WILL BIDEN STAY IN BIBI’S POCKET?

 

By Ray McGovern.

May 22, 2021

https://popularresistance.org/will-biden-stay-in-bibis-pocket/

Netanyahu’s own words, videotaped two decades ago, show his disdain for the malleability of former U.S. presidents. As it turns out, Netanyahu had good reason to hold them in contempt as he “maneuvered” around them to ensure unstinting American support for status-quo Israeli domination of the Palestinians.

How about now? Will he see President Biden as a wimp, with Biden’s mealy-mouthed comment to Netanyahu earlier today that Biden “expects to see a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire” in Gaza.

If past is precedent, Netanyahu’s likely response will be a half-polite, “Joe, please take that and shove it … and oh, by the way, I meant to thank you for your proposed sale of $735 million-worth of smart bombs a couple of weeks ago. It came at just the right time for me.”

You readers will be quick to point out, Netanyahu could not survive, were the U.S. to stop its misconceived, lemming-like, unprecedentedly generous support for Israel. And you would be correct. Still, the odds are against anything more effective than pious calls for steps “on the path to a ceasefire”, until Israeli forces accomplish what the Israelis now admit they have long planned to achieve in Gaza.

Here’s Why

Netanyahu thought the camera/sound was off 20 years ago, when he spoke with unspeakable candor to a small private group, explaining, “America is a thing that can be easily moved … moved in the right direction. They [Americans] will not bother us.”

In this 5-minute video, leaked and aired on Channel 10 News in Israel, Netanyahu in 2001 discussed the Oslo Accords, the peace process, Bill Clinton, and Israel’s power to move the U.S. “in the right direction’.

Translation (based on the subtitles) follows, with Netanyahu in bold.

“The Arabs now are preparing a campaign [war] of terror, and they think that this will break us.

“The main thing is, first and foremost, to hit them hard.

“Not just one hit … but many painful, so that the price will be unbearable.

“The price is not unbearable now.

“A total assault on the Palestinian Authority.

“To bring them to a state of panic that everything is collapsing.

“ … fear that everything will collapse … this is what we’ll bring them to …

[Woman interrupts: But wait a minute. At that point the whole world will say, ‘What are you, occupiers?]

“The world will say nothing. The world will say we are defending ourselves.

[Woman: ‘Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

“No.

“Especially now with America, I know what America is.

“America is a thing that can be easily moved … moved in the right direction.

“They [Americans] will not bother us.

“Let’s suppose they [Americans] will say something to us – Israelis … so they say it … [so what?].

“80 percent of the Americans support us.

“It’s absurd. We have such [great] support there!

“And we say … what shall we do with this [support]?

“Look, the other administration [that of Clinton] was pro-Palestinian in an extreme way.

“I was not afraid to maneuver there. I did not fear confrontation with Clinton.

“I was not afraid to clash with the UN.” …

Netanyahu then goes on to explain how he exploited a loophole in the Oslo Accords (regarding which side defines what a “military site” is), and that, in Netanyahu’s words is how “I actually stopped the Oslo Accords.” (The Accords provided, among other things, for phased withdrawal of Israeli troops.)

What About Now?

We will soon find out not only if there is any “significant de-escalation”, but also if there is any significant change in who is calling the shots now — Bibi or the U.S. president.

Those who want really significant change had better show that they care enough to get out in the streets.

Otherwise, nothing “significant” will happen, and the Israeli military will continue to “mow the grass” in Gaza, unhindered — and with a Netanyahu-type smirk on their faces. ( See: https://consortiumnews.com/2021/05/16/26686/. ) And Biden will have shown that, like his predecessors, he lacked the courage and the will to climb out of Bibi’s pocket.

Expert At Surprises: Is Iran Next?

Again, if past is precedent …

Blindsiding other countries has long been a favorite arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deceptions, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories.

