capital Delhi resembles a warzone , as huge communal riots targeting the city ’ s Muslim population engulfed it today .
Mosques were set ablaze , with at least 27 people killed and hundreds more taken to hospital with severe injuries .
The violence is continuing into the night , particularly in the city ’ s northeastern neighborhoods .
Gangs of Hindu mobs and paramilitaries roam the city , attacking those protesting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi ’ s anti-Muslim Citizenship Amendment Act ( CAA ) and National Registration Council ( NRC ) laws .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhoods , as homes , businesses , places of worship and vehicles have been burned .
The city – by some estimates the world ’ s second largest urban area – has been under martial law for over a month , but that has not stopped protests and counter-demonstrations growing .
Journalists from The Wire interviewed some of those responsible for the destruction of mosques : “ Our opposition is to the opposition of those against the CAA .
How dare they [ Muslims ] protest like this in our country ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Are they bigger goons than us ?
We are the bigger goons .
We will show them their place , not allowing them to remain ( even ) in their homes .
Houses have been burnt , a hospital too , ” they were told .
Images on social media have shown Muslims leaving their houses with their belongings in hand , fearful of increased hostilities .
Journalists have also been a target of violence .
NDTV ’ s Arvind Gunasekar and Saurabh Shukla were beaten up and threatened with death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had captured while covering the riots .
They were only released after they proved they were both Hindus .
Gunasekar alleges Delhi ’ s police are working shoulder-to-shoulder with the “ mobs.
” Video also appears to show a gunman near police firing at a crowd of demonstrators , with the police doing little to intervene .
Police have also been filmed beating unarmed protestors , forcing them to sing the national anthem The police are under the control of newly re-elected Chief Minister of the city , Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Modi government .
Yet during the elections , Kejriwal took pains to present himself as a deeply religious Hindu and to distance himself from being seen as a pro-Muslim candidate .
He told reporters that he was unable to rein in the violence due to a “ severe shortage ” of police officers .
But given Gunasekar ’ s accusations , it is unclear whether more police would dampen or further inflame tensions .
Serious tensions began in December when ongoing , occupy-style protests sprang up in the south east of the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s CAA and NRC laws .
The CAA allows immigrants from India ’ s Muslim neighbors to achieve citizenship much more easily – if they are Hindu , Christian , Sikh or Jain , but explicitly rejects Muslims from doing the same thing .
The NRC is a newly established body that can demand of any Indian that they provide extensive documentation of their ancestors ’ birthplaces – something most of India ’ s 1.3 billion inhabitants will likely be unable to do .
As a consequence , the government now has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and therefore human rights ) of large numbers of people at a time , effectively making them stateless .
The NRC is already in effect in the northeastern state of Assam , where 1.9 million people , most of the Muslims , have been declared illegal aliens .
The government is building a network of huge detention centers , not unlike ICE facilities on the U.S.-Mexico border , to house the population .
Last week Giriraj Singh , a minister in Modi ’ s cabinet , expressed his regret that India did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population upon its creation as an independent state in 1947 and called for a cap on the number of children India ’ s 138 million Muslims could have .
President Trump visited the country this week , where he spoke of his warm affection for the Prime Minister .
When questioned about the violence , he responded that Modi was “ working very hard on religious freedom.
” Modi positions himself as part of the same wave of right-wing populist leaders as Trump , Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orban of Hungary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to the fighting : “ Peace and harmony are central to our ethos .
I appeal to my sisters and brothers of Delhi to maintain peace and brotherhood at all times , ” he wrote .
Yet he was elected on an explicitly Hindu supremacist message , and , as chief minister of Gujarat in 2002 , oversaw the massive wave of Islamophobic violence that led to over 2,000 deaths and 200,000 Muslims being driven from their homes .
For much of the majority Hindu population , this is a point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party won a landslide re-election last year .
Modi was also a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) , a far-right Hindu paramilitary with over 5 million active duty members .
Indian intellectual Vijay Prashad described his ideology as a mix of Indian-style fascism and orthodox neoliberal economics , combining Hindu chauvinism with the privatization of state resources .
Last month , a quarter-billion people went on strike against Modi ’ s economic policies , demanding comprehensive new legislation to improve worker rights and pay across the country .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Modi has been able to channel the anger and resentment of the country ’ s Hindu majority towards its Muslim population , opening up old wounds across the giant country .
It is unlikely that the violence will end tonight .
Feature photo | Fire fighters douse a fire at Gokul puri tyre market which was burnt Tuesday in New Delhi , India , Feb. 26 , 2020. after Hindu mobs attacked Muslims protesting discriminatory citizen laws .
