|
FOCUS: The US Must Stop Being an Apologist for the Netanyahu Government |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37739"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, The New York Times</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 16 May 2021 11:34 |
|
Sanders writes: "Let's be clear. No one is arguing that Israel, or any government, does not have the right to self-defense or to protect its people. So why are these words repeated year after year, war after war? And why is the question almost never asked: 'What are the rights of the Palestinian people?'"
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
The US Must Stop Being an Apologist for the Netanyahu Government
By Bernie Sanders, The New York Times
16 May 21
  srael has the right to defend itself.”
These are the words we hear from both Democratic and Republican administrations whenever the government of Israel, with its enormous military power, responds to rocket attacks from Gaza.
Let’s be clear. No one is arguing that Israel, or any government, does not have the right to self-defense or to protect its people. So why are these words repeated year after year, war after war? And why is the question almost never asked: “What are the rights of the Palestinian people?”
And why do we seem to take notice of the violence in Israel and Palestine only when rockets are falling on Israel?
In this moment of crisis, the United States should be urging an immediate cease-fire. We should also understand that, while Hamas firing rockets into Israeli communities is absolutely unacceptable, today’s conflict did not begin with those rockets.
Palestinian families in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah have been living under the threat of eviction for many years, navigating a legal system designed to facilitate their forced displacement. And over the past weeks, extremist settlers have intensified their efforts to evict them.
And, tragically, those evictions are just one part of a broader system of political and economic oppression. For years we have seen a deepening Israeli occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a continuing blockade on Gaza that make life increasingly intolerable for Palestinians. In Gaza, which has about two million inhabitants, 70 percent of young people are unemployed and have little hope for the future.
Further, we have seen Benjamin Netanyahu’s government work to marginalize and demonize Palestinian citizens of Israel, pursue settlement policies designed to foreclose the possibility of a two-state solution and pass laws that entrench systemic inequality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
None of this excuses the attacks by Hamas, which were an attempt to exploit the unrest in Jerusalem, or the failures of the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority, which recently postponed long-overdue elections. But the fact of the matter is that Israel remains the one sovereign authority in the land of Israel and Palestine, and rather than preparing for peace and justice, it has been entrenching its unequal and undemocratic control.
Over more than a decade of his right-wing rule in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu has cultivated an increasingly intolerant and authoritarian type of racist nationalism. In his frantic effort to stay in power and avoid prosecution for corruption, Mr. Netanyahu has legitimized these forces, including Itamar Ben Gvir and his extremist Jewish Power party, by bringing them into the government. It is shocking and saddening that racist mobs that attack Palestinians on the streets of Jerusalem now have representation in its Knesset.
These dangerous trends are not unique to Israel. Around the world, in Europe, in Asia, in South America and here in the United States, we have seen the rise of similar authoritarian nationalist movements. These movements exploit ethnic and racial hatreds in order to build power for a corrupt few rather than prosperity, justice and peace for the many. For the last four years, these movements had a friend in the White House.
At the same time, we are seeing the rise of a new generation of activists who want to build societies based on human needs and political equality. We saw these activists in American streets last summer in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. We see them in Israel. We see them in the Palestinian territories.
With a new president, the United States now has the opportunity to develop a new approach to the world — one based on justice and democracy. Whether it is helping poor countries get the vaccines they need, leading the world to combat climate change or fighting for democracy and human rights around the globe, the United States must lead by promoting cooperation over conflict.
In the Middle East, where we provide nearly $4 billion a year in aid to Israel, we can no longer be apologists for the right-wing Netanyahu government and its undemocratic and racist behavior. We must change course and adopt an evenhanded approach, one that upholds and strengthens international law regarding the protection of civilians, as well as existing U.S. law holding that the provision of U.S. military aid must not enable human rights abuses.
This approach must recognize that Israel has the absolute right to live in peace and security, but so do the Palestinians. I strongly believe that the United States has a major role to play in helping Israelis and Palestinians to build that future. But if the United States is going to be a credible voice on human rights on the global stage, we must uphold international standards of human rights consistently, even when it’s politically difficult. We must recognize that Palestinian rights matter. Palestinian lives matter.
 |
|
Trump, Who Thinks He's Still President, Is Bringing Back His Rallies Next Month |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 16 May 2021 08:32 |
|
Levin writes: "You might not know it from the way he spent months trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but Donald Trump actually hated being president."
