Serbia 2025: Pump It Up! (Part 1)

By Bob Travica

In a rock standard by Elvis Costello, the chorus has it: “Pump it up when you don't really need it, pump it up until you can feel it!” Something like that has been happening in Serbia lately. Since November 2024, the small Balkan country has been immersed in a wave of large street protests led by university students: the government was taken down, higher education halted, freedom of movement limited by student blockades of streets, roads, and bridges, and the functioning of key institutions was disrupted by blockades. Citizens have been split between support and opposition, but are enjoying, nevertheless, the political circus, a national pastime. The protesters’ favorite catchphrase has been the imperative „Pump it!“

The following account is based on facts (triangulating the sources whenever possible), plus my own witnessing of the situation in the capital, Belgrade, from March to September 2025.

Background: Another Trigger 

The unrest started after the collapse of a reconstructed concrete canopy on the railway station in Serbia’s northern city of Novi Sad on November 1, 2024, which killed 16 people. Grievers included students who soon took the torch of social criticism. The unrest quickly spread to the University in Belgrade and gradually to universities in other cities. Students demanded an investigation into the reconstruction project, alleging corruption of politicians by contractors as the cause of construction malpractice, and eventually the tragic accident.

The canopy reconstruction was a part of a larger railroad project, which included a consortium of foreign and domestic construction companies, foreign oversight, and foreign investors. Officials at several levels were involved on the project owner’s side. Yet, tying the student revolt just to that event would just scratch the surface.

Dissatisfaction with the regime had been brewing through 2023-24. In 2023, there were two unprecedented, murderous mass shootings in Serbia, one in a primary school. The opposition blamed the government for both accidents and targeted a TV network, private yet close to the regime, for allegedly airing inciting, violent content. Street protests with traffic blockages erupted, and the regime responded with snap elections by the end of the year. But the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) prevailed again as it did before in its decade-long rule. From this stance, the canopy accident was a trigger for another outburst of civic disobedience, although this time students took to the torch rather than the opposition to the government.

Relentless Pumping

Countering the winter, the pumping protest grew into a huge, noisy oil rig. It forced the resignation of ministers for construction and for trade. A minister and 12 responsible individuals were indicted on public safety-related charges and irregular execution of construction work. But this didn’t appease protesters. As their ire was directed toward the ruling SPS, the regime made another concession with the resignation of the Prime Minister, a SPP functionary. The protests still continued, while the government went into a forced recess. New demands were raised, such as releasing all the documents for the ill-fated project, and an increase in the budget for higher education.

Protesters, self-named ‘students in blockade’ (their number never determined) occupied university buildings, thus cancelling classes and exams across the country; professors and administration either sided with protesters or just kept quiet. Even lower-level schools followed suit to some extent. Educational staff were still getting paid up until March.

A 16-minute ritual of silent respect giving to Novi Sad victims has been performed in public spaces around the country. Public traffic was blocked on streets and bridges, randomly from the perspective of participants, so that it became tricky to move around cities. Commuters, small businesses, and service providers (ambulances, deliveries) were delayed. Blockades were accompanied by whistling, horn blowing, and inevitable “Pump it!”-screams synched with the rhythm of jumping in place. There were sit-ins around the Belgrade facilities of the state broadcaster RTS, so that employees couldn’t get to work; news programs were disrupted. RTS was attacked for not airing the protest enough. That was the rationale of the protesters. However, RTS was also criticized by the government for a lack of airtime and was split internally. Moreover, some other TV networks showed as being more supportive of the regime than RTS.

In the bigger picture, RTS has been a symbol of government-controlled media since the 1990s, and so it has been a whipping boy for every protest that took place in Serbia to date. Therefore, students didn’t just express dissent peacefully, but attacked the institution. The blockade made one of Belgrade’s main traffic routes defunct for weeks. I stopped by RTS and tried to strike conversation with protesters – unsuccessfully. All I’ve got was whistling, jumping in place, and screams, “Pump it!” in front of me. Not showing the protest gear and the signature jumping behavior, I was probably perceived as an outsider. I had an impression that youngsters’ energy was funneled into some pagan ritual, eons far from the proclaimed democratic goals of the protest.

The equally apparent attack on institutions was the blocking of court houses in Novi Sad, with the demand that protesters indicted for violating public order get released. One such group of indicted persons was caught, through intercepted communications, in plotting to break into RTS buildings and inciting physical violence; they belonged to a new party based in Novi Sad (the core of their program is extreme decentralization resembling American libertarians) (1). Similar blockades appeared in Belgrade and some other cities.

Prominent artists staged free street concerts, exhibitions, and performances in support of the protests. A number of professional unions joined the protests. Theater groups enacted “trial plays” in public squares, symbolically prosecuting and arresting corrupt politicians. Actors followed the final curtain in theatres by raising up student gradebooks and images of bloody hands, a staple sign of the protest.

The largest protests, numbering 100,000 or more participants, took place in Belgrade, Novi Sad, and Kragujevac. The peak was the protest in Belgrade on March 15, 2025, gathering around 300,000 people. Some participants confessed that an expectation of a final countdown for the government was up in the air. But at a crucial moment, at the first signs of violence, students took off their yellow jackets, which meant their pullout from that protest. A general national strike was supposed to commence in a week or so, but it never happened. In April, students continued “pumping” across Serbia and made excursions into the EU (biking to Strasbourg, and a marathon to Brussels, with no obvious benefits for the protest). In May, the protest movement came up with a new demand – early parliamentary elections.

During blockades, the riot police and gendarmerie mostly embodied a wall between protesters and opponents (supporters of SPP, and possibly provocateurs). The government appeared knocked down, and its visible resistance was funneled only via controlled mass media. In mid-April, it began recovering and pricking university blockades via negotiations. Online classes commenced. Still, another large protest happened on June 28 in Belgrade. It was about half the size of the March protest and signaled the end of the first phase. It ended with an announcement that students finished their job and relayed the torch to citizens.

The next phase of protest started the same night, when some protesters physically confronted the riot police and gendarmerie, who blocked access to followers of the ruling party residing in a makeshift camp in central Belgrade. Protesters sought a fight with the campers, organized by the regime to essentially block access to adjacent buildings of top state and city institutions, and to use it for PR purposes as ‘students who want to learn.’ Clashes erupted at several locations in Belgrade, signaling the transition toward a violent phase. The extent of student participation vs. other protesters involved in altercations with law enforcement that night and later is uncertain. Novi Sad, where everything started, continued to be the flash point.

In sum, the protest grew into something like a huge, noisy oil pumping field, developing through a mostly peaceful first phase led by students, and the second violent phase, with a less visible presence of students.

Zigzaging 

During the protest, new strategic goals were added, such as a higher education budget, immunity for protesters, and, later, snap parliamentary elections. However, there was another goal, albeit tacit, to knock out the regime via a mass civic unrest and inaugurate a government of experts chosen by students. Although unspoken, it is warranted to conclude, after 10 months of the protest, that overturning the regime has been a true, stable, and indeed the highest goal all along.

The demand for snap elections is particularly interesting because Serbia’s president offered that earlier in the protest, but he was turned down. Perhaps protesters hoped to accomplish everything without elections. Indeed, the first two goals cited above appeared accomplished at the time, and the government was taken down de facto. So, it looked like the stars were aligned favorably for protesters. But a question arises now: Is the demand for elections, which the demander discredits a priori, yet another indication of goal shift, or does it indicate unlikely political pragmatism or even something else? 

 As for tactical goals, they have been even more difficult to trace. They surfaced daily, materialized in the protest methods cited above, exhibiting a great variety, as if any idea for challenging authorities and routine life was a fair game. That may have been the way of maintaining the fire and sometimes of just having fun, an impression that televised protest scenes sometimes conveyed.