Manish Swarup | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

Much of India’s capital Delhi resembles a warzone, as huge communal riots targeting the city’s Muslim population engulfed it today. Mosques were set ablaze, with at least 27 people killed and hundreds more taken to hospital with severe injuries. The violence is continuing into the night, particularly in the city’s northeastern neighborhoods. Gangs of Hindu mobs and paramilitaries roam the city, attacking those protesting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s anti-Muslim Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Registration Council (NRC) laws. Extensive damage has been done to many neighborhoods, as homes, businesses, places of worship and vehicles have been burned.
The city – by some estimates the world’s second largest urban area – has been under martial law for over a month, but that has not stopped protests and counter-demonstrations growing. Journalists from The Wire interviewed some of those responsible for the destruction of mosques:
“Our opposition is to the opposition of those against the CAA. How dare they [Muslims] protest like this in our country? Is it their country? It is our country. Are they bigger goons than us? We are the bigger goons. We will show them their place, not allowing them to remain (even) in their homes. Houses have been burnt, a hospital too,” they were told.
Images on social media have shown Muslims leaving their houses with their belongings in hand, fearful of increased hostilities.
#Watch | NDTV reporters share how they were assaulted by armed mobs in violence in N-E Delhi today.#DelhiViolence #Delhi #DelhiCAAClashes Follow live on https://t.co/Fbzw6mR9Q5 and NDTV 24×7 pic.twitter.com/AUs8dmdfhg — NDTV (@ndtv) February 25, 2020
Journalists have also been a target of violence. NDTV’s Arvind Gunasekar and Saurabh Shukla were beaten up and threatened with death if they did not delete images they had captured while covering the riots. They were only released after they proved they were both Hindus. Gunasekar alleges Delhi’s police are working shoulder-to-shoulder with the “mobs.” Video also appears to show a gunman near police firing at a crowd of demonstrators, with the police doing little to intervene. Police have also been filmed beating unarmed protestors, forcing them to sing the national anthem
The police are under the control of newly re-elected Chief Minister of the city, Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party, an opponent of the Modi government. Yet during the elections, Kejriwal took pains to present himself as a deeply religious Hindu and to distance himself from being seen as a pro-Muslim candidate. He told reporters that he was unable to rein in the violence due to a “severe shortage” of police officers. But given Gunasekar’s accusations, it is unclear whether more police would dampen or further inflame tensions.
Serious tensions began in December when ongoing, occupy-style protests sprang up in the south east of the city in response to the Modi government’s CAA and NRC laws. The CAA allows immigrants from India’s Muslim neighbors to achieve citizenship much more easily – if they are Hindu, Christian, Sikh or Jain, but explicitly rejects Muslims from doing the same thing. The NRC is a newly established body that can demand of any Indian that they provide extensive documentation of their ancestors’ birthplaces – something most of India’s 1.3 billion inhabitants will likely be unable to do. As a consequence, the government now has the ability to question and strip the citizenship (and therefore human rights) of large numbers of people at a time, effectively making them stateless.
#SOSKadampuri
Bajrang Dal along with Police force have surrounded Qureshi Tower at Kadampuri-Vijay Park. They are firing at innocent civilians. Urgent help is required#DelhiRiots #DelhiBurning #ArrestTerroristKapilMishra pic.twitter.com/nUZNok57e9 — Khurshid Alam (@KhurshiAlm) February 25, 2020
The NRC is already in effect in the northeastern state of Assam, where 1.9 million people, most of the Muslims, have been declared illegal aliens. The government is building a network of huge detention centers, not unlike ICE facilities on the U.S.-Mexico border, to house the population. Last week Giriraj Singh, a minister in Modi’s cabinet, expressed his regret that India did not fully rid itself of its Muslim population upon its creation as an independent state in 1947 and called for a cap on the number of children India’s 138 million Muslims could have.
President Trump visited the country this week, where he spoke of his warm affection for the Prime Minister. When questioned about the violence, he responded that Modi was “working very hard on religious freedom.” Modi positions himself as part of the same wave of right-wing populist leaders as Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orban of Hungary. He has officially called for an end to the fighting: “Peace and harmony are central to our ethos. I appeal to my sisters and brothers of Delhi to maintain peace and brotherhood at all times,” he wrote. Yet he was elected on an explicitly Hindu supremacist message, and, as chief minister of Gujarat in 2002, oversaw the massive wave of Islamophobic violence that led to over 2,000 deaths and 200,000 Muslims being driven from their homes. For much of the majority Hindu population, this is a point in his favor; he and his BJP party won a landslide re-election last year.
