Destruction caused by an Israeli airstrike in Al-Maghazi refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, 15 July 2024. Photograph: Xinhua/REX/Shutterstock
International law is clear: we have an obligation to prevent genocide. That is why I have tabled an amendment to the king’s speech
Whenever I see the heart-wrenching aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza – a Palestinian mother cradling the lifeless body of her child; a refugee camp engulfed by fire – I ask myself the same question. Were British-made weapons used to inflict this horror?
This is just one example of Israel’s use of British-made arms in its assault on Gaza. But after almost 10 months and 38,000 Palestinians killed, to their eternal shame the Conservatives left office refusing to suspend arms sales. This responsibility now falls to Labour.
Our new government must do the right thing and stop enabling Israeli war crimes. That is why today, as a backbench Labour MP, I am tabling an amendment to the king’s speech calling on colleagues to uphold international law and suspend arms sales to Israel.
There is no time to waste. This past week has been “one of the deadliest” since Israel’s assault began, according to Unrwa, the UN aid agency for Palestinians. We must urgently pull every lever and strain every sinew to pressure the Israeli government to abide by international law and end this assault. This is not simply a moral duty, but a legal one too.
Consider again the F-35. The Israeli military has armed these jets with 2,000lb bombs, explosives with a lethal radius up to 365m – an area the equivalent of 58 football pitches. A recent UN report identified these bombs as having been used in “emblematic” cases of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Gaza that “led to high numbers of civilian fatalities and widespread destruction of civilian objects”. In lawyerly understatement, the UN said this raises “serious concerns under the laws of war”.
And this is where our arms export laws come in. As our new foreign secretary, David Lammy, himself said a few months ago: “The law is clear. British arms licences cannot be granted if there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.” Without doubt this threshold has been met, hence why UN experts have called for arms exports to Israel to immediately stop.
Immediately after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, when little was known about the white male shooter (except that he was a registered Republican), right-wing politicians directly blamed Democratic rhetoric for the shooting.
“Today is not just some isolated incident,” Sen. J.D. Vance wrote on X (7/13/24), just days before Trump named him as his running mate:
The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.
(That Trump might be considered a fascist did not always seem so far-fetched to Vance; in 2016, he privately worried that Trump might become “America’s Hitler”—Reuters, 7/15/24.)
“For years, Democrats and their allies in the media have recklessly stoked fears, calling President Trump and other conservatives threats to democracy,” Sen. Tim Scott posted on X (7/13/24). “Their inflammatory rhetoric puts lives at risk.”
Rather than denounce both the assassination attempt and these hypocritical and opportunistic attacks on critical speech, the country’s top editorial boards cravenly bothsidesed their condemnations of “political violence.”
‘Unthinkably uncivil’
The Washington Post (7/14/24) described Trump’s exhortation to “remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness” as a call for “national unity.”
In an editorial headlined, “Turn Down the Heat, Let in the Light,” the Washington Post (7/14/24) praised Donald Trump for appearing to call for national unity. The Post wrote that the assassination attempt offered Trump the chance to “cool the nation’s political fevers and set a new direction.”
The editorial board quickly admonished both sides equally for “unthinkably uncivil” actions and “physical violence.” They pointed to protesters who “harass lawmakers, justices, journalists and business leaders with bullhorns at their homes,” universities that have “become battlegrounds,” and the “bipartisan hazard” of political violence, citing Nancy Pelosi’s husband and GOP Rep. Steve Scalise.
(The link the Post inserted leads to an earlier editorial in which they condemned peaceful protests outside Supreme Court justices’ houses as “totalitarian,” and recommended that the protesters be imprisoned—FAIR.org, 5/17/22).
New York Times editors, meanwhile, called the shooting “Antithetical to America” (7/13/24), a formulation clearly more aspirational than actual. “Violence is antithetical to democracy,” the editorial board wrote, acknowledging moments later that “violence is infecting and inflecting American political life.” They explained:
Acts of violence have long shadowed American democracy, but they have loomed larger and darker of late. Cultural and political polarization, the ubiquity of guns and the radicalizing power of the internet have all been contributing factors, as this board laid out in its editorial series “The Danger Within” in 2022. This high-stakes presidential election is further straining the nation’s commitment to the peaceful resolution of political differences.
It’s a remarkable obfuscation, in which responsibility is ascribed to no one and—as at the Post—everyone.