How did the citizens make sense of protest goals? A survey released in January by TV network N1, a CNN affiliate sympathetic to protesters, found that citizens saw these as the main causes for the protest: corruption, dysfunctional institutions, deficient rule of law, and, lastly, the Novi Sad accident (2). My own finding from conversations with protesters is based on a small and convenient sample, but consistent: People are protesting for justice. When inquiring about the examples of injustice they experienced, I've also got a consistent answer: injustice didn’t happen to them directly but to “others,” and that “everyone can see that.”

An April survey by the widely cited agency CRTA provides an indirect answer to protest goals, although with a twist (3). The surveyor asked about the biggest problems in Serbia and found that the citizens closer to the opposition and undecided ones pointed to corruption and the current government as the biggest problems. The twist: citizens closer to the government singled out students and protests as the biggest problem! Several surveys released in August show that the ruling party is still much ahead in rankings over opposition parties (high 40’s percentage points), while students (posing as an anonymous list) are far behind (below 10%). (4) If nothing, the surveys expose a deeply divided society.

In the report above, I described details of the student protest based on facts sourced and experienced. In the second part, I turn to the characterization of the protest. 

Sources cited:

(1) https://pokretslobodnih.rs/politicka-platforma-2024-2027/

 (2) https://n1info.rs/vesti/pitali-smo-vas-sta-je-glavni-povod-za-proteste-studenata-pogledajte-rezultate-ankete/

 (3) https://crta.rs/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Javnomnjensko-istrazivanje-Crta-april-2025-1.pdf

 (4) https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/faktor-plus-rejtinzi-istrazivanje/

Serbia 2025: Pump It Up! (Part 2)

By Bob Travica

This is the sequel to part 1 of the account of the student protest in Serbia 2025, which is not finished at the time of writing. While part 1 is a report, part 2 is a commentary.

Organizational Forms Under Lenses

The protest was led by a flat, complex organization with decision-making hubs. The occupied faculty buildings were used for discussions in plenums (in addition to boarding). The central plenum in Belgrade was seated in the Rectorate building of Belgrade University; it summarized ideas of faculty plenums and made decisions about upcoming actions, which were then relayed back to the faculty plenums and further down to individual protesters. Protesters used Telegram as the main communication system for organizing. While in action, they deployed two-way radio devices similar to those used by the police. The smartphone has been the staple of protesters; they even read speeches on it.

In spite of a deep involvement in critical social events, protesters prevented public insight into the workings of their organization. Key figures have also been unknown since protesters rejected basic principles of political organizing, including leadership. Such secrecy imparted an aura of plotting upon plenums, and it gave rise to important questions: How exactly were decisions made and differences in opinion managed? Where did ideas for goals and actions come from? Were there any external influences that “pumped” the pumping students?

A more comprehensive insight into the financing of the protest is also missing. Who financed the costly signage, food, travel, and various equipment? Some Western media cite grassroots fund-raising via websites, individual donations, and diaspora support; for example, one Serb from San Francisco set up an online platform that raised $73,000 (1). On the other hand, sources close to the government allege that NGOs with ties to foreign actors provided the main funding. Evidence so far on financing the protest is apparently inconclusive.

When students relayed the protest torch on June 28, they implied citizens gathered in a form of local organizing – zbor (assembly). An Assembly is a lawful form of self-management that is subordinated to a Municipality. Scores of Assemblies appear to be active in bigger cities in Serbia during the protest months. My own encounters with Assemblies were not quite pleasant. In the area of Belgrade where I resided, I tried to touch base with a group of neighbors who discussed protests, but with no avail. I saw kids making noise with whistles and horns in the afternoon hours on balconies of residential buildings and streets. And members of some assemblies forcibly limited my free movement, imitating the student protesters.

Several times, I was forced to modify my driving routes because local assemblies blocked main intersections with their bodies, tables, chairs, and political signage. The traffic police always secured the space they used. On one occasion, I asked a policeman whether his job should be to secure free, safe traffic rather than the protesters appropriating streets. The man’s face displayed embarrassment, while his mouth remained shut. I can’t help but wonder if, in the ongoing second violent phase of the protest, the attacks on private property, functionaries, and the police are workings of the assemblies or someone else? What indeed are the relations between assemblies and the municipality in charge, particularly when the legislative body of the latter is controlled by SPP? Is assembly what the law prescribes it to be, or just a convenient label for something else?

Gamers’ Revolution

The student protest/movement in Serbia has been called various names, such as anti-corruption uprising, civic awakening/disobedience, blockaders, terror of the minority, and color revolution. Each label bears a grain of truth as well as some ideological charge. Evidence is missing to allow for affixing any label upon the movement, including the last one cited. For example, it took some time for the revelation that the upheaval by the end of the 1990s was indeed the first color revolution in Serbia, involving a foreign factor. While awaiting more evidence, let me propose yet another label for the student movement – gamers’ revolution.

Protesters belong to Generation Z, born between 1995-2010. Although generation studies are an American discipline and internally focused, electronic technologies facilitated some isomorphism globally. The Serbian Generation Z grew up in Serbia, which came out of splitting the previous, four times larger state of Yugoslavia through the 1990s. Serbia has gone through painful transformations since 2000. Specifically, transitioning toward a capitalist economy was executed haphazardly, under foreign pressures and with abundant malpractice; the process impoverished masses of surplus workforce, and created a minority of nouveau riche. Larger firms disappeared, and the economy took the shape of small and mid-size enterprises. Finding employment and bare survival became tall orders. Essentially, a counter-revolution to the communist revolution decades ago was executed bloodlessly, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, imparting hardship on the mass population, which was apathetically sitting on the fence. However, youngsters may know of or care little for these transition pains and expect to live in a wealthy society, such as those they see on their travels abroad or view on the Internet.

A multi-party parliamentary system surfaced in Serbia in a similar chaotic way. There were about 100 parties at the first elections, and lots of confusion. Later modifications of election regulations provided some fixes, but many things remained half-baked, leaving space for manipulations. Governments lasted two years on average. Worse yet, due to missing checks-and-balances mechanisms and a weak judicial branch of government, politics became the fastest path to amassing wealth as in other Eastern European countries. So, the true goals of political parties (ruling and opposition alike) are likely to be self-interested and monetary – get in power and suck on the corruption pipes. Politics has been criminalized as in historically preceding banana republics.

Foreign developmental aid and large investment projects bypassing regular tenders provide for oversized investment figures and ample slack for officials close to contracting and funds. Another corruption pipe is managed by organized crime, a new, powerful player in the economy and politics. Profits from narco-trafficking bribe power holders and low enforcement. With this backdrop, it’s no wonder that so many individuals from various walks of life pop up on the Serbian political scene, attracted by easy money like bees to honey. In this situation, young people may mistake honest public service for political ambitions; they can also reject the political establishment at large and dream of a world where politics is replaced by some pure technical mind, as the Serbian protesters appear to do.

The old and new Internet-based mass media create a confusing space. It’s polluted with downright ideological content, being eons far from journalism based on professional standards. Foreign powers have their share in the media space and use it to spread directly opposite worldviews. The audience thus feels safe only under the auspices of the select media, thereby reinforcing their beliefs. In effect, social divisions are deepened, as parts of the population live in different perceived realities. The media are likely to baffle the insecure generation Z, which then opts to reject political content in general or to seek refuge in their social media, which also shape perceptions of reality in a particular manner.

The ethical system in Serbia is in shambles. Wealth and greed for material goods have become driving values to be satisfied with no regard for moral scruples. The values of moderation, solidarity, and compassion, which underpinned the ethic of socialism, lost public affirmation. The abundance of imported goods teases consumer desires, while the pocketbooks of many can’t follow these. Olympians of mass entertainment and tycoons show off in luxury, the staple of success. Generation Z can’t be immune to zeitgeist, and so it experiences frustration that Serbian society can’t warrant individual wealth, even with higher education.