A Muslim man was identified and beaten up by a mob of RSS sponsored members. No policemen around to prevent this. This is not a riot, this is a repeat of what happened in 1984 with sikhs. This is what ‘kapdo se pehchano' can do.#Chandbagh #ArrestKapilMishra pic.twitter.com/bgjmfw1G0q — Kawalpreet Kaur (@kawalpreetdu) February 24, 2020
Modi was also a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a far-right Hindu paramilitary with over 5 million active duty members. Indian intellectual Vijay Prashad described his ideology as a mix of Indian-style fascism and orthodox neoliberal economics, combining Hindu chauvinism with the privatization of state resources. Last month, a quarter-billion people went on strike against Modi’s economic policies, demanding comprehensive new legislation to improve worker rights and pay across the country.
While unwilling to implement populist economic measures, Modi has been able to channel the anger and resentment of the country’s Hindu majority towards its Muslim population, opening up old wounds across the giant country. It is unlikely that the violence will end tonight.
Feature photo | Fire fighters douse a fire at Gokul puri tyre market which was burnt Tuesday in New Delhi, India, Feb. 26, 2020. after Hindu mobs attacked Muslims protesting discriminatory citizen laws. Manish Swarup | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-02-26--Supreme Court Ruling Hands US Border Patrol a Licence to Kill With Impunity

June 2010 , 15-year old Sergio Hernandez was playing a game with his friends in Ciudad Juarez , Mexico when a U.S. Border Patrol officer Jesus Mesa shot him in the face , killing him instantly .
Mesa fired from El Paso , Texas on the American side of the border into Mexico .
In court , he claimed that the teenage boy had attacked him , pelting him with stones , and he feared for his life .
Video footage of the incident , however , clearly contradicted his account .
Mesa had caught one of Hernandez ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot Hernandez twice as he ran away .
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the deceased child ’ s family could not sue the U.S. for damages , effectively setting a precedent that American officials can kill with impunity .
The investigation ruled that Mesa had indeed acted in self-defense when he fired through the militarized U.S.-Mexico border .
Like many Supreme Court rulings , the decision was split down liberal-conservative lines , with new Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh carrying the day 5-4 .
The court decided that the teenagers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security threat to the United States and that because Mesa fired from one country into another , it was an international incident and beyond its purview .
The more liberal judges – Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Justices Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – rejected this framing and offered a dissenting opinion .
Nevertheless , the majority decision sets a precedent that police , ICE agents and other border security forces could use in the future .
As suggested by the 5-4 ruling , the result was a controversial one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican government expressed its “ deep concerns about the effects this decision will have on other similar cases , in which Mexican citizens have died from gunshots fired by US agents towards the Mexican side.
” Hernandez ’ s legal team voiced their dismay at the ruling , which effectively ends the family ’ s ten-year struggle for justice .
“ To be left with no remedy… given such a violent and unprovoked shooting , weakens the constitutional foundation of America ’ s house , ” they said , adding that it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our border , ” where security agents would feel empowered to mete out justice as they saw fit .
Lee Gelernt , a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union since 1992 , also disagreed with the court ’ s decision , saying : Veronica Escobar , a Democratic congresswoman from Texas and former El Paso county judge agreed , stating that the Supreme Court decision “ denies justice to the family of Sergio Hernandez ” and “ sets a dangerous precedent by making exceptions to accountability and due process.
” Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2012 , for instance , Jose Rodriguez , a 16-year-old from Nogales , Mexico , was standing in the street in the border town when agent Lonnie Swartz unloaded ten rounds into his back and head from the American side of the border .
Like Mesa , Swartz claimed he was acting in self-defense .
In 2018 , an Arizona court found him innocent .
In recent years , the U.S.-Mexico border has become increasingly militarized , with President Trump campaigned on a platform of building a wall between the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have greatly expanded .
Meanwhile , those that challenge the policy are increasingly targeted ; last year , four volunteers from the humanitarian group “ No More Deaths ” were found guilty of leaving water in the Arizona desert for thirsty migrants .
And yet illegal border crossings have been drastically falling for twenty years .
Between the 1980s and the mid-2000s , the government reported apprehending between 1 and 1.6 million illegal immigrants per year .
That number has dropped to less than half a million annually .
Yesterday ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of controversial Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh .
Kavanaugh was appointed to the position in 2018 , despite multiple high-profile allegations of rape and sexual assault against him .
He was championed by a number of conservative religious organizations who saw him as the final vote they needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade and re-criminalize abortion .
While no attempt to do so has been made yet , yesterday ’ s ruling offers another precedent that empowers America ’ s militarized Border Patrol agency to act with impunity , safe in the knowledge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo | Unidentified people embrace during the funeral of Sergio Hernandez , 15 , at the cemetery in Ciudad Juarez , Mexico , June 10 , 2010 .