Curiously, the 2022 editorial series the Times cites (11/3–12/24/22) did make clear where most of the responsibility lay, explaining that “the threat to the current order comes disproportionately from the right.” It pointed out that of the hundreds of extremism-related murders of the past decade, more than three-quarters were committed by “right-wing extremists, white supremacists or anti-government extremists.” While there have been occasional attacks on conservatives (like the attack on a congressional baseball game that wounded Scalise), the Times noted,
the number and nature of the episodes aren’t comparable, and no leading figures in the Democratic Party condone, mock or encourage their supporters to violence in ways that are common from politicians on the right and their supporters in the conservative media.
But two years later, the Times, like the Post, carefully avoids bringing that much-needed clarity to the current situation and apportions responsibility for avoiding political violence equally to both sides:
It is now incumbent on political leaders of both parties, and on Americans individually and collectively, to resist a slide into further violence and the type of extremist language that fuels it. Saturday’s attack should not be taken as a provocation or a justification.
Of course, there’s a crucial difference between criticizing Trump and his allies for their anti-democratic positions and actions—which is what the Democrats and the left have done—and actually threatening and calling for violence, as the right has been doing.
The list of examples is nearly endless, but would prominently include Trump’s incitement of violence at the Capitol on January 6; his personal attacks on prosecutors, judges and politicians who have subsequently required increased security protections; and his refusal to rule out violence if he loses the 2024 election: “If we don’t win, you know, it depends.” His supporters have repeatedly called for armed uprisings after perceived attacks on Trump, including immediately after the assassination attempt.
That’s why it’s critical that leading newspapers push back against right-wing attempts to equate criticisms of Trump with calls for violence.
‘Grossly irresponsible talk’
The Wall Street Journal (7/14/24), unsurprisingly, took this bothsidesism the farthest.
Leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms. Democracy won’t end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions.
We agree with former Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement Saturday night: “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy—he is not.”
Readers of those top US papers would have to look across the pond to the British Guardian (7/14/24) for the kind of clear-eyed take newspaper editors with concern for democracy ought to have: “There must also be care that extreme acts by a minority are not used to silence legitimate criticism.”
J.D. Vance was chosen as Trump’s Vice President, one of the most right-wing options for the ticket (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
At its National Convention, the leading conservative party in the US promotes its presidential ticket and ultra-conservative platform
The Republican National Convention, started on July 15, will continue until July 18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The RNC officially confirmed former President Donald Trump as their nominee for the 2024 presidential elections, to take place in November.
Many in the US, of all political tendencies, were increasingly giving up on the prospect of a second Biden presidency even before Trump’s attempted assassination largely due to Biden’s disastrous debate performance and several political gaffes surrounding the NATO Summit. The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago from August 19 to 22, where the Democrats will officially select their nominee for the presidency. Until the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, Biden’s incumbent status and victory in the primary elections made him essentially a shoe-in for the nomination. Since then, Biden’s nomination has been widely called into question.
Trump’s second presidency seems increasingly inevitable, with polls from recent days predicting a clear Trump victory. Much of the RNC has been dedicated to deifying Trump, who was notably ridiculed by the Republican Party establishment when he first ran for president in 2016. Trump’s own pick of Vice President, Ohio Senator and bestselling author J.D. Vance, once lamented privately to a friend that he was not sure if Trump was simply a “cynical asshole” or “America’s Hitler.”
Vance and the “America First” comeback
Vance refused to vote for Trump in 2016. But like most of the Republican Party, even the most established and powerful figures within the party have fallen in line behind Trump. Even Marco Rubio, who ran a vicious primary campaign against Trump in 2016, hoped, in vain, to become Trump’s VP.
However, Vance has since become one of the most conservative politicians in Congress, fully embracing what has become known as the “America First” political ideology. This conservative tendency is a break from the “neo-conservative” ideology that brought some of the most brutal foreign interventions in US history, such as the invasion of Iraq. In contrast, “America First” is characterized by isolationism, including a fierce opposition towards military aid to Ukraine. However, while “America First” politicians reference policies that could ostensibly benefit workers, such as lowering inflation and cutting on foreign military aid, these politicians have no issue promoting New Cold War policies against China, or chipping away at the little social spending that exists in the US.
“Our God still delivers, and he still sets free. Because the devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle, but the American lion got back up on his feet,” said Senator Tim Scott, also a former Trump VP hopeful, on the first day of the convention, referring to the assassination attempt against the former president.