Education has been going through significant changes, too. Relevant here is the reduction of social subjects across school levels. I randomly asked young people about branches of government, parliament setup, and responsibilities, executive power; I’ve got consistently unsatisfactory answers. Some understanding of these topics could be expected from people who want to change the world. Instead, self-hypnotizing “Pump it!” replaces sober reasoning about society as if history has reached the end with their generation. They may think of themselves so because they grew up as digital natives, embracing smartphones, computers, social media, and video games. Thus, students may mistake technological savvy, googling, and social media informing for knowledge, and believe that technology and technocrats (experts) alone can change society for the better, as if the social context is a world-building video game.

Tightly-knit social networks of peers can bolster self-confidence and assuredness of Generation Z, which otherwise is stressed, anxious, and feel lonely (2). This applies to Serbian protesters who overlook limitations of their knowledge of social matters, while it actually borders on naiveté. They use political symbolism with little care for the meaning of symbols and consequences. Bloody hands are mixed with signs “Pump it!”, political slogans, and flags of Serbia, Russia, the EU, Ferrari, the Orthodox religion, and others. They complain to EU institutions and talk with whoever wants to meet them, while being blind to political connotations and implications. They spread “pumping” into the parts of Serbia where ethnicities, religions, and national loyalties sit in a delicate balance, while being unaware of history and possible disturbances. Undeterred, students are self-assured in their proves and revolutionary significance, but would have a hard time lining up political actors in Serbia along the left-right political spectrum.

The social context, its consequences on protesters, and their generational characteristics described above suggest that for them, society looks like a video game – a simplex environment in which daring action wins. Insensitivity to the problems their blockades caused to fellow citizens, as well as the effects of their actions on social divisions and the international positioning of Serbia do reaffirm this assumption. Early success in gathering followers and the police's inaction probably strengthened this initial illusion. Protesters attempted to realize some worthy ideals by inappropriate means that fit the artificial milieu of a video game. That’s how Serbia became the cradle of the gamers’ revolution.

Cultural Roots: A Chip Off the Old Block 

One thing protesters and supporters can’t understand is that not giving support to their blockading tactic doesn’t necessarily mean supporting the current government. ‘If you aren’t for what we do, you must be for the regime’ – rings among Serbian protesters. This attitude fits sharp social divisions anywhere, but it has a cultural twist in Serbia. This intolerance and exclusivity have roots in a propensity for extremist thinking, which amplifies divisions and nurtures confrontational behavior. Protesters are trapped in this traditional aspect of Serbian culture as much as their parents are.

Students enacted a disrespect for rules as another cultural trait. Serbs consider rules to be a burden in any context – the neighborhood, company, society at large. Common sarcastic wisdom is that rules are made to be broken rather than followed. Protesting students exhibited this by violating ownership rights and civic freedoms with their disruptive actions, while firmly believing in the righteousness of their conduct.

Students are a chip off the old block also with regard to disrespecting hierarchy (of social institutions, age, competence). They showed no respect for the institutions of the university, the Ministry of Education, the city authorities, or the government. Students took the liberty to teach elders and their own professors about social matters they don’t know much about. This practice and belief liken Serbian students to Generation Z in the West, but Serbians pushed it further, perhaps even more than their parents and professors expected.

Serbs can easily get dissatisfied (not always for obvious reasons), be grouchy, and exhibit a choleric outlook. Their relation to political leaders draws a circle from love to hate, possibly murder. Although students didn’t have much chance to participate in elections featuring Mr. Vučić, they still enacted this cultural pattern. Conditioning could have come from parents, teachers, and other elders, although students’ reasons for following suit might be different (say, a video game must have a chief villain to be eliminated).  

All in all, despite initial hopes and the self-aggrandizing picture of a historically unique generation, protesting students appear as a chip off the old block. But this isn’t the biggest problem with their act.

A Goal Doesn’t Justify the Means

Students brought up worthy ideals and grand goals, and awakened hidden energies in the population. The facts are that the ruling SPP has brought some material progress, but the cost is the party’s omnipresence and overwhelming control; it’s corrupted, and it corrupts. SPP keeps beating easily the weak, divided opposition in elections with no end in sight. President Vučić’s public appearances antagonize the younger city population, as he comes across as talkative, moralizing, patronizing, and irritating, and resembles a strict traditional patriarch at his 55 years of age. Segments of the voting body share a feeling of fatigue, and the students’ movement has brought this to the fore.

It also stands, however, that the student movement has been opaque and chaotic goals-wise; there is no visible program for change, or a visible political figure and party capable of challenging the President and SPP. Disruptions across social domains have been made and damages inflicted, social divisions deepened to the brink of civil war, Serbia’s international positioning shaken up – but to what end exactly? Students stirred up energies and passions without knowing where to lead, but to some Shangri-La, like in a video game scenario. All the while, they have been refusing to engage the opposition, hoping that their candidates (never revealed) will win amid the social chaos created or, if necessary, in snap elections. Students left excited masses on tiptoes to hope and wait for a messiah instead of putting in an effort to mature politically. This is a significant culpability of the students, but still not the biggest one.

Students’ major culpability has to do with the manner in which they fought for their shifting goals. They broke the law and disrupted the educational system and regular life. Students fell into the Machiavellian trap that the end justifies the means. That is a mistaken approach pertinent to social changes marked by destruction, pumping up social tensions until society blows up. No, the goal doesn’t justify the means. A society based on the rule of law can’t be built by unlawful means because such means easily become habitual practice. If illegality is utilized while fighting for a change, what can one expect when the change agent gets in charge? Serbia’s history is replete with examples that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

All things considered, it’s unlikely that this “pumping” part of Generation Z is up to the tall task of improving Serbian society. Yet, the fire ignited by the protest has created embers. It remains to be seen whether the embers will materialize in constructive social changes.

Sources used:

(5) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-serbias-students-turned-tragedy-into-national-movement-change-2025-02-14/

 (6) Shimba, M., The Psychology of Gen Z. 2024.

America’s Elections: Brace for Impact!

By Bob Travica

Mayday, mayday, a big bang is coming up as America is crash-landing on the upcoming elections day, when a new President and Congress are to be decided, and the world should brace for impact! Why? Because there is going to be a huge mess regardless of who'll win the Oval Office and Capitol Hill.

If the Democratic party runner Kamala Harris wins, the Republican opponent Donald Trump will set in motion what he’s already consistently rehearsed since the last 2020 election he lost: an adamant denial alleging that the election was “rigged“. If Trump wins, he’ll start large-scale revenge against everyone who impeached him, sent him to courts of law, and criticized him in the past four years, and he'll try to dismantle constitutional order. In both cases, law enforcement, security structures as well as armed groups of citizens, and spontaneous crowds will act, disrupting public safety and business as usual.

A disastrous crash in American society seems inevitable with unforeseen consequences. Let me put forward a scary one: civil war-like developments may unfold.

Irreconcilable Divisions

American society has been characterized by deepening rifts for a good part of the 21^st century. The economic divisions that lingered throughout the 1990s erupted in the 2011 Occupy movement led by the economically disadvantaged majority (the alleged 99-percenters juxtaposed to the super-wealthy one percent of Americans). It was a powerful earthquake that capped tectonic changes in the global economy unleashed by globalization, which lured capital to economies in transition (China, Indochina, India, East Europe) and disrupted American labor markets (less demand, smaller pay). [1] The impoverishment of the masses, a staggering loan burden on individuals, homelessness, and unaffordable health care occupied the minds of various streams of the Occupy movement. In the end, a few years later, the movement dissolved, and capitalism survived, but not without a financial rescue by the government and the workings of security forces. Dissatisfaction with income inequality and with key institutions (banks, government, big corporations) remained.