Donald Trump. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Trump, Who Thinks He's Still President, Is Bringing Back His Rallies Next Month
By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
16 May 21
Get ready for unhinged attacks on Biden, Democrats, and the toilets he claims you have to flush 15 times.
 ou might not know it from the way he spent months trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but Donald Trump actually hated being president. “I loved my previous life. I had so many things going...this is more work than in my previous life,” he told Reuters in 2017. “I thought it would be easier.” Yes, it was an extremely rude awakening for the reality TV show host to learn that being president was an actual job and a pretty difficult one at that. Necessarily, he made some changes to the gig to make it more palatable to him—reportedly watching hours of TV a day, rolling up to the Oval Office at noon, not reading his intelligence briefings—but when it came to the actual work of running the country, he was not a fan. What he did like about being POTUS was the power, and he especially loved holding rallies where his supporters would hang on his every incomprehensible word and aside like he was an authoritarian ruler. So naturally, he’s bringing them back.
The New York Post reports that Trump’s team “is in the process of selecting venues” for a pair of rallies in June, with a third expected to take place around the Fourth of July. While Trump has done interviews since leaving Washington, he’s yet to address his base via the campaign-style rallies he held during his four years in office, as the Post noted, the last one being the “Stop the Steal” speech he gave shortly before his supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Joe Biden from becoming president.
What can one expect from the trio of summer events? Certainly, there will be long, rambling claims about how he won the election and that the Democrats and fake-news media stole it from him. Obviously he’ll also undoubtedly blather on at length about the terrible job Biden is supposedly doing, like he did at some poor couple’s wedding in March:
Elsewhere, odds are high to extremely high he’ll complain about not getting enough credit for the COVID-19 vaccines; attack Liz Cheney and other Republicans who had the audacity to blame him for January 6; mock the lower third of Mitch McConnell’s face; and revive his one-sided feud with showerheads and toilets. He’ll most likely also continue to tease a 2024 run for the White House.
And speaking of Trump and bids for office, Bloomberg reports that as Republicans hope to regain control of Congress in the 2022 midterms, data reveals that an endorsement from the ex-president may be the kiss of death:
The former president is studying races and plans to bestow his superlative-laden endorsements around the country in many 2022 primary or general election contests for the U.S. House, Senate, and governorships, according to a person familiar with his thinking. While those nods can still be the golden ticket in a Republican primary and solidly GOP districts, they also can energize independents and Democrats who don’t like Trump in competitive districts—risking defeat for Republican candidates in the general election and with it possible control of the House, according to studies of the 2018 and 2020 campaigns.
In Colorado, Trump’s endorsement last year of Republican senator Cory Gardner in a race that leaned Democratic helped shore up his standing among Republicans, according to David Flaherty, a Colorado–based Republican–leaning pollster and founder of Magellan Strategies. A Magellan poll in October showed Gardner had 89% support among Republicans. But Flaherty said Trump’s backing alienated unaffiliated voters who turned out in large numbers in the general election, and Gardner lost to Democrat John Hickenlooper by more than 9 percentage points. That dynamic means Trump could swing a close race the wrong way for Republicans in a suburban district by shifting blame for his actions and policies onto the GOP candidate.
Earlier this month, Trump announced his support for Susan Wright, who was running in a special election to replace her late husband, Representative Ron Wright, in a safe Republican district in Texas. He claimed that “Susan surged after I gave her an endorsement last week.” Wright was the top vote-getter but failed to avoid a runoff. In fact, almost 70% of the votes cast for Republicans in the crowded field were for someone besides Wright.