Photo | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

June 2010, 15-year old Sergio Hernandez was playing a game with his friends in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico when a U.S. Border Patrol officer Jesus Mesa shot him in the face, killing him instantly. Mesa fired from El Paso, Texas on the American side of the border into Mexico. In court, he claimed that the teenage boy had attacked him, pelting him with stones, and he feared for his life. Video footage of the incident, however, clearly contradicted his account. Mesa had caught one of Hernandez’s friends, and while apprehending him, shot Hernandez twice as he ran away.
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the deceased child’s family could not sue the U.S. for damages, effectively setting a precedent that American officials can kill with impunity. The investigation ruled that Mesa had indeed acted in self-defense when he fired through the militarized U.S.-Mexico border. Like many Supreme Court rulings, the decision was split down liberal-conservative lines, with new Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh carrying the day 5-4. The court decided that the teenagers’ games along the border represented a national security threat to the United States and that because Mesa fired from one country into another, it was an international incident and beyond its purview. The more liberal judges – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – rejected this framing and offered a dissenting opinion. Nevertheless, the majority decision sets a precedent that police, ICE agents and other border security forces could use in the future.
As suggested by the 5-4 ruling, the result was a controversial one and not welcomed by all. The Mexican government expressed its “deep concerns about the effects this decision will have on other similar cases, in which Mexican citizens have died from gunshots fired by US agents towards the Mexican side.” Hernandez’s legal team voiced their dismay at the ruling, which effectively ends the family’s ten-year struggle for justice. “To be left with no remedy… given such a violent and unprovoked shooting, weakens the constitutional foundation of America’s house,” they said, adding that it would “promote a Wild West attitude on our border,” where security agents would feel empowered to mete out justice as they saw fit.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union since 1992, also disagreed with the court’s decision, saying:
The gravity of this ruling could not be clearer given the Trump administration’s militarized rhetoric and policies targeting people at the border. Border agents should not have immunity to fatally shoot Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border fence. The Constitution does not stop at the border.
Veronica Escobar, a Democratic congresswoman from Texas and former El Paso county judge agreed, stating that the Supreme Court decision “denies justice to the family of Sergio Hernandez” and “sets a dangerous precedent by making exceptions to accountability and due process.”
Unfortunately, the Hernandez shooting is far from unique. In 2012, for instance, Jose Rodriguez, a 16-year-old from Nogales, Mexico, was standing in the street in the border town when agent Lonnie Swartz unloaded ten rounds into his back and head from the American side of the border. Like Mesa, Swartz claimed he was acting in self-defense. In 2018, an Arizona court found him innocent.
In recent years, the U.S.-Mexico border has become increasingly militarized, with President Trump campaigned on a platform of building a wall between the two countries. Border Security and ICE budgets have greatly expanded. Meanwhile, those that challenge the policy are increasingly targeted; last year, four volunteers from the humanitarian group “No More Deaths” were found guilty of leaving water in the Arizona desert for thirsty migrants.
And yet illegal border crossings have been drastically falling for twenty years. Between the 1980s and the mid-2000s, the government reported apprehending between 1 and 1.6 million illegal immigrants per year. That number has dropped to less than half a million annually.
Yesterday’s decision was made only possible with the votes of controversial Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was appointed to the position in 2018, despite multiple high-profile allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. He was championed by a number of conservative religious organizations who saw him as the final vote they needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade and re-criminalize abortion. While no attempt to do so has been made yet, yesterday’s ruling offers another precedent that empowers America’s militarized Border Patrol agency to act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that courts will back them up.
Feature photo | Unidentified people embrace during the funeral of Sergio Hernandez, 15, at the cemetery in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, June 10, 2010. Photo | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-02-26--Podcast: Abby Martin Resists Anti-BDS Laws & The Israeli Lobby

Welcome to the re-launch of MintCast , the official weekly MintPress News podcast hosted by Mnar Muhawesh and Whitney Webb .
MintCast is an interview podcast featuring dissenting voices , independent researchers and journalists who the establishment would rather silence .
One such voice is journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin .
She joins MintCast to discuss her free speech lawsuit against the state of Georgia after she was banned from giving a keynote address at Georgia Southern University last month for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the apartheid state of Israel as part of Georgia ’ s newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was scheduled to give a presentation about critical media literacy and free speech .
Over the past six years , 28 states including Georgia , have adopted anti-boycott laws .
The majority of states have already mandated loyalty pledges to Israel as a means of outlawing dissent .
The non-violent Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ( BDS ) movement is the latest target of the pro-Israeli lobby , which is now trying to make support for the movement illegal .
It ’ s no wonder since BDS is possibly the most powerful non-violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow international law and end its apartheid system and military occupation of Palestine .