Few Americans realize that we in U.S. intelligence had long since concluded that Israel had been grossly exaggerating the Arab “threat” in early 1967. Fifteen years later, in 1982, former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel, in fact, had prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders. In today’s fluid, unpredictable circumstances, President Biden would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may provide that he will not go for broke and launch a surprise attack on Iran. (See: https://consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html for additional background)

You Don't NEED MARX in order to CRITIQUE Markets!! (Richard Wolff Interview and Post-Debate talk!!)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaJQr9dums

THE END OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

By Pedro Cabán, Dissent Magazine

May 22, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/the-end-of-the-commonwealth-of-puerto-rico/



U.S. Representatives Have Introduced Two Bills That Would Finally End Puerto Rico’s Subordinate Commonwealth Status.

But continued colonial rule may be the only option Congress seriously considers.

The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on April 14, 2021, on two bills that propose to end Puerto Rico’s status as an unincorporated territory of the United States: H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, and H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021. Under H.R. 1522, Puerto Rico would hold a referendum, with a transition to statehood if the electorate chooses that territorial option. H.R. 2070 does not specify territorial options; instead, delegates elected to a Puerto Rican Status Convention would draft a list of self-determination options, and a referendum would be held for voters to select the preferred option. According to Senator Bob Menendez, a cosponsor of H.R. 2070, the available options include “statehood, independence, a free association or any option other than the current territorial arrangement.” Both measures would obligate Congress to abide by the Puerto Rican people’s decision on their country’s territorial status.

The hearings signaled a shift in the government’s approach toward Puerto Rico. For the first time, Congress has introduced legislation that excluded the Estado Libre Asociado (“Free Associated State,” commonly known as the Commonwealth) as a territorial option. ELA emerged during the Cold War as a way to refute the Soviet Union’s credible denunciation of the United States as a colonial power. The Truman administration asked Congress in 1950 to vote for Public Law 600 (the enabling legislation for ELA) because, in “view of the importance of ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ in anti-American propaganda,” passage of the bill would have “great value as a symbol of the basic freedom enjoyed by Puerto Rico.” Puerto Rican Governor Luís Muñoz Marín said that ELA “will free both Puerto Ricans and the people of the rest of the states of the malicious accusation of colonialism so constantly wielded against them by Communist groups in Latin America.” After signing PL 600 into law, President Truman triumphantly announced that “full authority and responsibility for local self-government will be vested in the people of Puerto Rico.” ELA was officially established on July 25, 1952, exactly fifty-four years after the day U.S. Army General Nelson A. Miles landed with an invasion force in the coastal town of Guánica during the Spanish–American War.

Yet Puerto Rico’s autonomy was always provisional. Congress did not relinquish its constitutionally delegated powers over the territories. It merely allowed Puerto Ricans to “organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.” In fact, Puerto Ricans ratified a constitution that effectively consented to their continued colonial subjugation. For the Truman administration, passage of the Commonwealth bill was of “the greatest importance . . . in order that formal consent of the Puerto Ricans may be given to their present relationship to the United States.” Bluntly put, ELA was an instrument to prove that the colonized formally accepted U.S. colonial rule.

Nonetheless, for seven decades the United States has portrayed ELA as providing Puerto Rico with self-governing powers. As recently as 2011, the President’s Task Force on Status reported that the Commonwealth “has significant local political autonomy” and reported that “such autonomy should never be reduced or threatened.”

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Puerto Rico’s strategic and ideological value for the United States quickly faded, as did any urgency to sustain the colony economically. By 2006 the United States had closed the massive Roosevelt Roads Naval Station and terminated preferential tax policies that had lured multinational corporations to the archipelago. Both decisions resulted in a precipitous decline in gross national income, and Puerto Rico began its descent into a protracted recession. In a risky effort to reverse the dramatic contraction in revenue, the colonial government borrowed excessively from the U.S. institutional bond market. But Puerto Rico’s depleted economy could not sustain the burden of escalating debt. Successive administrations utilized the fiscal autonomy Congress had granted Puerto Rico to enact draconian austerity measures in a failed effort to restore fiscal solvency, but the deep cuts to government employment and services failed to reduce the debt overhang.

