A Palestinian stands on top of a mosque destroyed in an Israeli strike in Rafah, Gaza Strip, Thursday, Feb. 22, 2024.
LABOUR councillors in two London boroughs have been suspended and face disciplinary action for backing calls for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Lambeth Council’s Labour administration suspended four of its councillors today, including Jewish councillor Martin Abrams and a Hindu representative, for supporting a motion calling for a ceasefire.
Mr Abrams is an outspoken Jewish pro-Palestinian activist and spokesman for the left-wing Momentum campaign group.
He said: “My vote for the ceasefire motion was a matter of conscience for me.
“My great grandparents were persecuted and driven from Eastern Europe over 100 years ago in the pogroms of Kiev and came to this country as refugees with nothing, leaving and losing many close family in the process.
“It is exactly this history of persecution of my close ancestors in Europe over the ages that meant I was brought up to always stand with the oppressed and against oppression and when I say never again, I mean never again: for everybody.”
A Momentum spokesperson said:“This is an outrageous attack on a Jewish Labour councillor for having the temerity to stand up for the people of Gaza.
A person signs a bus wrapped with an image of former President Donald Trump during the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 22, 2024. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
The event began on Feb. 21, 2024, in National Harbor, Maryland, with Steve Bannon’s routine, untrue banter about how President Joe Biden stole the 2020 election, and it peaked with an angry speech from Trump three days later. In between, I sat among the MAGA masses listening to speaker after speaker express outrage about American decline – and their hope for Trump’s reelection.
Everywhere I turned, people wore MAGA regalia – hats, pins, logos and patches, many with Trump’s likeness. I spent breaks in the exhibition hall, which featured a Jan. 6 insurrection-themed pinball machine featuring “Stop the Steal,” “Political Prisoners” and “Babbitt Murder” rally modes and a bus emblazoned with Trump’s face. Admirers scribbled messages on the bus such as, “We have your back” and “You are anointed and appointed by God to be the President.”
Those on the left who dismiss the CPAC as a gathering of MAGA crazies and racists who support a wannabe dictator do not understand that, from this far-right perspective, there are compelling and even urgent reasons to support Trump. Indeed, they believe, as conservative politician Tulsi Gabbard stated in her CPAC speech on Feb. 22, that the left’s claims about Trump’s authoritarianism are “laughable.” This is because CPAC attendees falsely perceive President Joe Biden as the one who is attacking democracy.
Here are my top three takeaways from CPAC about Trump supporters’ current priorities and thinking.
People pray during the opening ceremony of the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 22, 2024. Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
1. There’s a Reagan dinner – but CPAC is Trump’s party
Former President Ronald Reagan runs in CPAC’s DNA. Reagan spoke at the inaugural CPAC in 1974 and went on to speak there a dozen more times.
In 2019, the conservative advocacy group the American Political Union, which hosts CPAC, published a book of Reagan’s speeches with commentary by conservative luminaries. In the preface, Matt Schlapp, the head of the American Political Union, says he often asks himself, “What would Reagan do?”
CPAC’s pomp gala, held Friday, is still called the “Ronald Reagan Dinner.” But Reagan is otherwise hardly mentioned at the conference.
Reagan’s ideas of American exceptionalism have been supplanted by Trump’s populist story of apocalyptic decline. Reagan’s folksy tone, relative moderation and clear quips are long gone, replaced by fury, grievance and mean-spirited barbs.
2. There’s a method to the madness
Many commentators and critics, including groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, view CPAC as a frightening or bizarre gathering of white nationalists who have a nativist agenda.
Indeed, the U.S.-Mexico border was a constant topic at this year’s CPAC, which included controversial anti-immigrant speakers such as the head of Spain’s far-right Vox party and a representative of Hungary, whose leader stated at the 2022 CPAC that Europeans should not become “mixed-race.” Hungary will also host a CPAC meeting in April 2024.
Many of the sessions have alarming titles like, “Burning Down the House,” “Does Government Even Matter” and “Going Full Hungarian.” There are right-wing, populist speakers like Bannon and U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz.
Overall, the program is informed by a conservative logic that largely boils down to God, family, tradition, law and order, defense and freedom.
Of these, God looms largest. As a result, CPAC’s hardcore conservative Christian orientation is anti-abortion rights, homophobic and oriented toward traditional family structure and what it considers morality.
Schlapp co-wrote a book in 2022 that warns of the dangers of “evil forces” – what he considers to be progressives, the radical left and American Marxists. Schlapp’s book title even dubs these forces “the desecrators.” Such inflammatory language is frequently used at CPAC, including by Trump during his Saturday speech.
Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, left, and his wife, Mercedes Schlapp, speak during CPAC on Feb. 22, 2024. Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
3. Trump believers think he is their savior
CPAC’s love of Trump is shocking to many on the left. But at CPAC, Trump is viewed as America’s savior.
According to his base, Trump delivered on abortion by appointing Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. They believe that, despite evidence of mixed results, Trump had wide successes at securing the border and creating jobs. For example, during Trump’s time as president, the U.S. economy lost nearly 3 million jobs, and apprehensions of undocumented migrants at the border rose.
Trump’s CPAC speech, like his campaign speeches, harped on such supposed achievements – as well as Biden’s alleged “destruction” of the country.
Conservatives roll their eyes at liberal fears of Trump the despot. Like all of us, they acknowledge, Trump has flaws. They say that some of his comments about women and minorities are cringeworthy, but not evidence of an underlying misogyny and hatefulness, as many critics contend.
Ultimately, CPAC conservatives believe Trump is their best bet to defeat the radical-left “desecrators” who seek to thwart him at every turn – including, as they constantly complained at CPAC, social media bans, “fake news” takedowns, rigged voting, bogus lawsuits, unfair justice, and lies about what they call the Jan. 6, 2021, “protest”.
Despite these hurdles, Trump battles on toward the Republican nomination for presidential candidate – the hero who CPAC conservatives view as the last and best hope to save the USA.
Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference, 2024 CPAC, at the National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, February 22, 2024
CAMPAIGNERS have called on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to withdraw the whip from Suella Braverman and Liz Truss, warning that their propagation of “toxic racism and Islamophobia” could fuel far-right hatred on the streets.
The demands came after the Tory whip was removed from Lee Anderson after he made Islamophobic comments to GB News about London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
…
Mr Sunak removed the whip, but only after Mr Anderson failed to apologise for his comments.
…
Mr Anderson’s comments were soon followed by an article in the Daily Telegraph by former home secretary Suella Braverman.
She wrote: “The Islamists, the extremists and the anti-semites are in charge.”
Across the Atlantic, former Prime Minister Liz Truss attempted to drum up new support by attending the far-right Conservative Political Action Conference.
While a guest on War Room, the podcast of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, she said that “a radical Islamic party” could win the Rochdale by-election.
Labour amendments betray Gaza’s murdered and oppressed civilians and uses classic asymmetric language to value Palestinian life less than Israeli
Keir Starmer – after days of posing to try to bring Muslim and other decent voters onside by mouthing ceasefire language – has yet again betrayed the two million people in Gaza suffering violence and starvation and the more than 100,000 people murdered and maimed by Israel.
While the ‘mainstream’ media speculated whether Starmer would order MPs to support the SNP’s motion demanding a ceasefire, which is being debated in Parliament tomorrow, more realistic observers knew it was inevitable that Starmer would do the minimum he hopes will fool voters opposed to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, while protecting the interests of the pro-Israel right.
And so he did: Labour has tabled amendments to the original motion that gut it of its impact and has gone as far as making the motion more about Hamas’s supposed guilt and the feelings of Israel and its supporters. And the amendment uses the classic tactics of politicians and ‘mainstream’ media to present Israeli lives and suffering as more valuable than Palestinian.
In Starmer’s worldview, Palestinians are not being murdered by Israel – their lives are just ‘lost’, as if to a natural disaster and not to a campaign of mechanised mass murder. The sheer number of their deaths is presented as ‘intolerable’, but the loss of Israeli lives to Palestinian resistance is ‘horror’. Israelis have the ‘right to assurance’ against attack, but there is no mention of a Palestinian right not to be murdered by the occupation regime. Israel ‘cannot be expected’ to stop fighting if Hamas does not stop – but there is no acknowledgement that Hamas’s violence takes place against a backdrop of decades of wanton violence and oppression by the occupiers. Israel must be ‘safe and secure’ – but a Palestinian state only merits ‘viable’.