In their joint lawsuit , CAIR Legal Defense Fund Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas said : “ There is no place where free speech is more important than on campus .
And this attempt to suppress Abby ’ s views–denying students , academics , and others from hearing her lecture–is as brazen as it is illegal.
” Mara Verheyden-Hilliard , Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund , added : “ In 1956 , Martin Luther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a boycott against Jim Crow apartheid in Alabama .
Southern states enforced anti-boycott laws to punish and derail civil rights organizing .
The Supreme Court eventually made clear that peaceful boycotts are a protected form of political speech and expression .
Abby Martin is an outspoken critic of Israeli apartheid and it ’ s colonialism and occupation of Palestine .
She recently highlighted Israel ’ s ongoing aggression and human rights abuses against Palestinians in Gaza in her documentary “ Gaza Fights For Freedom ” .
This program is 100 percent listener supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial sponsors who make this show possible by becoming a member on our Patreon page .
Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes , Spotify and SoundCloud .
Please leave us a review and share this segment .
Mnar Muhawesh is founder , CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News , and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism , sexism , neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups .
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile .
She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 21st Century Wire , among others .
She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism .

Welcome to the re-launch of MintCast, the official weekly MintPress News podcast hosted by Mnar Muhawesh and Whitney Webb. MintCast is an interview podcast featuring dissenting voices, independent researchers and journalists who the establishment would rather silence.
One such voice is journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin. She joins MintCast to discuss her free speech lawsuit against the state of Georgia after she was banned from giving a keynote address at Georgia Southern University last month for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the apartheid state of Israel as part of Georgia’s newly passed anti-BDS law. Ironically, she was scheduled to give a presentation about critical media literacy and free speech.
Over the past six years, 28 states including Georgia, have adopted anti-boycott laws. The majority of states have already mandated loyalty pledges to Israel as a means of outlawing dissent.
The non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is the latest target of the pro-Israeli lobby, which is now trying to make support for the movement illegal. It’s no wonder since BDS is possibly the most powerful non-violent tool that places economic pressure on Israel to follow international law and end its apartheid system and military occupation of Palestine.
In their joint lawsuit, CAIR Legal Defense Fund Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas said: “There is no place where free speech is more important than on campus. And this attempt to suppress Abby’s views–denying students, academics, and others from hearing her lecture–is as brazen as it is illegal.”
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, added: “In 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr. was criminalized for leading a boycott against Jim Crow apartheid in Alabama. Southern states enforced anti-boycott laws to punish and derail civil rights organizing. The Supreme Court eventually made clear that peaceful boycotts are a protected form of political speech and expression.
Abby Martin is an outspoken critic of Israeli apartheid and it’s colonialism and occupation of Palestine. She recently highlighted Israel’s ongoing aggression and human rights abuses against Palestinians in Gaza in her documentary “Gaza Fights For Freedom”.
This program is 100 percent listener supported! You can join the hundreds of financial sponsors who make this show possible by becoming a member on our Patreon page.
Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify and SoundCloud. Please leave us a review and share this segment.
Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera
Mnar Muhawesh is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups.
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


mintpressnews--2020-02-25--How Bernie Sanders Became a Fighter for Palestine

SteveSalaita.com — With the Democratic primary in full swing , the outlines of public debate are pretty much entrenched .
Common wisdom on the left says that all of the candidates are bad on Palestine except for Bernie Sanders .
Despite some problems , pundits declare , Sanders is still the best .
Is the statement true , though , or is it a convenient truism ?
It ’ s both , really .
Sanders appears to be better than his counterparts , but the advantage doesn ’ t exist in a vacuum .
A lot of mythologizing has helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved skillful at sounding the right notes without actually transcending a dull foreign policy consensus .
For example , I don ’ t see how anybody can read Sanders ’ responses here next to those of his opponents and objectively conclude that they ’ re superior ( or even meaningfully different ) .
In fact , billionaire Tom Steyer ’ s answers are arguably better , or at least equivalent .
Moreover , Sanders almost always introduces support for Palestinians by professing devotion to Israel ’ s security and right to exist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli war crimes .
( His claim that he ’ ll condition aid to Israel on a better human rights record is a sucker ’ s bet ; Sanders has had three decades to apply that principle . )
All the candidates are Zionist .
I don ’ t care to parse the nuances of their Zionism .
Seeking—or , worse , celebrating—a kinder colonizer is a waste of time .
In short , Sanders is similar to his opponents around Palestine , but his reputation around Palestine is far better .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance of his legislative history or his public comments .
Supporters project onto him what they hope or assume he ’ ll do , but hasn ’ t done throughout his long career in office .