“Certainly on balance, this would suggest that an endorsement from Trump could be hurtful in the general election with independents,” Northeastern University professor David Lazer told Bloomberg. Thus far, Trump has endorsed 22 individuals for House, Senate, and statewide races, per Bloomberg, backing that may turn out to be a death blow for the candidates.
|
|
|
The Last Thing We Need Is a More Militarized Border |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59443"><span class="small">Hallam Tuck, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 15 May 2021 13:18 |
|
Tuck writes: "The hysterical talk about a 'crisis at the border' isn’t being used to make the lives of those fleeing violence and poverty any easier."
A US Border Patrol agent speaks to a group of migrants from Central America at the US-Mexico border in Roma, Texas. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
The Last Thing We Need Is a More Militarized Border
By Hallam Tuck, Jacobin
15 May 21
The hysterical talk about a “crisis at the border” isn’t being used to make the lives of those fleeing violence and poverty any easier. It’s being used to justify shoveling even more money to an enforcement apparatus whose budget has tripled in less than two decades.
f you’ve been watching the news over the past few weeks, you
might have heard that there is a crisis at the US-Mexico border.
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro
Mayorkas has already made three visits to the border since
taking office in February. In Congress, House minority leader
Rep. Kevin McCarthy has
proclaimed a “Humanitarian crisis, public health crisis
[and] national security crisis” unfolding at the US-Mexico
border.
Political concern has, in turn, spurred a wave of media
coverage. The Washington Post declared
recently that the Biden administration faced the biggest “border
surge” in twenty years, predicting that there may be as many as
“two million migrants at the southern border.” This story was
seemingly so urgent that ABC News chose to run the entirety of a
recent
edition of “This Week,” the network’s Sunday news talk
show, from the El Paso section of the border wall.
The alarming statistics presented in this media coverage are
often juxtaposed against images and videos of people in
desperate situations, living
in informal settlements, or sitting stranded in the shadow of
the border. Rhetorically, the people in these images are reduced
to floods,
waves,
or surges
threatening to overwhelm the laws, institutions, and government
officials that claim to keep us safe.
Despite this rhetoric, it is hard to know what exactly this
“crisis” amounts to. The Post’s article cites US Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) data which shows that there has been
a rise in “Southwest Land Border Encounters,” up to 172,331 in
March, surpassing the most recent peak of 144,116 in May 2019.
Yet the concept of the “Southwest Land Border Encounter” is a
novel and deeply unspecific metric. In fact, it tells us more
about the rhetorical functions of crisis — and their uses for
agencies like the CBP — than it does about unauthorized
migration.
Strange Encounters
Here, it is worth noting how much these symptoms of “crisis” in
fact owe to US government policy. Illustrative was the decision
taken last March, when the Trump administration invoked
Title 42, an arcane public health statute from 1944. Previously,
people attempting to enter the United States without
authorization were placed into legal proceedings in immigration
court. Under the authority of Title 42, however, people caught
by CBP are quickly removed to Mexico, their home country, or a
third country without meaningful due process.
In practice, Title 42 has created an unprecedented situation in
which nearly every person who is apprehended after entering the
United States without authorization, including those seeking
humanitarian protection, is immediately removed from the United
States. As a result, thousands of migrants and asylum-seekers
have become
stranded on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border.
Following the Trump administration’s decision to invoke Title
42, CBP changed the way that it reported data on unauthorized
border crossings, shifting from measuring “apprehensions” to
“Southwest Land Border Encounters.” Unlike data on
apprehensions, the encounters metric measures the number of
times CBP encountered someone who was crossing the border
without authorization or was determined to be inadmissible after
coming to a port of entry without proper documentation.
The “encounters” metric doesn’t track who was apprehended, how
many people were actually allowed to enter the United States, or
how many times any given person attempted to enter the United
States during a specific time period. While US Customs and
Border Protection hasn’t offered a detailed explanation for this
change in terminology, the term “apprehension” has a specific
definition under US immigration law. Expulsions carried
out under Title 42 don’t meet this legal standard. CBP has
seemingly developed “Southwest Land Border Encounters” as a
catchall term to describe an unprecedented practice of
extralegal removal.
In this context, data showing an increase in CBP “encounters”
cannot reliably tell us whether our present so-called crisis
reflects an increase in the absolute number of people attempting
to enter the United States, or an uptick in the number of
attempted crossings made by increasingly desperate people
stranded in a precarious humanitarian limbo.