After years of punishing austerity measures, Puerto Ricans began to grasp the reality that their political class owed its allegiance to foreign capital and not to unemployed workers, struggling pensioners, or poverty-stricken families. Puerto Ricans also learned that ELA, irrespective of which party controlled the levers of government, was not up to the task of managing the fiscal crisis. ELA was exposed for what it was: an instrument for colonial management that had outlived its purpose.

On November 6, 2012, indignant Puerto Ricans voted the pro-statehood governor Luis Fortuño out of office. But in a referendum held on the same day, 54 percent of the electorate voted against Puerto Rico keeping its current territorial status. A majority had abandoned hope that ELA could be refurbished for the modern era, but they switched back and forth in support of statehood and Commonwealth parties in the hope that each new administration would not be marred by the ineptitude, corruption, and penchant for austerity of its predecessor.

The federal government was also coming to the conclusion that change was needed to resolve the fiscal crisis. But the United States was convinced that Puerto Rico’s political leaders were wholly to blame. In 2016 the Obama administration enacted PROMESA, which rescinded the informal fiscal autonomy Congress has granted Puerto Rico in 1952. The law authorized the president to appoint a Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) that was required “to provide a method” for Puerto Rico “to achieve fiscal responsibility and access to capital markets.” The FOMB “holds supremacy over any territorial law or regulation that is inconsistent with the Act or Fiscal reform plans.”

Puerto Ricans, who have no representatives in Congress, were excluded from the deliberations and drafting of a law that would have catastrophic consequences for many in the archipelago. PROMESA negated Truman’s declaration in 1952 that “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be a government which is truly by the consent of the governed.” But Obama did not have to revoke PL 600, because the law never restricted “the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause to determine the application of Federal law to Puerto Rico.” Congress simply allowed Puerto Rico’s political class to manage the colony’s finances—until this policy of benign neglect resulted in a major crisis for U.S. institutional investors.

In major popular mobilizations in Puerto Rico over the last few years, protesters have expressed their opposition to both the local political elite and Washington. In other words, they are rejecting the entire system of colonial rule. For Puerto Ricans protesting the Rosselló administration in the summer of 2019, ELA no longer had any legitimacy. A popular chant captured their antipathy to the Commonwealth: “Sí, sí, ELA se murió, y el pueblo lo enterró” (“Yes, yes, ELA died, and the people buried it”).

But if ELA is dead, how long will it lay in state? Will it ever be interred?

Senators on both sides of the aisle have already expressed their opposition to statehood, including Senator Chuck Schumer, who said that he is “not going to support their statehood bill.” Even if Congress agreed to accept the results of a referendum, it is doubtful it would commit to admitting Puerto Rico into the union on the basis of a simple majority vote, as H.R. 1522 provides. In the absence of overwhelming popular support for statehood, Congress will not act.

Requiring congressional acceptance of a referendum is the Achilles heel of both bills under consideration. Over thirty years ago, Congress debated territorial status legislation that contained a “self-executing provision,” obligating Congress to accept the referendum results. The legislation was delayed until the binding requirement was removed from both the House and Senate versions of the bill. The House approved the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act in 1991, but the bill died in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. The New York Times reported that Republican senators “feared that a Puerto Rican state would send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress.” Some senators were also convinced that granting statehood to Puerto Rico “would give momentum to a campaign to grant statehood to the District of Columbia.” Others questioned the costs of sustaining the state of Puerto Rico, where almost half the population would qualify for welfare benefits. All these issues will loom over the forthcoming congressional deliberations on status legislation.

The Supreme Court decided in 1901 not to incorporate Puerto Rico as a territory because it was “inhabited by alien races.” Racism has long influenced U.S. treatment of Puerto Rico, all the way through the 1991 status referendum legislation. After the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy declined to support the status bill, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan denounced the behavior of his colleagues as the “most shameful display of nativism I have yet to encounter in 15 years in the Senate. One Senator after another took occasion to say he was not sure Puerto Ricans belong in American society.” He condemned comments by colleagues who believed that Puerto Ricans “do not fit culturally” in the United States.