The myth of Sanders being “ good ” or “ the best ” has made it so that supporting him isn ’ t merely a pragmatic concession ; it can now be passed off as devotion to Palestine .
In the past few weeks , I ’ ve seen an image circulating on social media that epitomizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mythologization .
It shows a man holding a handwritten sign that says , “ I ’ m Palestinian , and I ’ m voting for the Jewish guy !
” To his right , a woman holds a companion sign : “ I ’ m Israeli , and I ’ m voting for the guy who will fight for Palestinians ’ rights !
” It ’ s a cute idea , I guess .
The execution of that idea is troublesome , however .
Try to extricate yourself from the hullabaloo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : when have we ever witnessed Bernie Sanders fighting for Palestinians ?
Many of his supporters have taken up the fight , but Sanders hasn ’ t joined them .
Instead , he gestures toward vague ideals of justice without committing to what Palestinians in struggle repeatedly profess to be their version of freedom ( the right of return and equality in their ancestral homeland ) .
He ’ s happy to let supporters fill the vagueness with their own suppositions .
Was Sanders fighting for Palestinian rights when he fondly recalled living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a racialized settlement ) ?
When he voted in favor of a Senate resolution ( introduced by Mitch McConnell ) that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel ’ s undivided capital ?
When he yelled at constituents protesting the war crimes Israel was committing with weapons he voted to provide ?
When he fired a campaign staffer for criticizing Netanyahu ?
When he went on a Zionist diatribe in an interview with a Palestinian journalist ?
When he blamed an Israeli massacre of 50 civilians on “ Hamas ” ?
When he suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide bombers ?
All of these things happened since Israel ’ s 2014 destruction of the Gaza Strip , one of the century ’ s most vicious events .
How about when he calls himself “ 100 percent pro-Israel ” ?
Or opposes BDS ?
Or offers “ both sides ” pabulum in response to yet more Israeli war crimes ?
Or declines to support the right of return ( Andrew Yang accidentally provided the model for a good answer ) ?
Sanders occasionally exhibits empathy for Palestinians and regularly highlights the difficulties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only ) , but he doesn ’ t use a fighting vocabulary .
He never speaks of colonization , ethnic cleansing , war crimes , apartheid , or land theft .
“ Occupation ” is the strongest word he deploys .
He also has a habit of reserving sharp criticism for Netanyahu , usually positioned as a Trumpian aberration from a more benevolent norm .
In Sanders ’ s lexicon , the problem isn ’ t Zionism , but Netanyahu ’ s Israel .
If the Palestinian in the photo wants to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I won ’ t argue with him , although I wish he wouldn ’ t volunteer himself as one of the good Arabs , the sort who isn ’ t innately hostile to Jews , as evidenced by—what else ?
—his eagerness to vote .
Trading decolonization for electoralism is one of the cheapest ways to accumulate respectability in the United States .
Voting for “ the Jewish guy ” isn ’ t objectionable in itself .
One might make a strong case for doing it .
But implicating national identity in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreeable to centers of power .
It ’ s more bothersome seeing the Israeli uphold Sanders as a champion of Palestinian rights .
It ’ s discomfiting that a settler so breezily appoints herself arbiter of the native ’ s struggle , and does so by promoting visions of relief that don ’ t threaten her own standing .
By tethering activism to a presidential campaign , she can claim space unavailable to recalcitrant natives .
She needn ’ t adhere to their sensibilities because she inhabits a political culture that treats the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells the story .
She deploys a nebulous framework of “ rights , ” the classic idiom of state-sanctioned activism .
Liberation is off the table .
Resistance is sanitized .
Armed struggle is unthinkable .
The photograph is the spirit of Oslo repurposed for the social media age .
Sanders has made his platform clear .
By this point it ’ s not changing .
He ’ s a two-stater who dislikes conservative Israeli politicians and frets about the government ’ s excesses .
He won ’ t affirm the right of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a one-state solution .
He opposes BDS , but also opposes its criminalization .
For all his talk of conditioning aid to Israel on its behavior ( something George H.W .
Bush also proposed ) , it will require more political capital then he ’ s willing to use .
( An overlooked feature of this pledge is that Sanders also threatens to withhold aid from Palestinians . )
Palestine will fall by the wayside .
Sanders ’ most vocal supporters will accept that result as the cost of doing business .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , but nobody should take it seriously .
Accountable to whom ?
Actual Palestinians or the mass of dim brown trinkets manufactured on an electoral assembly line ?
Electoralism doesn ’ t allow for the kind of responsiveness its advocates imagine .
Anybody who tries to hold Sanders to account will be shouted down .
To lift Palestine from its subordinate position will be seen as an invitation to social death , a puritanical effort to unleash rightwing barbarism on an intrinsically virtuous polity .