To paraphrase
Stuart Hall, the ideological function of data on “Southwest Land
Border Encounters” is to ground free floating and controversial
impressions in the hard, incontrovertible soil of numbers. It is
a kind of rhetorical masterstroke, simultaneously raising alarm
about a “surge”
of migrants while masking the fact that the border is more
closed off to those seeking humanitarian protection than perhaps
ever before.
Crisis Management?
Yet, making sense of this data is beside the point of “crisis.”
Crisis has become a narrative rather than a descriptive device,
foreclosing any possibility of analysis. Reflecting on
Anglophone media coverage of migration in Europe since 2015,
Nick Dines, Nicola Montagna, and Elena Vaccheli suggest
that “crisis does not simply describe a set of conjunctures …
[but] when invoked, produces a set of meanings that structure
knowledge of social phenomena and crucially, shape policy
decisions and governance structures.” Crisis has become, as
Janet Roitman suggests, a kind of “diagnostic of the present,” a
way to understand and make sense of experience rather than a
signifier of a critical or decisive moment.
In the United States, the central ideological function of the
rhetoric of border crisis is to frame certain patterns of
mobility as threats to national stability, thereby invoking a
predetermined response that requires punitive policies of
deterrence and control. Rep. McCarthy’s claim that there is an
ongoing “Biden border crisis” invokes what the anthropologist
Leo R. Chavez calls the “Latino
threat,” a dominant narrative frame in which Latino
immigrants are understood as a threat to the demographic and
social stability of white-dominated American society.
Within the crisis narrative, state violence is the only
legitimate response to the threat posed by migration. As Texas
congressman Michael McCaul put it in an interview
with ABC News held in the shadow of a section of the border wall
near El Paso, “deterrence is the key here.”
By looking at periods of border crisis critically, we can see
that what is changing is less patterns of migration than the
ways in which migration is controlled and policed. In the United
States, the total number of yearly apprehensions of unauthorized
migrants peaked
in 2000, and net unauthorized migration has been zero
or negative since 2009. Yet, the scope, scale, and cost of
migration control has ballooned nonetheless.
Since 2003, the combined annual budgets of Federal immigration
enforcement agencies have nearly
tripled, and the number of people employed by both CBP and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has nearly doubled.
From 2003 to 2019, the number of people forcibly removed from
the US by ICE every year more
than doubled to 133,525. What is truly being transformed
during periods of crisis is the power of the Federal government
to surveil, control, and expel migrants.
Looking back over the past forty years, we can see how this
unending condition of crisis has dominated US immigration
policy. In an effort to combat perceptions of disorder in the
period after the Mariel Boatlift in 1981, the Reagan
administration oversaw the creation of the first modern
immigration detention facilities and began the buildup
of enforcement infrastructure that has come to dominate how we
understand the US-Mexico border. After signing the Immigration
Reform and Control Act in 1986, Reagan declared
that the “challenge to US sovereignty [posed] by the problem of
illegal immigration” had been solved.
Yet, the so-called crisis was far from over. The perception
that unauthorized immigration threatened to overwhelm public
institutions continued to dominate public opinion. In 1994, the
state of California passed Proposition
187 outlawing unauthorized immigrants from accessing
social services including health care and public education.
Later that year, a front-page
story in the New York Times declared that the
“Porous Deportation System Gives Criminals Little to Fear,”
recounting the story of Jorge Luis Garza, a Mexican immigrant
and supposed “thief, burglar, and heroin addict.”
So-called “criminal aliens” such as Garza served as powerful
specters that haunted the public imagination, producing visions
of chaos and crisis at the border. Sensing this public pressure,
the Clinton administration passed two hugely punitive
immigration reform
laws in 1996, and pursued the unprecedented militarization
of the US-Mexico border through the strategy of “prevention
through deterrence.”