The SNP motion is an exemplar of directness and simplicity and rightly focuses on the many tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered by Israel, as well as on the forced displacement of 1.5 million Palestinians into Rafah, where they remain under constant bombardment and the threat of an all-out ground assault:
Labour’s lickspittle version calls resistance ‘terrorism’ but does not mention the Israeli terror state’s genocide and other war crimes, or the fact that so many are dying in Rafah because they were forced to cram there under bomb and bullet – and clearly hasn’t even been proofread, calling for ‘the UN Security Council to be meet urgently’:
Starmer is trying to mask his support for Israel’s war crimes and hoping that the millions in this country disgusted by that support will be fooled. His disregard for the true plight of Palestinians and his complicity in the war crimes being perpetrated against them by Israel is beyond contemptible.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro speaking on February 13 from the Industrial University of Santander in Bucaramanga. Photo: Presidencia Colombia
The delay in the election of the Attorney General at the center of the ongoing tensions with the right, was highlighted by the United Nations Human Rights office and IACHR
Colombia’s Supreme Court will convene on February 22 to elect the country’s Attorney General (AG). The Supreme Court had already convened on two occasions, January 25 and February 8, for the same purpose but was unable, or as some allege, unwilling, to elect one of the three candidates proposed by President Gustavo Petro for the post back in August. The court’s refusal to elect one of Petro’s candidates for the post, has been at the center of what some have termed a “soft coup” or a destabilization campaign against the left-wing president’s government.
Petro himself said on February 2 that the court’s refusal to move forward was “institutional rupture that has reached its most desperate point, because the mafia does not want to control the entire sections of the Attorney General’s office that I have put in danger for having presented a shortlist of decent women.”
The Attorney General in Colombia is part of the judicial branch of power and has the role of investigating and accusing those who are alleged to be responsible for committing crimes.
On Monday February 12, the mandate of former AG Francisco Barbosa expired. Barbosa was appointed by former far-right president Iván Duque who is also his close friend from university. The AG has had open conflict with the current president, telling Blu Radio in May 2023 “I think Gustavo Petro is irresponsible” when Petro had warned of possible foul play in the AG’s investigation of members of Petro’s Historic Pact party.
On January 25, the same day that the Supreme Court was first set to elect his replacement, Barbosa ordered a raid of the Bogotá office of the Federation of Colombian Educators (FECODE) over allegations of improper contributions to Gustavo Petro’s presidential campaign. The move was widely condemned by social movements and trade unions in the country as being politically motivated.
With his term up, Barbosa’s deputy prosecutor and close ally, Martha Mancera, has taken up the post in the interim – until the Court makes its decision. Mancera has been named in different scandals, including an alleged cover up of an agent from the Attorney General’s investigative body who was involved in drug trafficking and arms trafficking.
On Wednesday February 14 at an event in the Industrial University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Petro said, “The government doesn’t agree that the Attorney General should be handed over to people with dubious reputation, that could have links, it seems and according to media investigations, with organized crime.”
International bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) also expressed concern over the delay in the Supreme Court’s deliberations. In a statement published on February 13, the body said that a further delay in the selection of an AG, “could weaken the Colombian justice system” and that the Supreme Court must “fulfill its constitutional duty”.
On February 14, the UN Office of Human Rights in Colombia also declared that it was closely following the AG election process. In its statement, it highlighted the role the AG plays in “guaranteeing access to justice, democratic consolidation, and Rule of Law”, and as such, it “encourages the Supreme Court to conclude the process of selection of the AG in the shortest time possible”.
Both statements by the IACHR and the UN alluded to allegations by the right-wing that the citizen protests in dozens of cities across Colombia on February 8 to demand that the Court carry out its constitutional obligation, were an attempt by Petro to subvert rule of law and disrupt the Supreme Court’s process. The allegations are based on a video from a protest in Bogotá which depicts a couple of demonstrators attempting to rush the barricade at the gates of the Court while other protesters are leaving the site. Many analysts have stated that those depicted in the video were seemingly right-wing infiltrators.
Nevertheless, right-wing media has launched full scale attacks on protesters and Petro, and the Attorney General’s office claimed “possible crimes were committed” and opened up a special investigation.
Added to the growing pressure on Petro’s administration, is the direct attack on his foreign minister, Álvaro Leyva, who is under investigation by the Ombudsman and suspended from his position for three months over allegations of irregularities in the bidding process for passport processing. In reality, Leyva had taken steps to confront a private firm, Thomas Gregs and Sons, that had a major contract with the state for processing passports and had control over a significant amount of the population data in the country.
Petro had said that renowned jurists called the suspension of the foreign minister unprecedented and he termed it “institutional rupture”.
With growing pressure on the court to fulfill its constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court’s session on February 22 is set to be an important date, while the movements and social organizations that mobilized and campaigned to put Petro’s government of change in office have vowed to defend it at all costs.