If this economic hardship applied equally to American working people regardless of their ideological orientation, the election of the first President with African roots did not. Old political and cultural divisions resurfaced and new ones erupted. White supremacists revived racist traditions born with America’s primal sin of slavery (granted, inherited from the British colonial period). Battling the legacy of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, reviving old fears of the Anglo-Saxon majority, and adding new conspiracy theories like the “great replacement” (allegedly, non-whites systematically replace whites across the globe). [2] All this intoxicated the public space.

The anti-racist Americans pushed back. Still, both camps used the black race roots and appearance of President Obama to their advantage: Supremacists strived to prove a growing “disenfranchisement”, whereas anti-racists strived to prove the truism that a black person can run the highest office in the country. The adversaries blew the same horn even though Obama’s mother was a white woman, and so he is half white and half black (fathered by a Kenyan immigrant). It appears that the uniting potential of his half/half background was in nobody’s interest in the nation focused on emphasizing differences rather than similarities.

The divide over the racial issue indeed characterizes the main division in American society today between conservatives and liberals, represented in the Republican and Democratic parties. The conservative camp embraces racist ideas, anti-abortion (“pro-life”) laws, unrestrained gun rights (purchase, own, carry, expose), creationism and closer ties between religion and education, opposing the LGTBQ exposure, strict law and order, and restrictive immigration policies. Liberals hold diametrically opposed views. And then comes Mr. Trump to foment the disintegration of the social fabric.

Crowdsourcing Political Power

The former President/the second-term hopeful belongs to the conservative camp but that’s only by pragmatic necessity. Trump is no ideologist and could go along with any party that feeds his interests if not the party he’d establish (an option he’s tinkered with). He is no politician either, despite riding wildly through the political circus for about a decade. If politics is an art of reconciling different interests and aggregating them into feasible governance decisions and practices, Trump isn’t there. Rather, he’s still a hard-handed business owner who views the whole country as his own business he can rule at whim.

Trump understands that managing by a stick-and-carrot method works in national politics as in organizational politics. He’s been assured so with taking over the Republican Party years ago and reassured he’s still controlling the party even after losing the election after his first term in Office, getting impeached twice in the House, and being sued multiple times for various offenses and crimes. However, Trump is still missing the differences between business and the political sphere. Society is a few orders of magnitude beyond a business firm in terms of players, interests, tactics and strategies, fight-and-flight developments, chance events, etc. Not even the largest corporation matches society in complexity. The implication is that autocratic governance of a country isn’t the same as running a centralized company. At least, an extensive mechanism of state oppression must be kept in motion to rule over citizens’ minds and bodies and contending power circles, which indeed happened in 20th-century Europe and elsewhere.

What in particular feeds Trump’s wings are his MAGA followers (Make America Great Again) – the  Trumpists, his devoted voting machine, and partly the recruitment basis for street fighters that showed up during his rule and finally stormed Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. Make no mistake of equating MAGA supporters with conservatives. For example, Trump’s Vice President Pence is a conservative but no MAGA supporter. Trumpists share conservative values and add some more. They are for strengthening the police, protectionism, isolationism, and leaning toward an authoritarian attitude and a strong leader. Trumpists uncritically buy every word of their leader, including the denial of lost 2020 elections and numerous conspiracy theories (e.g., Covid-deniers, anti-vaxxers). They ardently follow him as if he’s a cult leader, filling his rallies, spreading his word through social media, and following his marching orders to intimidate opponents if not inflict worse damage. If Trump takes aim at the institutions of the republic, the balance between legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, and even regular elections, MAGA will follow all this obediently.

Trumpists originated in the U.S. and spread to Canada, Latin America, Europe, and possibly elsewhere. I was shocked to face such people outside North America, who babbled about Trump’s messianic role in fighting evil across the world. In the U.S., typical MAGA supporters are older, retired, Christian, men, earning income at the lower middle-class level; about 30% have at least a college degree. [3] We could see former marines and police officers among violent protesters on January 6, 2021. But there are also supporters with higher academic degrees and prestigious jobs, and they are spread across the country. These insights undermine the belief that MAGA is confined to the blue-collar and rural populations.

Trumpism is a populist movement, where the leader crowdsources political power, to use the contemporary management term. A billionaire who pretends to be in the same boat as ordinary people by using various rhetorical tools. [4] The man whose hairstyling costs more than the annual salary of his typical supporter, gets under their skin by speaking simply, showing anger and hate straightly as simple guys do, mocking the political machinery in D.C. as if speaking their mind, promising to defend them against “deep state” (the usual evil suspect) as well as immigrants that take their jobs and even “eat their home pets”, assuring them of material wellbeing he’ll bring to bear and a mythical resurgence of the golden past…

He leverages this crowd-controlling power to gain support in the Republican Party and silence the traditional conservatives. Power over the masses is the reason why that party has clung to Trump despite his losses, legal troubles, and the demonstrated and still promised undermining of the American Constitution and Republic. Democrats warn about this by portraying Trump as a threat to democracy and national unity but in vain: MAGA refuses to listen, the Republican Party lost its identity, and others either don’t make sense or don’t care. Does the other side really want a democratic republic and one united nation, as liberals assume?

Civil War Prospects

Calling out civil war may sound like a pessimistic exaggeration. The term is usually associated with the war between the Union and Confederate states in the 1860s. But a hundred years later, the Civil Rights Movement and protests against the Vietnam War unfolded over the years, with violence on city streets involving opposed groups as well as establishment defenses. Half a century later, the Black Lives Matter movement arose and culminated in 2020 due to revealed cases of police brutality. It coupled with ongoing street brawls between leftist and rightist violent, armed groups. These events resemble civil war acts, even though they may not fit the orthodox definition of such a war. The upcoming elections will surely follow suit and may trigger something worse.

The ball is in Trump’s yard. If he loses, he’ll just continue to deny the regularity of elections and repeat doggedly that he won. The “Stop the Steal” protests will reemerge, lawsuits get reenacted, protesters fill the streets, right-wing armed groups awake, their leftist counterparts respond, election officials be threatened, the police and FBI become very busy, and so on. The final counting of electoral votes could be accompanied again by rampant violence. The traffic, commerce, work, education, and whole public life could be derailed for a significant period. Timing of disruptive developments could be tricky to predict so that there’s a calm before the storm (as in an old song).

Should Trump win, he’ll start to rule by pardoning himself and his supporters for various misdeeds they committed. Then, he’ll unleash a large-scale revenge against everyone who impeached him in the House, supported the impeachment in the Senate (although it didn’t pass), accused him in courts of law, and criticized him in the past four years. He’ll install loyalists in federal law enforcement institutions and the military, grab more executive powers, and fill again the innermost power circle with his family members and sycophants. Most of the mainstream media (he calls (“fake news”) will be sidelined and pressured. Tracking down undocumented immigrants and mass deportations will unfold. Enter his possible tinkering with the Constitutional right to vote, having in mind the dream of every dictator to obscure and eventually disable it. (He promised the MAGA crowd to alleviate them of the voting burden after this election.) This grave scenario might be somewhat moderated by a prospective Democrat majority in the House/Senate. Still, the American political system already skewed toward executive power will provide a broad basis for monarchic rule. Serious consequences would follow for large parts of the world as well, but that’s another topic.

 Brace for impact!

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228341417_Informing_in_the_Flat_Rough_World_Balancing_Globalization_Gone_Awry

[2] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/17/racist-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-explained

[3] https://sites.uw.edu/magastudy/demographics-group-affinities/

[4] https://www.eurasiareview.com/03112024-trumpist-conservatism-how-it-differs-from-classical-american-conservatism-analysis/

NATO 2024 Summit: Rampant Hypocrisy

 By Bob Travica

The NATO 75^th annual summit occurred on July 9-11, 2024 in Washington D.C., USA. The war in Ukraine, which has been running since February 2022, dominated the agenda. The war in Gaza, which started in October 2023, wasn’t on the agenda. Around 11,000 civilians died in Ukraine, and at least three times that number in Gaza. The former started with Russia’s response to NATO’s advancement to its borders, and the latter began with Israel’s reaction to small-scale attacks on Israel proper by fighters from Gaza (two million strong Palestinian territory within Israel, which Israel sealed from the land and sea). Russia’s war is against Ukraine’s policies of endangering Russia’s borders, while Israel’s war is against the entire Gaza population (not just the Hamas government’s military) whom most Israelis deem a lower race and terrorists. Russia wants a neutral Ukraine, whereas Israel wants an ethnically cleansed Gaza for Israeli settlers. There are accusations of Israel being an apartheid state by many, including free-thinking Israelis, as well as genocide allegations. But these alarming characteristics of the Gaza war didn’t compel NATO to put it on the agenda. Neither did the similarities between these two wars.