In the period after September 11, 2001, the Bush administration
poured money into immigration enforcement measures, framing
border militarization as a key facet of the War on Terror. This
transformed the entire machinery of immigration enforcement, reconstituting
the Immigration and Naturalization Service as a component of the
Department of Homeland Security and creating Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) out of thin air in the process. Ten
years later, DHS was the third
largest Federal Agency, managing 225,000 employees, a $60
billion budget, and unprecedented power to enforce immigration
laws.
A Humanitarian Disaster
Even as patterns of forced displacement in Central America have
changed who is arriving at the US-Mexico border, the narrative
of border crisis has prevented us from understanding migration
as anything other than a social threat. From 2011 to 2019, the
number of children placed in the custody of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) by CBP increased
more than sevenfold. Ninety-three percent of children placed in
ORR custody in 2019 were from El Salvador, Guatemala, or
Honduras. Rather than a genuine system of humanitarian
protection and due process, the Obama administration pursued what
it described as “[a]n aggressive deterrence strategy
focused on the removal and repatriation of recent border
crossers.”
This included $3.73 billion in supplemental
funding for border enforcement and the
creation of two new ICE facilities to incarcerate women
and children. While President Obama famously remarked
that he wanted to focus immigration enforcement on “felons not
families,” in practice his administration ended up locking up a
lot of families, too.
A 2018 investigation
by the DHS Office of Inspector General found that the Obama
administration violated federal procurement laws in the rush to
set up twenty-four hundred new family detention beds at the
South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. To solve
this crisis, as then Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told
Congress in 2014, “people in Central America need to see
illegal migrants coming back.” In practice, what Johnson was
describing was the mass deportation of women and children
seeking asylum.
As long as we remain stuck in the protracted condition of
border crisis, we will only get newer and more spectacular
polices of deterrence. As ABC News correspondent Matt Gutman,
reporting on the increase in the number of minors in CBP custody
noted
unironically “the border wall has failed to contain this
humanitarian disaster.” While Federal agencies scramble to find
basic humanitarian shelter for thousands of families and
children seeking asylum, the number of people held in
immigration detention has dropped
to its lowest point in twenty years. The laws, institutions, and
infrastructures bequeathed to us by our former solutions to
crisis are entirely unfit to solve our actual problems.
What our current so-called border crisis tells us is that we
are desperately in need of a new way of making sense of the
social facts of migration. Rather than coding migration as a
racialized threat or symptom of social disequilibrium, we need
new modes of discourse and governance that understand mobility
as a basic, foundational aspect of social life. To move forward
we must reject the rhetoric of crisis.
|
|
RSN: National Coalition Vows to Fight Senate Confirmation of Rahm Emanuel to Become Ambassador to Japan |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55540"><span class="small">RootsAction, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 15 May 2021 11:30 |
|
Excerpt: "Twenty organizations announced Friday that they will launch a nationwide grassroots campaign urging senators to vote against President Biden’s expected nomination of Rahm Emanuel to be the U.S."
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. (photo: Getty Images)
National Coalition Vows to Fight Senate Confirmation of Rahm Emanuel to Become Ambassador to Japan
By Roots Action, Reader Supported News
15 May 21
 wenty organizations announced Friday that they will launch a nationwide grassroots campaign urging senators to vote against President Biden’s expected nomination of Rahm Emanuel to be the U.S. ambassador to Japan. The announcement followed reports earlier this week that Biden has decided to nominate Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who has been denounced by activists challenging police brutality.
“Emanuel's abysmal record as mayor of Chicago disqualifies him to represent the United States in a foreign capital,” a joint statement said today. “Our organizations will make sure that every senator hears, loud and clear, from constituents who will insist that this unwise nomination be rejected.”
National organizations signing the statement include Demand Progress, Justice Democrats, People’s Action, RootsAction.org, and Progressive Democrats of America. Chicago-based groups that signed the statement include The People’s Lobby and American Friends Service Committee, Chicago Office.
“We are appalled at the reported plans to nominate Rahm Emanuel as ambassador to Japan,” the statement said. “If the news reports are accurate, President Biden is on the verge of making a serious error.”