With its total capitulation to the ideology of Trump’s campaign and his base, the Republican Party seems to be attempting to mask a widely unpopular policy platform behind a pro-worker facade.
Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien addressed the convention on Monday, becoming the first Teamsters leader to speak at the Republican National Convention. O’Brien did not outright endorse him, and has reportedly also asked to speak at the DNC. According to a Teamsters spokesperson, the DNC has yet to accept that request.
The Republican Party is notoriously hostile to organized labor, responsible for some of the harshest anti-union legislation in the world, leaving workers in conservative states uniquely susceptible to exploitation. Workers in so-called “right to work” states, where unions are prohibited from ensuring every worker who enjoys union benefits pay union dues, weaken the power of trade unions in those states. Republican-controlled states often have less regulations on corporate greed across the board, with some of the lowest minimum wages in the country.
RNC platform proudly embraces xenophobia and militarism
Despite the RNC’s appeals to workers, the RNC is promoting one of the most politically backwards platforms as it puts its full support behind some of the most ultra-conservative politicians in the country. The Republicans put their attack on migrants front and center in their policy platform, pledging to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history,” as well as completing Trump’s border wall (which Biden continued to build).
Indeed, the platform, while emphasizing isolationism, also does not shy away from furthering US militarism. “Keeping the American People safe requires a strong America. The Biden administration’s weak Foreign Policy has made us less safe and a laughingstock all over the World,” the platform states. “The Republican Plan is to return Peace through Strength, rebuilding our Military and Alliances, countering China, defeating terrorism, building an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield, promoting American Values, securing our Homeland and Borders, and reviving our Defense Industrial Base.”
Vance’s selection as VP, as one of the most conservative options that Trump could have possibly gone with, also signals the further entrenchment of the Republican Party with its ultra right-wing. “Vance’s nomination to be Trump’s running mate signals that the Republicans are doubling down on their false appeal as fighters for working people. In reality Vance is a Silicon Valley capitalist committed to militarism and boosting the profits of big business. His appointment, rather than a figure who would be considered more moderate like Doug Burgum, suggests that hardline repressive policies like a mass deportation campaign are likely under a potential second Trump administration,” Walter Smolarek, editor of Liberation News, told Peoples Dispatch. “Vance is also an anti-China fanatic, and would likely push for more and more escalation in the new Cold War.”
The 2024 US Presidential elections are now set to be a battle between the ultra-right represented by Trump, and the right-wing of the Democratic Party represented by Joe Biden. To find a true alternative to the right, people in the US may have to look outside of the two major parties.
Police carry off a Youth Demand protester during a demonstration against the state opening of parliament, July 17, 2024Photo: Youth Demand
POLICE stormed a cafe and arrested activists before they had even begun marching today in the latest crackdown on the right to protest.
The Youth Demand activists were sipping their morning coffees in a branch of Leon in central London, ahead of a peaceful pro-Palestine demonstration planned by the group.
The activists were due to march towards Parliament, where the state opening was taking place, to urge the new government to suspend arms to Israel and halt all oil and gas licences granted since 2021.
Ten activists were arrested in the cafe for “conspiracy to commit public nuisance.”
“How is this more harmful than the people arming Israel?” one of the activists shouted as they were dragged away by police.
Shortly after, in Victoria Embankment, another group of activists were kettled in by police before the march commenced. Dozens more were arrested on the same charge.
Among those arrested was Violet Powell, a 23-year-old student.
She said: “Our leaders hide behind pomp and ceremony while a genocide is going on, and our new government are refusing to take action beyond making meaningless platitudes.
“Young people will not allow yet another government to continue ‘business as usual,’ when that business is killing countless people.”
Olympic sponsorship deals with Air France, Toyota and ArcelorMittal will produce more emissions than eight coal plants running for an entire year, a new Badvertising report shows.
At the end of this month, the French capital will host humanity’s biggest and brightest celebrations of sport: the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The hype ahead of these games — the 33rd — is palpable and the organisers have promised to deliver a Games like no other.
Sustainability has been central to this promise. As humanity begins to stare down one of the greatest upheavals of the 21st century — the planetary crises of global heating and ecological catastrophe — the Games are under pressure. Almost every Olympic host nation of the recent era has promised big on environmental action, and every one has fallen short, under-delivering. For all of London’s promises back in 2012, having BP as a sponsor augured badly all along.