And racism continues to shape the question of Puerto Rico’s status today. Soon after Hurricane María devastated Puerto Rico, President Trump launched a barrage of demeaning statements about the archipelago and its people. Just months before the 2020 election, Trump threatened to sell Puerto Rico because it “was dirty and the people were poor.” By its silence, the Republican Party endorsed Trump’s racist comments—and we shouldn’t be surprised if nativism rears its head again in the debates about territorial status that lie ahead.

What are Puerto Rico’s realistic territorial options? Rubén Berríos, President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, raised an issue at the Senate committee hearings in 1991 that is just as relevant today: the real issue is what type of relationship the United States should have with a “people who constitute a historically distinct nationality, inhabiting a separate and distinct territory, who speak a different language, who aspire to maintain a separate identity and happen, through no choice of their own, to be citizens of the U.S.” History suggests that although the Estado Libre Asociado is dead, continued colonial rule may well be the only option Congress will seriously consider.

WHO Says Covid Has Killed 6 to 8 Million People—Two to Three Times More Than Officially Reported

"Achieving equal global vaccination is imperative, or the risk of a more virulent or transmissible variant remains high," the agency said. "No one is safe until everyone is safe."


by
Kenny Stancil, staff writer




https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/21/who-says-covid-has-killed-6-8-million-people-two-three-times-more-officially

Official reports of the number of deaths caused by Covid-19 are likely a "significant undercount," according to the World Health Organization, which estimated Friday that the pandemic's total global death toll is between six and eight million people so far.

As of Friday, the coronavirus had officially claimed the lives of more than 3.4 million individuals worldwide, the WHO said. When unreported Covid-19 deaths as well as deaths due to Covid-19's effects on mobility and hospital capacity are accounted for, however, the United Nations agency argued that the true toll could be two to three times higher.

In its annual World Health Statistics report (pdf), the WHO estimated that in 2020, at least three million deaths could be attributed, both directly and indirectly, to Covid-19. That's 1.2 million more than last year's official count of 1.8 million Covid-19 deaths.

Focusing on excess mortality—which includes correctly certified Covid-19 deaths as well as unreported and incorrectly attributed ones, plus deaths due to the negative impacts of the virus on daily life and healthcare systems—"provides a more accurate picture of the full impact of the pandemic," the health agency wrote.

"Total deaths are at least two to three times higher than officially reported," Samira Asma, WHO assistant director-general in charge of data, told reporters, according to Al Jazeera.

Now, with Covid-19 ravaging Latin America and Asia as new coronavirus variants spread, Asma estimated that "about six to eight million deaths" could be attributed to the pandemic.

Asma added that the WHO is collaborating with countries "to understand the true human toll of the pandemic so we can be better prepared for the next emergency."


Some of the biggest barriers to accurately calculating the pandemic's death toll, Reuters reported, include "the lack of reliable systems to log deaths in many countries," as well as the fact that "in many cases people had died from Covid-19 before they had been tested for the virus."

Still, the tendency to overlook indirect deaths means that "even in regions with relatively reliable reporting systems, undercounts were likely," the news outlet noted. Reuters continued:


The WHO estimated 1.1 to 1.2 million excess deaths in the European region during 2020, double the 600,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.

In the Americas, the number of excess deaths was 1.3 to 1.5 million during 2020, 60% higher then the reported 900,000 Covid-19 death toll in that region.

The WHO's raised estimates of the pandemic's total global death toll come less than three weeks after the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said that "our analysis estimates that by May 3, 2021, the total number of Covid-19 deaths was 6.93 million, a figure that is more than two times higher than the reported number of deaths of 3.24 million."

As the WHO noted Friday in its new report, "Pre-pandemic inequalities have driven the unequal global distribution of vaccines and run the risk of perpetuating the pandemic, which in turn has amplified existing inequality."