[ “NATO calls out the U.S., as the decisive enabler of Israel’s war on Gaza, to cease all material and political support to Israel’s war effort.” 

The NATO declaration could've read like this, had Gaza been on the agenda,         but it was not. ]

Both the Ukrainian and Israeli governments are backed by the Western powers, most notably the U.S. Both get Western weaponry, surveillance on the battlefield, military training, etc. Neither war would be possible to sustain for longer without the support of NATO countries. Therefore, they could make an impact on the Gaza war should they wish so. Moreover, both wars destabilize large geographical and geopolitical spaces, pose significant security threats, and violate the values alleged by NATO (peace, freedom, stability, democracy, rule of law). Still, NATO remained mute on the Gaza problem as there’s no single cite of “Gaza” or “Israel” in the summit’s declaration (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm). Abundant shouting and rambling about Ukraine happened beside the elephant in the room with the inscription “Gaza”. The aging military alliance chose to celebrate its jubilee in furnishings of smoke and mirrors, covered by hellish-red domes.

Peons on the Eastern Flank

No observer has paid attention to the racial dimension in the Ukrainian war. Russia is the largest Slavic nation (144 million), and Ukraine is the third (38 million). In between lies Poland (40 million) which plays a major role in NATO’s eastward expansion and support to the Kyiv government. In this war, the West succeeded in turning the second and third-largest Slavic nations against the largest one. This is important because there are differences in decision-making stemming from cultural differences between Slavs and Western races (Germanic and Latin).

Roughly speaking, an elevated emotionality outweighing rational reasoning pushes Slavs toward extreme decisions. Specifically, Ukrainian officials don’t balk at the prospect of dragging the world into an all-out war in order to beat Russia; in fact, they invite this! Getting Ukraine into NATO at wartime, would mean that 32 NATO countries would have to come to rescue, no matter that this would most likely cause a devastating nuclear war that would first wipe out Ukraine itself. This standpoint isn’t just irrational but it borders with an intelligence insufficiency.

Enter Poland. It shows eagerness to fight Russians by all means, for example as being the top dog in the American push toward an integrated NATO missile defense system. Throughout its history, Poland had been sandwiched between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and parts of it were chopped off. So, Poles’ animosity toward the conquering powers was coming in tides. It was turned against Germany which started WWII by attacking and occupying Poland (1939-1945). As Germany lost the war, sympathy turned toward Russians/Soviets who defeated Germans. Poland’s capital was promoted into the formal center of the military alliance of the Eastern block of communist countries: In 1949, the Warsaw Pact was established in response to the formation of NATO. But the period until the disbanding of the Eastern Block germinated an animosity against the former liberators, who over time came to be viewed as occupiers. Since the 1990s, the Polish tide of animosity targeted Russia, while the West (including Germany) was embraced across the board (economy, geopolitics, popular culture, military strategy). A desire for “revenge” against Russia became the backdrop to Poland’s foreign policy and is visible to the naked eye in Poland.

Note that Poland holds grudges against Ukraine due to some territorial disputes and still vivid memories of atrocities that Ukrainian Nazis, serving under the German flag, committed against Poles in WWII. But it appears willing to neglect this temporarily for the sake of the larger vengeful cause. Similarly to Ukraine, it appears that Poland is awaiting the U.S. cavalry to come and deal justice by killing the big bad bear. To the extent that Poland would be targeted by Russia’s nuclear arsenal early on in a war between NATO and Russia, Poland’s decisions aren’t less irrational than Ukraine’s. (Or they may be an effect of film-binging westerns after decades of deprivation.)

Ave, Caesar, Morituri Te Salutant

What about Russia? It certainly fits the Slavic emotional pack: the culture of protecting the grand motherland has been meticulously nurtured across generations of Russians. Even Stalin, a Georgian by nationality, understood that when his propaganda machinery crunched slogans of defending the Russian motherland against Germans in WWII rather than the Soviet Union or communism. There’s no better way to consolidate the Russian nation into a formidable fighting force than with the help of a real foreign threat; Mongols, Swedes, French, and Germans know a thing or two about this. The more NATO presses against Russia’s borders, the more it plays into the hands it tries to cut off.

Cold-blooded decision-makers in NATO’s decision rooms know how to account for nationalistic sentiments in decision-making. In the familiar divide and conquer approach, such a sentiment is an instant yeast for fomenting problems and providing self-serving solutions for them. Eager ears and willing bodies of executioners are ready, awaiting marching orders. Those ready to die are greeting you, Cezar! Cezar of our days, the aged Yankee, who’s six years older than NATO, demonstrated at the NATO summit how he still draws fatal Cold Warrish energy from sending young men to die on the battlefield.

And so, the NATO summit dropped the topic of the devastating war in Gaza, since the master said so. However, it poked China for being “a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine through its so-called ‘no limits’ partnership and its large-scale support for Russia’s defence industrial base.” NATO even dared to call out China “to cease all material and political support to Russia’s war effort.” Had Gaza been on the Summit’s agenda, the NATO declaration could also read something like this: “NATO calls out the U.S., as the decisive enabler of Israel’s war on Gaza, to cease all material and political support to Israel’s war effort.”

The key conclusion of NATO’s summit is the promise to Ukraine that it’s on an “irreversible path” to future NATO membership. Ukraine is dissatisfied as there is no clear timetable for this promise, which is actually 20 years old. In fact, there has always been a timetable: Keep fighting against Russia until you reach the line where you fall dead (“deadline”, as ordinary people call it). Too cynical? No, just realistic: Only while being outside NATO can Ukraine be manipulated as an obedient fighting peon to keep straining and weakening Russia. Therefore, the US/NATO will keep fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. 

As for the Kyiv regime, it can only hope that NATO will continue footing the war bill indefinitely or get tricked somehow to finally engage fully in the war. In any case, such a decimated Ukraine would eventually not be militarily worthy for inclusion in NATO. As for the democratic, economic, and security reforms required again for the membership, the road can even be much longer. It is no secret that Ukraine shares the destiny of the corrupted countries in East Europe, characterized by a strange mix of state, business, and organized crime structures. Therefore, the deadline for joining NATO is practically - never! It would be beneficial for Ukrainians, who awfully suffer, that their government start thinking realistically and cutting losses before these become unbearable. 

The 75^th NATO summit confirmed its historical roots – it’s an instrument of the American empire for holding Europe in a semi-colonial status. The degree of servitude Euro members exhibited by dropping the Gaza topic proves this. Israel is in Europe's backyard and wars in the Middle East endanger Europe's security. The summit also confirmed a newer principle set with the cessation of the Cold War, when NATO transformed into a hot war-mongering alliance. Isn’t this 75^th anniversary also the 25^th anniversary of NATO’s first war of aggression on a sovereign country, FR Yugoslavia? That’s when champions of the New World Order trampled over the international law and global security guaranteed by the United Nations, and imposed an “order” based on “rules” (the champions’ arbitrary decisions). At that point, the history wheel was turned back to the Middle Ages because the master could sue you, and the master could judge and sentence you.

Vivere mori! Live and die much faster with NATO as a custodian of international security.