( Electoral common sense always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the people is the most anti-human myth of this entire spectacle .
Attempts to prioritize the Global South simply can ’ t compete with fetishes of enfranchisement in the imperial core .
( The Global South , uncoincidentally , manifests the world ’ s greatest revolutionary potential . )
Like other colonized nations ( inside and beyond North America ) , Palestine exists in electoral discourses as an abstract geography , something to be extracted for capital among the politically ambitious , or a delicate inconvenience to overcome .
What the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Electoralism is a heatsink of revolutionary politics .
We select representatives actually seated by the elite .
There ’ s no real system of accountability to the disempowered .
Everything that sounds nice about electoralism in fact reinforces the false promises of settler colonization .
Aren ’ t Sanders ’ boosters setting themselves up for disappointment ?
Not really , because the logic of electoralism provides for delirious hope in the incredible .
It also renders Palestine ’ s freedom ( at best ) a secondary concern .
The nation , obscure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders isn ’ t serving Palestine ; Palestine is his surrogate .
Sanders says “ respect and dignity.
” His fans hear “ liberation.
” They ’ re not listening closely enough .
( We ’ re incentivized to mishear by so many promises of minor celebrity . )
Nothing in Sanders ’ record as a politician suggests that he ’ ll fight for anything but the tired “ international consensus.
” And nothing in decades of US brokerage indicates that the “ peace process ” will result in anything but continued suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , speaks during a campaign event at Springs Preserve in Las Vegas , Feb. 21 , 2020 .
Patrick Semansky | AP

SteveSalaita.com — With the Democratic primary in full swing, the outlines of public debate are pretty much entrenched. Common wisdom on the left says that all of the candidates are bad on Palestine except for Bernie Sanders. Despite some problems, pundits declare, Sanders is still the best. Is the statement true, though, or is it a convenient truism?
It’s both, really. Sanders appears to be better than his counterparts, but the advantage doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A lot of mythologizing has helped Sanders’ reputation. He’s proved skillful at sounding the right notes without actually transcending a dull foreign policy consensus. For example, I don’t see how anybody can read Sanders’ responses here next to those of his opponents and objectively conclude that they’re superior (or even meaningfully different). In fact, billionaire Tom Steyer’s answers are arguably better, or at least equivalent.
Moreover, Sanders almost always introduces support for Palestinians by professing devotion to Israel’s security and right to exist. He has a long history of funding Israeli war crimes. (His claim that he’ll condition aid to Israel on a better human rights record is a sucker’s bet; Sanders has had three decades to apply that principle.) All the candidates are Zionist. I don’t care to parse the nuances of their Zionism. Seeking—or, worse, celebrating—a kinder colonizer is a waste of time.
In short, Sanders is similar to his opponents around Palestine, but his reputation around Palestine is far better. That reputation doesn’t correspond to the substance of his legislative history or his public comments. Supporters project onto him what they hope or assume he’ll do, but hasn’t done throughout his long career in office. The myth of Sanders being “good” or “the best” has made it so that supporting him isn’t merely a pragmatic concession; it can now be passed off as devotion to Palestine.
In the past few weeks, I’ve seen an image circulating on social media that epitomizes both the process and outcome of Sanders’s mythologization. It shows a man holding a handwritten sign that says, “I’m Palestinian, and I’m voting for the Jewish guy!” To his right, a woman holds a companion sign: “I’m Israeli, and I’m voting for the guy who will fight for Palestinians’ rights!” It’s a cute idea, I guess. The execution of that idea is troublesome, however.
Voting saves lives
Try to extricate yourself from the hullabaloo of electoralism and consider a straightforward question: when have we ever witnessed Bernie Sanders fighting for Palestinians? Many of his supporters have taken up the fight, but Sanders hasn’t joined them. Instead, he gestures toward vague ideals of justice without committing to what Palestinians in struggle repeatedly profess to be their version of freedom (the right of return and equality in their ancestral homeland). He’s happy to let supporters fill the vagueness with their own suppositions.
Was Sanders fighting for Palestinian rights when he fondly recalled living on a kibbutz (in other words, a racialized settlement)? When he voted in favor of a Senate resolution (introduced by Mitch McConnell) that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital? When he yelled at constituents protesting the war crimes Israel was committing with weapons he voted to provide? When he fired a campaign staffer for criticizing Netanyahu? When he went on a Zionist diatribe in an interview with a Palestinian journalist? When he blamed an Israeli massacre of 50 civilians on “Hamas”? When he suggested that Palestinian parents train their children to become suicide bombers?
All of these things happened since Israel’s 2014 destruction of the Gaza Strip, one of the century’s most vicious events.