The question for Paris is, can it buck the trend and give the world a glimpse of what a mega sports event must look like in the era of breaking planetary ecological boundaries?
Pressure is not just coming from fans and the public. Olympians and Paralympians are increasingly speaking out about the lethal competing conditions that climate breakdown is creating. And the pioneering environmental leadership of Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo raises expectations on those organising the Games. A major programme of urban greening and traffic reduction is under way thanks to Hidalgo which, earlier this year, also saw Parisians vote to increase charges on SUVs in the city.
But there continues to be the prospect of Olympic smoke rings made from fossil fuels hanging over the organisers’ ambitions to deliver the ‘greenest ever games’: the pervasive presence of polluting sponsors that use the Games to raise their profile, normalise high carbon products and lifestyles with billions of people, while distracting from their complicity in the worsening climate and ecological crises. At the Paris Games, just three of the sponsorship deals, those with Air France, Toyota and steelmaker ArcelorMittal, will produce more pollution than eight coal plants running for an entire year, according to new research from the Badvertising campaign ‘Olympic Smoke Rings’.
Fossil Fuel Playbook
At a larger level the oil-dependent aviation and vehicle industries have used a similar playbook to the fossil fuel companies. They’ve lobbied against climate action, sought to evade responsibility for their own pollution, and when pushed produced plans that are wildly inadequate in the face of the climate action needed. In specific, large-scale examples, some vehicle makers have been caught illegally cheating on emissions, while the aviation industry globally ignores half of its climate impact and has no realistic plans to deal with the other half.
These sectors, and the major companies within them, are responsible for a large part of global heating — and the organisers of the Games make themselves complicit through allowing the Olympics to be used for their promotion.
Historically, the Olympics has taken sponsorship from multiple oil and gas companies, airlines and vehicle makers. Fast forward to the Paris Games and little has changed. Three major polluters at these Games are not only responsible for enough carbon emissions and air pollution to make the eyes water of all the athletes and fans attending, they have also actively lobbied against ambitious climate policy and hoovered up public subsidies on the premise of decarbonisation.
Air France (an entity merged with Dutch airline KLM) continues to lobby against higher taxes or decarbonisation initiatives within the aviation sector. CEO Ben Smith argued that an EU kerosene tax would “have a negative impact on Europe’s air transport sector”. And, Air France-KLM strongly fought the proposed flight cap at the Netherlands’ Schiphol airport and took legal action against the measure.
Toyota boasts annual CO2 emissions higher than most oil and gas companies, and has production plans that will see the company overshoot Paris-aligned emissions targets by as much as 184 percent. Badvertising’s previous report, Dangerous Driving, detailed how Toyota is also ranked amongst the worst car makers globally for action on climate change, has been energetically resisting the move to cleaner, fully electric cars, and been active in lobbying against climate policy in France, the host nation of the next Olympic Games.
The steel giant ArcelorMittal is front and centre at this year’s games. In 2023 ArcelorMittal was responsible for an estimated 114.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent — comparable to the annual emissions of the wealthy, industrialised nation of Belgium. ArcelorMittal is producing the iconic Olympic torches for the Paris Games using ‘steel with a reduced carbon footprint’. But despite this glitzy push, ArcelorMittal does not have scientifically-validated CO2 emissions reductions targets in alignment with a 1.5C climate scenario, and continues to rely on coal-based steel production. This, however, did not stop the company from accepting around €3.5 billion in public subsidies to stimulate decarbonisation.
When keeping company like this, it’s hard to believe the Olympics and Paralympics are truly serious about the threat posed by climate breakdown to sport and all those who love it. In fact, researchers from Carbon Market Watch auditing the Paris Games’ sustainability plans noted that the sponsors are a “reflection of the credibility, or otherwise, of the games’ climate commitment” and that “all future games must break from the status quo of associating with polluting companies.”
It is clear that climate and environmental breakdown threaten the very fabric of the Games, where they can be hosted, and how well the athletes can compete at them. The Games see themselves as among the greatest gatherings of the international community. When the Secretary-General of the United Nations, another great global coming together, António Guterres, recently called on governments to ban fossil fuel adverts and phase down demand for polluting products and lifestyles, his vision would certainly have encompassed the Olympic rings. He would not want them to be made from fossil fuel smoke.
The very least the Games can do now, to play their own part in averting climate breakdown, is to cut all ties with polluting sponsors that are undermining the future of the Games and the nations, fans, Olympians and Paralympians that make it the spectacle it is.