Gazan Theater of Absurd: Executioner Playing Victim

By Bob Travica

I wouldn't change any point I made in my previous blog on Israel's invasion of Gaza weeks ago (1). Some things have changed though - both for better and for worse. As for the better, Israel's assessment of killed Israelis (used as the pretext for the aggression) was lowered by 200 down to 1,200; there was a temporary ceasefire with a release of around 100 hostages from Gaza and around 240 Palestinians from Israel's jails; and global humanity has spoken in favor of ceasefire, via mass protests and UN resolutions.

But there has been bad news too: the number of killed in Gaza went from 11,000 to over 18,000 (70% children and women), and Israel's relentless air campaign moved to the South of Gaza, which is packed with Gazans previously pushed from the North; everything collapsed in Gaza – the health system, infrastructure, and economy. Fighting guerilla-style fighters with an overwhelming military power, Israel's military is systematically turning Gaza into an unlivable rubble, torturing and massacring 2.3 million people. While apparently with no wider international support for this old-style colonial onslaught, Israel still has the support of the U.S., which keeps blocking ceasefire demands in the UN, and the EU, less decisive in support but still aboard. This is also bad news as well as is the survival of Israel's right-wing government: it is responsible for not preventing the October 7 massacre in Israel, cares not about hostages and human life on either side, tramples moderate Israelis,  and adamantly imposes an ethnic cleansing strategy on Gaza.

I finished my previous blog by citing a 2009 statement by Tel Aviv professor of social psychology Bar-Tal: "An analysis of the present situation indicates that except for a small minority, which is capable of looking at the past with an open mind, the general public is not interested in knowing what Israel did in Gaza for many years, why Hamas came to power in democratic elections; how many people were killed in Gaza from the disengagement (in 2005)…" (2)

In the present blog, I'll continue from this point.

Superiority of Eternal Victims

Bar-Tal's comment echoes today's situation. The minority he referred to is alive but less visible. Mainstream media rarely cover this side of happenings. However, social media transfer clips of Orthodox Jewish priests protesting against Israel's aggression in Gaza (3). There are videos of police beatings of anti-war protesters in Tel Aviv. Former Israeli soldiers are speaking against the war and some prominent public speakers are in agreement. However, reasonable Israelis with moderate political views are still marginalized. And so the question remains: Why is the general Israeli public not interested in knowing what Israel did and does now in Gaza? How come they can be blind and deaf to the unprecedented slaughter their military is committing upon their Arab civilian neighbors? Anytime Israeli officials or ordinary people are confronted with such horrific facts via social media, they resort to recalling the October 7 massacre, emphasizing graphic details as if the Gaza slaughter still pales against the magnitude of the crimes of Hamas/Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The well-known journalist and public speaker Gideon Levy provides an answer. He's argued for years that Israelis succumbed to "euthanasia of consciousness" over the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This is caused by deep beliefs that Jews are (1) chosen people, (2) the greatest and the only victim, and (3) superior to other people. (4) These three beliefs could be understood as being central to Israel's culture, defining the relationship between local Jews and a broad social environment and their place in history. Taking this as the lens, it may be possible to understand the attitudes and practices of Israelis who deviate from the moderate minority mentioned above. I recommend watching Levy's speeches for examples, and here are mine.

At the moment, some observers in the West agonize over the realization that half of the air bombs dropped on Gaza are "dumb" munitions designed to destroy indiscriminately whatever they hit. Why does Israel do that - wonder various commentators? The answer may be simple: Check Belief #3 above. The current government looks at Arabs/Palestinians as a lower race, sub-human, or as PM Netanyahu labels it "children of dark" who endanger "children of light" (Jews/Israelis). In my previous blog, I cited other derogatory, racist terms with which Israeli officials shower over the public. The superior people sentenced the inferior people to torture, purge, and annihilation, so the volume of casualties is irrelevant. An unpleasant reminiscence of what Jews experienced under Nazis in WWII.

In the U.S., some university administrators have been accused of tolerating anti-Semitism on university campuses; some were forced to resign by invisible players. Careful analysis of each act of students' political activism is undoubtedly needed to separate concern for basic humanity and civilian life from hate of Jews. But just listening to representatives of Jewish organizations reveals a belief that any opposition to what the official Israel is doing equals anti-Semitism. Why so? See Belief #2. Jews are always the victim, even when they victimize others.

A case in point: the UN is regularly accused by Israeli and Jewish officials for not condemning sufficiently October 7 crimes and for not initiating war crimes/genocidal proceedings over the terror inflicted on Israeli women, among other things. In a recent interview, an Israeli official asks herself why the UN acts that way and offers an answer: "Because those women are Jewish!" Again, the victim mentality surfaces as an instant explanation that preempts the space for odd details, analysis, and all that wasting of time.

I've argued from the start of this war that Israel's government has never had the liberation of hostages as a key goal. I reasoned that the invasion of Gaza was a way of covering up incompetence and mistakes that led to the security catastrophe on October 7. Instead of being sacked, Netanyahu becomes an irreplaceable war chief as long as the war runs. Then, the hostage release via negotiations happened and exposed the official swearing in the military solution to the hostage problem as a spin. The military hasn't liberated hostages, but killed three just recently, and who knows how many in total on October 7 and in Gaza tunnels. Therefore, hostages have never been a priority, and the Israelis with euthanized consciousness may not even blame the government for that. According to cultural belief #2, Jews always fall victim, and hostages are just one instance of such a destiny.

Chosen People

Belief #1, being God-chosen people, draws roots in the ancient Jewish religion: Jews are the people to whom God revealed himself and made a binding promise (covenant) with that they lead the world to the ultimate establishment of divine sovereignty over all humankind. The chosen people get rewards and punishment from God, and endure in the exclusive godly mission, waiting for the arrival of God's messiah and realization of absolute divine sovereignty. (5)

This belief may have helped Jews to survive in the diaspora under difficult and sometimes genocidal conditions; as well, it could have pushed capable individuals toward exceptional achievements of universal value. But it acquires a darker side when melted with political agendas. In particular, that of Zionism, a political movement that originated in the 19^th century in Europe, aiming at gathering Jews back in the ancestral land - today's  Israel/Palestine. Zionism unraveled a delicate balance between Jews and Arabs in the region.

After long Turkish rule was replaced by British control over Palestine, Jews from Europe poured in; in 25 years, their massive immigration changed the proportion of Jews to Arabs from 1:4 to 1:2 (6). Brits accommodated Zionists' strategy to get Jewish financial support for the U.K. effort in World War I (1914-1918); their rule in Palestine was filled with Jewish-Arab conflicts. Subsequently, Zionism was baked into the foundations of the modern Israel state and shaped its history. It triumphed right away with the expulsion of 700,000 Arabs from their homes in 1948 (nakba). Aggressive Zionism peaked again with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by an Israeli settler, because Rabin worked toward the two-state solution (creating separate states for Jews and Arabs). Zionism has carried out Illegal Israeli settlements onward, but it took a hit with the government-arranged migration of Israelis from Gaza in 2005.

Last year, right-wing parties entered the government in coalition with Netanyahu's Likud party. Newly appointed National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, and Minister of Finance/Minister in the Defense Ministry Smotrich don't hide that Gaza is to be ethnically cleansed by expelling Palestinians to Sinai in Egypt and grabbing the land there for Israeli settlers. Smotrich heads the Religious Zionism Party which claims the entire region for Israel, based on an alleged religious mission (7). Orthodox Jewish priests consider the whole construct to be rubbish (3).

At the time being, however, Israeli extremists do manipulate the chosen people belief and claim the redemption of Gaza. The Israeli public is taken hostage by the extremist government, which stirs up pain and anger toward bloodthirsty revenge. Consequently, the chosen people are shocked at the world's denial of Israel's self-proclaimed right to do whatever it wants with Gaza, and can rationalize this only through the mantra "We are always the greatest and only victim!"