How about when he calls himself “100 percent pro-Israel”? Or opposes BDS? Or offers “both sides” pabulum in response to yet more Israeli war crimes? Or declines to support the right of return (Andrew Yang accidentally provided the model for a good answer)?
The best on Palestine
Sanders occasionally exhibits empathy for Palestinians and regularly highlights the difficulties of life under Israeli occupation (1967 only), but he doesn’t use a fighting vocabulary. He never speaks of colonization, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, apartheid, or land theft. “Occupation” is the strongest word he deploys. He also has a habit of reserving sharp criticism for Netanyahu, usually positioned as a Trumpian aberration from a more benevolent norm. In Sanders’s lexicon, the problem isn’t Zionism, but Netanyahu’s Israel.
(Please note: I’m not arguing that Sanders ought to speak like a Palestinian nationalist; I’m objecting to narratives that make it sound as if he’s a faithful proponent of Palestinian nationalism.)
If the Palestinian in the photo wants to vote for “the Jewish guy,” I won’t argue with him, although I wish he wouldn’t volunteer himself as one of the good Arabs, the sort who isn’t innately hostile to Jews, as evidenced by—what else?—his eagerness to vote. Trading decolonization for electoralism is one of the cheapest ways to accumulate respectability in the United States. Voting for “the Jewish guy” isn’t objectionable in itself. One might make a strong case for doing it. But implicating national identity in the decision elides longstanding forms of resistance less agreeable to centers of power.
It’s more bothersome seeing the Israeli uphold Sanders as a champion of Palestinian rights. It’s discomfiting that a settler so breezily appoints herself arbiter of the native’s struggle, and does so by promoting visions of relief that don’t threaten her own standing. By tethering activism to a presidential campaign, she can claim space unavailable to recalcitrant natives. She needn’t adhere to their sensibilities because she inhabits a political culture that treats the colonized as raw material. Her language tells the story. She deploys a nebulous framework of “rights,” the classic idiom of state-sanctioned activism. Liberation is off the table. Resistance is sanitized. Armed struggle is unthinkable. The photograph is the spirit of Oslo repurposed for the social media age.
Sanders has made his platform clear. By this point it’s not changing. He’s a two-stater who dislikes conservative Israeli politicians and frets about the government’s excesses. He won’t affirm the right of return. He won’t consider a one-state solution. He opposes BDS, but also opposes its criminalization. For all his talk of conditioning aid to Israel on its behavior (something George H.W. Bush also proposed), it will require more political capital then he’s willing to use. (An overlooked feature of this pledge is that Sanders also threatens to withhold aid from Palestinians.) Palestine will fall by the wayside. Sanders’ most vocal supporters will accept that result as the cost of doing business.
Israelis come first
They’ll talk about holding him accountable, of course, but nobody should take it seriously. Accountable to whom? Actual Palestinians or the mass of dim brown trinkets manufactured on an electoral assembly line? Electoralism doesn’t allow for the kind of responsiveness its advocates imagine. Anybody who tries to hold Sanders to account will be shouted down. To lift Palestine from its subordinate position will be seen as an invitation to social death, a puritanical effort to unleash rightwing barbarism on an intrinsically virtuous polity. (Electoral common sense always leads to liberal orthodoxy.) Accountability to the people is the most anti-human myth of this entire spectacle.
Attempts to prioritize the Global South simply can’t compete with fetishes of enfranchisement in the imperial core. (The Global South, uncoincidentally, manifests the world’s greatest revolutionary potential.) Like other colonized nations (inside and beyond North America), Palestine exists in electoral discourses as an abstract geography, something to be extracted for capital among the politically ambitious, or a delicate inconvenience to overcome. What the system lacks in substance it replaces with myth. Electoralism is a heatsink of revolutionary politics. We select representatives actually seated by the elite. There’s no real system of accountability to the disempowered. Everything that sounds nice about electoralism in fact reinforces the false promises of settler colonization.
Aren’t Sanders’ boosters setting themselves up for disappointment? Not really, because the logic of electoralism provides for delirious hope in the incredible. It also renders Palestine’s freedom (at best) a secondary concern. The nation, obscure and abstracted, expedites presidential electioneering. Sanders isn’t serving Palestine; Palestine is his surrogate.
Sanders says “respect and dignity.” His fans hear “liberation.” They’re not listening closely enough. (We’re incentivized to mishear by so many promises of minor celebrity.) Nothing in Sanders’ record as a politician suggests that he’ll fight for anything but the tired “international consensus.” And nothing in decades of US brokerage indicates that the “peace process” will result in anything but continued suffering for Palestinians.
Feature photo | Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during a campaign event at Springs Preserve in Las Vegas, Feb. 21, 2020. Patrick Semansky | AP