"Achieving equal global vaccination is imperative, or the risk of a more virulent or transmissible variant remains high," the agency added. "No one is safe until everyone is safe."

Role of copper in CIA coup against Chile's elected socialist President Salvador Allende

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX4LoQpyovw

Progressives to Biden: 'You Are Making a Huge Mistake' by Weakening Infrastructure Proposal

"If Democrats learned anything from the past ten years, it has to be that negotiating against ourselves doesn't work," said one climate justice advocate.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer





https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/21/progressives-biden-you-are-making-huge-mistake-weakening-infrastructure-proposal




Progressives called it a "huge mistake" Friday after the White House announced President Joe Biden had preemptively slashed his own infrastructure proposal by approximately $600 billion in order to appease Republicans and some corporate-friendly Democrats in the U.S. Senate.



"President Biden knows this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make real change, which is why he campaigned on a bold climate vision and began his administration with a historic Covid relief bill," said Ellen Sciales, press secretary for Sunrise Movement. "He can't follow that up by going small and selling out our multiracial, cross-class movement of working people to compromise with politicians who would rather ensure billionaires get tax cuts than make sure we get paid a living wage."

Biden's offer to downsize his American Jobs Plan, described by progressives as already inadequate, from $2.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion—including reduced investments in sorely needed broadband, among other projects—came just days after congressional Republicans missed the president's Tuesday deadline to provide him with their own counter-proposal.

Progressive critics argued that Biden's unprompted embrace of spending cuts is a political disaster that threatens to undermine the nation's attempt to recover from the pandemic-driven economic downturn and to confront the looming climate emergency.

"If the president continues down this path, how will he justify his choices to the workers, caregivers, climate refugees, and so many other members of our communities who need support to survive?" asked Kaniela Ing, climate justice campaign director at People's Action.

Arguing that "we need to Build Back Better, not Build Back in Bad Faith," Greenpeace USA climate campaigner Ashley Thomson emphasized the need to "build on and go bigger than the vision President Biden offered on the American Jobs Plan—not capitulate to bad-faith negotiations from Republicans that want us to compromise on justice, on climate, and on our futures."

"Millions of voters have given the Biden administration a mandate to be bold and tackle the interlocking crises facing our country—the continued fallout from Covid-19, racial injustice, economic inequality, and the worsening climate crisis," Thomson added. "Even more, our movement has given Washington the THRIVE Act, a blueprint for creating 15 million jobs while furthering racial and economic justice."

As Sciales noted: "Not a single Republican senator voted for the popular, much-needed Covid relief package and Democrats passed it anyway. That's the correct strategy. Democrats must take their power seriously and do what's needed with or without the GOP."


Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, said in a statement that "Republicans are not a serious governing party and the Biden administration should stop treating them like one."


Earlier this week, several Democratic lawmakers advocated for quickly enacting a robust and comprehensive infrastructure package regardless of whether their right-wing colleagues approve of it."Since the moment Biden took office, Republicans have shown they are more interested in lying about the last election than in solving today's crises," Epting added.

"While bipartisan support is welcome, the pursuit of Republican votes cannot come at the expense of limiting the scope of popular investments," 60 House Democrats wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—whom Sciales earlier this month chastised for engaging in "performative negotiations" with the likes of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has already vowed to oppose any spending proposals that include even modest tax hikes on the richest Americans and corporations.

In her statement Friday, Sciales said that "if Democrats learned anything from the past ten years, it has to be that negotiating against ourselves doesn't work."

"Let's not mince words: this is a demonstrable failure of a political strategy," she said of Biden's latest offer. "We can't repeat the same mistake and expect a different result."

"Our message to President Biden is simple: you are making a huge mistake," said Sciales. "Voters in 2022 and 2024 will not ask whether you were nice to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine); they will look to whether or not you dealt with the climate crisis and created millions of new union jobs when you had the chance."

Americans REALLY Want Higher Taxes On The Rich

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL-rUlfyuZY