Follow the Money: Qatar, Hamas, and Chosen People

How come Qatar emerged as the key negotiator (alongside Egypt) in the hostage exchange? (Note: Palestinians in Israel's jails are also hostages since they've been jailed by the Israeli occupational force, and Israel has used them in bargaining for releases of captured Israelis in the past.) Qatar has been providing financial aid to Gaza for quite some time. It took over the support role and its money has covered civic and military needs in Gaza. This was done with the full awareness of Israeli authorities.

The eye-opening investigative reporting by the New York Times exposes the strategy of the Netanyahu governments to play Hamas against Fatah, the key political forces among Palestinians, with the chief goal of disabling the two-state solution (8). Palestinians are made to keep head-butting for power, while settlers grab more land in the West Bank and the Zionist agenda gradually comes to a full fruition. To these ends, Netanyahu's Israel assisted in the money transfer to Gaza, although some Israeli politicians and security officials objected. The more the chaos - the better, that's part of the old playbook for all aspiring autocrats. These developments have been missed by Western politicians and "experts" who fire at Iran as the main culprit behind the October 7 tragedy. (Note that Iran is a Shia theocracy that props the militant organization Hezbollah, while Hamas is a nationalist organization with no religious agenda; key Hamas leaders reside in Qatar.)

At this point, we are back to the belief of being chosen people. Its political manipulation currently produces unconvincing public narratives in the form of war propaganda and international PR. Israeli authorities expect the world to believe that a few guns, air pipes, and everyday objects found in tunnels under Gaza City hospitals "prove" that these were used as Hamas military facilities. Then, the enemy is a "coward hiding behind human shields" (instead of confronting face-to-face Israeli airplanes, tanks, and cannons with infantry arms). All the while, the Israeli military "tries to minimize harm to civilians in Gaza" by warning civilians before air attacks (provided the frightened, exhausted Gazans are tuned to a proper communication channel and can evacuate swiftly themselves and their livelihood)...

In general, these lame pitches are to be taken at face value because they come from the chosen people's army called Israel Defense Force (perhaps so because all its operations are by default "defensive", as the overused refrain goes - "Israel has the right to defend itself").  The world must condone all Israel does because it's fighting on behalf of humanity against sub-humans. It's humans vs. Morlocks, stupid! (as H.G. Wells presaged in the novel "Time Machine").

To avoid any misunderstanding, my intent hasn’t been to put Israeli cultural beliefs at the surgical table. The patient in need of surgery is the distortion of these for extremist political purposes. Paradoxically, Zionism may be shooting itself in the foot. As the world condemns the invasion of Gaza, the ugly face of Zionist racism is exposed. By getting Israel ostracized, Zionist policies could weaken precisely what they are trying to strengthen – the Jewish statehood. That process as well as the ongoing criminal war on Gaza can be stopped with a change of Israel's government that survives just owing to this war.

 

(1) Travica: https://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2023/11/move-south-and-get-out-ethnic-cleansing.html

(2) Bar-Tal: https://tinyurl.com/jdnutrbs

(3) Rabbi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8

(4) Levy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EtNFXL_ykg

(5) Britannica: http://bit.ly/3GK7KBd

(6) British survey: https://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/pdf/palestine1/Arabs-of-Palestine-British-Survey.pdf

(7) Jewish Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/religious-zionism  

(8) New York Times: https://bit.ly/3TvzalD

Move South and Get Out! - Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza

By Bob Travica

On October 7, 2023, the military wing of Hamas committed crimes against Israeli citizens. That's a horrible tragedy. A day after, the Israeli government declared war on Gaza where the Hamas party is in power. We still don't know the real proportion of the October 7^th tragedy nor how it happened. How is it possible that Hamas' long preps escaped Israel's advanced surveillance system? How did long-range rockets get into the sealed Gaza ghetto before the Israeli noses? How come the military and security forces were so asleep on October 7^th? How many Israelis died at the hands of Israeli forces that day, which hit both the militants and their hostages in kibbutzim?

Three weeks later, we are witnessing an unprecedented onslaught of the Israeli military on Gaza, a tiny land strip of 360 square km, that is home to 2.3 million Palestinians. In three weeks of the war, Israel's war machine killed 9,000 civilians, nearly as much as in 20 months of the Ukraine war (1).

The Background

Gaza is practically a ghetto within the state of Israel. Israel created it via concrete walls, barbed wire fences, watchtowers, reflectors, motion sensors, and remotely controlled weaponry. There is a North exit into Israel, a South goods-only exit also to Israel, and one nearby to Egypt. Institutionally, the Gaza Strip is the result of the unsuccessful implementation of the 1947 UN resolution of partitioning the land between Palestinians and Jews after colonial rule ceased. Historically, Gaza was part of the territory called Palestine since the Roman Empire era. Beforehand, Jews originated there and called it the Land of Israel. Arabs settled in the 7^th century and controlled it until Ottoman Turks took over and ruled for five centuries. The Zionist movement was established in Europe in the 19^th century with the mission of reestablishing Israel. That happened in 1948. Jews became "Israelis," and Arabs "Palestinians." The percentage split between Israelis and Palestinians was 30:70 in the combined population of 2.7 million.

The eviction of Palestinians to neighboring countries began right away. There were wars between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt, Syria, Jordan), in which it prevailed and enlarged the territory controlled. In the short 1967 war, Israel occupied Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, previously controlled by the neighbors (Egypt ruled Gaza). Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem became Palestinian territories under Israel's occupation. In 2005, Israeli forces unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and sealed its borders (so-called "disengagement"). Insecurity and violence continued. There were Palestinian uprisings, suicide attacks in the streets of Israel, firearm battles… There were Israeli raids into Gaza, with thousands killed.

Since 1948, many negotiations, diplomatic maneuvering, declarations, and treaties unfolded. In 1974, the UN reaffirmed the 1947 resolution on land partitioning known as the "two-state solution," reasserting Palestinians' right to self-determination. While some progress was made in stabilizing relations between Israel and its neighbors, no effective resolution to Palestinian statehood has ever been reached. Israel has never accepted the condition of the "two-state solution" to pull out of the territories occupied in 1967, and the nationalists never accepted the idea of an independent Palestinian state as a neighbor.

Today, the Palestinian Territories consist of Gaza and the West Bank, both nested within Israel, numbering 5 million people; over 4 million Palestinians live in neighboring countries, including refugee camps. The Israeli Jewish population has grown 10-fold since 1948, owing to Jewish immigrants from abroad. According to the UN, the West Bank is the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel; this fact doesn't deter Jews from settling there with the support of right-wing forces, such as the nationalist Likud Party now led by Benjamin Netanyahu. "We have nowhere else to go" became the mantra of Jewish immigrants, which expressed both honest patriotism and a neo-colonialist mentality.

Hamas entered the scene in 1987 – a radical party competing with the older Fatah party and defeating it in the 2006 Gaza elections. The U.S. and its allies denied Hamas' legitimacy, branding it a terrorist organization. Still, Hamas established civil and military governance, although it hasn't been the sole force in Gaza. Palestinian political and military players range from the political left to the right. For example, Hamas is not jihadist while Palestinian Islamic Jihad is. 

Enter Iran, a regional player with a long history, and with a unique ethnicity and branch of Islam. Its involvement in regional affairs arises from contemporary ideological and longer-term political ambitions, which are carried out partly by militant agents. Iran has targeted Israel since its turning into a Shia theocracy in 1979, and it funds radicalized Palestinians (military Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). And the list of interested regional parties doesn't end here; lately, Qatar and Turkey have got aboard by supporting Hamas. 

Finally, more distant "friends" complete the picture - great powers interested in energy resources, weaponry markets for their exports, and military positioning in the strategic geographical space. The prominent ones are the U.S. and Russia/USSR. They back regional players (the US backs Israel, Russia supports Egypt and Syria). Friends request favors that hurt the other side's friends, thus the plot gets even trickier.