Noting that “back in March, we publicly warned against such a nomination of Emanuel,” the organizations said: “The deep concerns that we expressed at that time will now be greatly amplified. Top diplomatic posts should only go to individuals with ethics, integrity and diplomatic skills. Emanuel possesses none of those qualifications.”
The groups emphasized that “Emanuel’s disgraceful behavior as mayor of Chicago cannot be erased or ignored. At a time when the Democratic Party leadership has joined with most Americans in asserting that Black lives matter, it would be a travesty to elevate to an ambassadorship someone who has epitomized the attitude that Black lives do not matter.”
The statement added: “After being elected mayor of Chicago in 2011, Emanuel presided over a scandal-plagued administration that included the closing of 49 public schools, many in Black neighborhoods. As he faced a re-election campaign, for 13 months Emanuel’s administration suppressed a horrific dashcam video showing the death of Laquan McDonald, an African-American teenager who had been shot 16 times by a Chicago police officer as he walked away from the officer…. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: ‘Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.’”
The organizations cited a blunt comment from national NAACP President Derrick Johnson, who said: “As the former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has shown us that he is not a principled leader or person. His time in public service proved to be burdened with preventable scandal and abandonment of Chicago’s most vulnerable community.”
The national director of RootsAction.org, Norman Solomon, said Friday: “It’s stunning that just weeks after Biden made eloquent pleas for an end to police violence against African Americans, the president has reportedly decided to nominate Rahm Emanuel to an important diplomatic post. In view of his record as Chicago’s mayor, the nomination of Emanuel would undermine those pleas, sending exactly the wrong message about political opportunism and institutional racism.”
Below is the full text of the joint statement and a list of the signing organizations.
Statement from Coalition of Organizations Regarding President Biden's Reported Plans to Nominate Rahm Emanuel as Ambassador to Japan
We are appalled at the reported plans to nominate Rahm Emanuel as ambassador to Japan. If the news reports are accurate, President Biden is on the verge of making a serious error. Emanuel's abysmal record as mayor of Chicago disqualifies him to represent the United States in a foreign capital. Our organizations will make sure that every senator hears, loud and clear, from constituents who will insist that this unwise nomination be rejected.
Back in March, we publicly warned against such a nomination of Emanuel. The deep concerns that we expressed at that time will now be greatly amplified:
Top diplomatic posts should only go to individuals with ethics, integrity and diplomatic skills. Emanuel possesses none of those qualifications…. Whether in federal or municipal office, he has been known for his abrasive, arrogant style of wielding power.
Emanuel’s disgraceful behavior as mayor of Chicago cannot be erased or ignored. At a time when the Democratic Party leadership has joined with most Americans in asserting that Black lives matter, it would be a travesty to elevate to an ambassadorship someone who has epitomized the attitude that Black lives do not matter. After being elected mayor of Chicago in 2011, Emanuel presided over a scandal-plagued administration that included the closing of 49 public schools, many in Black neighborhoods. As he faced a re-election campaign, for 13 months Emanuel’s administration suppressed a horrific dashcam video showing the death of Laquan McDonald, an African-American teenager who had been shot 16 times by a Chicago police officer as he walked away from the officer…. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.”
National NAACP President Derrick Johnson said: “As the former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has shown us that he is not a principled leader or person. His time in public service proved to be burdened with preventable scandal and abandonment of Chicago’s most vulnerable community.”
Signing organizations
American Friends Service Committee, Chicago Office
Arab American Action Network
Blue America
Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
Chicago Area Peace Action
Chicago Committee Against War and Racism
Demand Progress
Just Foreign Policy
Justice Democrats
Muslim Delegates and Allies Coalition
Other98
Peace Action
People's Action
Progressive Democrats of America
RootsAction.org
The People's Lobby
United for Peace and Justice
U.S. Palestinian Community Network
World Beyond War
|
|
war is when two antagonists fight one another all-out, until in fairly short order one wins and the other loses. On December 11, 1941, Mussolini declared war on the United States. Then later on the US invaded Italy from Tunisia under Gen. Patton. On July 25, 1943, Mussolini lost power and King Emmanuel admitted that the war was lost. That is a war. Two armies, a big fight and a win or loss.