Looking at this history, Palestinians appear sandwiched between Israel and their neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria). Israel is hostile: it doesn't tolerate Palestinians and denies them statehood. Neighbors appear friendly but attach strings: aid is mixed with nudging radicalized Palestinians to punch Israel. Small improvements in the Middle East conundrum are short-lived and pale before the failures in solving the Palestinian issue and the continuous radicalization across the board.

Unpacking Spins

The reporting of Western liberal media is a bit better than in some other conflicts. For example, owing to the BBC, we see pictures of civilian suffering, and get reports of Gaza's authorities. Commentators don't refrain from using critical language in the context of the Israeli military's actions. Still, twisted language is persistently fed to the public and media, creating a biased picture of reality. Here are some examples of such spins unpacked.

As opposed to what we've been told, it is not just the "Hamas terrorists" that resist Israel's onslaught, but a broader coalition of fighters defending Gaza. The blanket label "Hamas" is consistently used to label Israel's enemy even when Palestinian Islamic Jihad commits acts that the Israeli government or media report. This spin may have the purpose of averting the rage of jihadists since Hamas is not part of that camp.

We keep hearing that "Israel has every right and obligation to defend itself." However, Israel formally declared war on Gaza and attacked, so it acted as the aggressor on the Palestinian territory. And the aggressor is apparently aggressive: the world witnesses how it demolishes Gaza, killing indiscriminately babies, children, and adult civilians, and destroying homes, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, everything… So, a true language would be: Israel has every right to attack and destroy with no obligation to anyone or anything.

The Israeli government declares that one strategic goal is "to dismantle Hamas" and "not to target civilians." However, the two tenets are impossible to accomplish in urban warfare within a small place like Gaza. This fact is glanced over by "Hamas uses people as human shields." So, the logical conclusion is that taking on civilians is necessary to get to Hamas (and other defenders). Therefore, the concern for civilians is baloney. 

Consistently with this, the invading aggressor "warns" Gazans to move south allegedly for their safety. To move with no possessions, food supplies, basic sanitation, shelter to count on… Actually, the aggressor just clears the way so it can move faster in its conquest, while Israel's warplanes bombard the south nevertheless. Israeli officials add insult to injury by "explaining" cynically why they shut down Gaza's infrastructure, 'Hamas controls electricity, gasoline, food, so it should release these resources to Gazans – not Israel!'

Since the declaration of "dismantling Hamas and not targeting civilians" doesn't hold water, what is the Israeli military doing really? Obviously, it slaughters Gazans and executes a criminal strategy aiming at ethnic cleansing. In the process, Gazans are severely punished, and Gaza is destroyed and made unlivable. Surviving Palestinians are to be pushed out of Gaza and Israel, probably to Egypt,  as envisioned in a leaked government document (2) and statements of some Israeli politicians. The Netanyahu nationalist government is engaged in a merciless revenge and criminal land-grab. Period.

But what about avenging the claimed 1,400 deaths and rescuing 240 hostages, as claimed? The revenge appears bottomless until the destruction and ethnic cleansing are completed. So, Israel's actions are totally disproportional to the cause of war. Indeed, this is the revenge-and-rescue spin with the purpose of whitewashing the government's failure in defending the country on October 7. The government gaslights the shocked citizenry by putting all the blame on Hamas and turning Israelis into busy, vengeful warriors. Catastrophic mistakes and incompetence are disguised by calls for retaliation and saving hostages.

"Saving hostages" is actually just another spin. The actions of the Israeli government show absolutely no care for hostages. Caring would've been demonstrated by continuing negotiations for the hostages' release in exchange for Palestinians jailed in Israel, rather than pouring 10,000 air strikes in three weeks, that endanger the hostages and enrage the kidnappers. We still need to learn how many hostages died at Israelis' hands. (3)

Duplicity Unmasked

What do powerful Western allies advise Israel? Publicly, we hear claims that the Israeli authorities are urged to avoid civilian casualties. But Israel's response has been only to increase the mayhem; 9,000 civilians were murdered in three weeks of the invasion. Israel doesn't budge: even when cautiously warned of violating laws of war, it continues terrorizing civilians from the air and on the ground. So, it follows that Israel disobeys the U.S. and other allies? Wow! But does this make any sense? Support of the U.S. is crucial for Israel (political backing internationally, military aid, deterring Hezbollah and Iran, and engaging in a broader war should it erupt).

Because it makes no sense that Israel would risk weakening/losing this support, we may assume that, behind closed doors, the U.S. officials advise something different than what they say publicly and the media is readily parroting. All the American shuffle diplomacy amounts merely to defending Israel and endeavoring to pacify the interested parties by pretending to be concerned with Palestinian civilians. The U.S. has gotten used to civilian "collateral damage" in its many wars, hasn't it? To the extent that the effects of Israel's war against Gaza qualify as war crimes or genocide, Israel's allies are accountable as well. Undoubtedly, they will use their political influence to ward off such accountability at the time of reckoning.

Israel doesn't take Palestinians as a party to negotiate with and make deals; they can't be trusted or respected as citizens and owners. Israel plans the future for Palestinians on its own, and ridicules them as "children of darkness" (Netanyahu), human animals (the minister of defense Yoav Gallant), monsters (former minister Galit Distel Atbaryan), barbaric, medieval, rats, snakes, savages... (4) Who talks like this, if not a party that views its counterpart as a lower race? This is called racism in the older vocabulary or "dehumanization" today. It implies that Gazans play no role in strategizing about the future; they must be deprived of any means of self-defense, murdered, or kicked out.

We should pause at this point and think about a broader historical picture. It suggests that history in this case repeats as a paradox. Under zionist governments, Israel has inflicted on Palestinians such policies that are eerily similar to those that Nazis imposed on Jews decades ago in Europe. This time though the tables are turned: racist Israelis terrorize Palestinians. History may be repeating also regarding the Jewish deep belief that "the whole world is against us." Sadly, the apocalyptic carnage inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza cannot help but turn the world against Israel. One can only be sorry for those Israelis and Jews elsewhere who oppose the Gaza aggression and don’t deserve such blame.

Even much softer criticism than this one enrages warmongers in Israel and right-wingers in the West. They strive to stamp "antisemitism" on any attempt at looking at history or showing concern for the Palestinian plight. The right-wing politicians and media brand millions of protestants around the world demanding a ceasefire in Gaza as "pro-Hamas" and "supporters of terrorists." The former U.S. President Trump promises that, if reelected, he'll gag "antisemitism" and cancel citizenship of politically incorrect immigrants. Right on, a revealing support from the mouth of a white supremacist! People who are blinded by rage, defensiveness, or prejudices can't grasp any of these conclusions. But these do follow the principle of giving the same respect to all the people, Palestinians and Jews alike.

The war in Gaza is a culmination of the Middle Eastern vicious cycle of violence blocking the way for resolving the problem of Palestinian statehood. It's delusional to expect that the "dismantling of Hamas" will prevent the emergence of new militants. On the contrary, the terror and obliteration of Gaza will undoubtedly extend the spiral of radicalization and violence into an unforeseeable future. Perhaps that's exactly what warmongers on both sides want. How else could they survive?

A Tel-Aviv social psychologist Bar-Tal, a researcher of mass psychology in Israel, said: "An analysis of the present situation indicates that with the exception of a small minority, which is capable of looking at the past with an open mind, the general public is not interested in knowing what Israel did in Gaza for many years, why Hamas came to power in democratic elections; how many people were killed in Gaza from the disengagement (in 2005)…" (5). No, this is not a characterization of the present war: the statement is from 2009!

1) https://tinyurl.com/5xz4ty4b

2) https://tinyurl.com/2vu9uhzm

3) https://tinyurl.com/5n7jv9hs

4) https://tinyurl.com/awzt2xxx

5) https://tinyurl.com/jdnutrbs