Israeli military vehicles patrol the streets and alleys of the area during the second day of the raid on the Tulkarem Refugee Camp in the West Bank on December 25, 2024 [Issam Rimawi – Anadolu Agency]
Palestinian factions called, Monday, for escalating resistance operations in the Occupied West Bank in retaliation for Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, Anadolu Agency reports.
Three illegal Israeli settlers were killed and six others injured early Monday in a shooting attack near the Kedumim settlement in the northern West Bank.
In a statement, Hamas hailed the attack as
a heroic response to the ongoing crimes and war of extermination committed by the (Israeli) occupation against our people in Gaza, the displacement plans in the West Bank, and the settler aggression on the Al-Aqsa Mosque and holy sites
“This operation is a message to the extremist Israeli government and its ministers that there is a free and rebellious nation that will not abandon its rights and that the resistance will continue until the occupation is removed from all of our lands,” it added.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) called the shooting attack a “powerful message” to the Israeli occupation.
It called for escalating resistance operations in the West Bank “to confuse the occupation’s calculations and weaken its security system.”
The Popular Resistance Committees termed the attack “a natural response” to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and the Judaisation and annexation plans in the West Bank.
Tension has been running high across the Occupied West Bank due to Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, which has killed more than 45,800 people, mostly women and children, since 7 October, 2023.
At least 835 Palestinians have also been killed and nearly 6,700 others injured by Israeli army fire in the Occupied West Bank, according to Palestinian figures.
In November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.
Argentine President Javier Milei. Photo: Milei / X
At one year of Milei’s presidency, we take stock of his economic policies, the impact on the working class, and perspectives for the future
A year ago, what many considered unthinkable a couple of years ago happened: Javier Milei, the eccentric libertarian economist who was almost compulsively invited by the media to increase ratings, was sworn in as president of Argentina. Gone was the neoliberal and demure option of the Argentine right wing that managed to triumph with Mauricio Macri, as well as the always latent Peronist option, which could not overcome the obstacles that the government of Alberto Fernandez left in its path.
Milei became a celebrated outsider who confronted his adversaries directly (often insulting and humiliating them), promising to lift the country out of poverty through a radical liberalization of the economy, with bold, or absurd, proposals to dollarize the economy and the eliminate the central bank. Indeed, his style as a guest on television programs was not too far removed from his actions as president of Argentina.
Erika Giménez, social communicator and a journalist with ARG Medios told Peoples Dispatch that Milei arrived with a promise that he was going to “break the State” and end all state social programs and aid to impoverished sectors because they are “a waste of money that prevents Argentina’s resurgence as a great country.” Did he succeed in his grandiose vision? What did the “lion” of Argentina manage to accomplish in his first year of governance?
Falling inflation and rising poverty
One of Milei’s main obsessions was to reduce inflation at all costs. After several setbacks that ended up increasing inflation, in October it was recorded that inflation had risen by 2.3%, the lowest percentage in several years. To achieve this, he had no qualms about firing tens of thousands of state workers (almost 36,000 according to the National Institute of Statistics and Census) and aggressively cutting the number of ministries (from 18 to 9). Social programs that had been a bulwark of the Republic for several decades were eliminated. Of the state workers who survived the layoffs, almost all have seen a reduction in their purchasing power as a consequence of the economic retrenchment policies.
Similarly, despite the fact that year-on-year inflation stood at 193%, retirees’ pensions only increased by 105%, meaning that retired elderly workers today, thanks to Milei’s government, can buy fewer things than before, because their pension was not adjusted for inflation. This incongruity provoked several mobilizations by retirees.
Likewise, Milei has refused to increase the public education budget so as not to affect the much-desired “fiscal balance”, which has led to a decline in the quality of education in the country. Also, hospital workers (doctors, nurses, and others) have reported that they have lost almost 104% of their purchasing power, which puts the country’s health care system at risk.
In addition, according to Erica Giménez, inflation is currently decreasing, among other things, because people are not able to buy goods, which causes stores to reduce prices to sell more. This can lead to a distorted view of inflation as the only measure of economic improvement because, in reality, it is actually masking a more serious problem: people have lost purchasing power. “[The decrease in inflation] is quite a deceptive figure because people cannot consume because their salary is not enough to do so…The macroeconomic meters improve (as Milei wants) by not generating fiscal deficit, but this happens at the cost of the increase of unemployment, of retirement pensions, of the most needy, and of so many who are nowadays below the poverty line,” Giménez affirms.
One of the cases which shone a light on the ridiculous nature of his radical adjustment was what happened with the social kitchens, soup kitchens run oftentimes by left and progressive community organizations. Milei’s government and his Minister of Human Capital Sandra Pettovello were involved in a serious controversy when it was shown that, while the kitchens were subjected to serious budget cuts as part of the fiscal adjustment which made it impossible to feed the increasing number of hungry people, several tons of food were rotting in State warehouses. The Argentine courts had to order the immediate distribution of the food.
The defunding of university education
Probably the most important internal challenge faced by Milei during this first year was the massive demonstrations of students, professors, and university workers against the Executive’s refusal to increase the university budget. The Legislature had passed a law allowing for the budget increase, but Milei refused to comply with it and vetoed it completely. This generated a lot of discontent among Argentine students who took to the streets against the austerity policies of Milei’s libertarian government, and even went so far as to take over dozens of universities and hold university classes in the streets as a form of protest.
Giménez says in this regard, “Those who lose the most with [the veto of the law] are the professors of public universities who today are within the poor population…According to several surveys, the majority of the population agrees with the public character of health, education, etc., and of the Argentine State as protector and benefactor of these areas, so Mieli’s discourse against universities did not work because…public university education has great popular support.”
International relations
Milei has repeatedly stated that Argentina was, at some point in its history, the first world power. Therefore, what his government should do, according to his rhetoric, is to turn it into a great world power again. This “messianic” bet is synthesized in the often-used slogan “Make Argentina Great Again”, which evidently is reminiscent of Trump’s MAGA. “But Argentina never had a geopolitical weight that Milei says it once had as a first power,” Giménez tells us.
During the vote on whether or not to lift the US economic blockade of Cuba, Argentina voted along with almost all countries to call for an end to the blockade. In retaliation, Milei fired his foreign minister for this vote. According to Giménez, Argentina has historically voted against the blockade and supported other progressive international issues because it hopes that other countries will support its intention to recover the Malvinas Islands, which are currently under British control. Milei however, has wanted to assume a Trumpist international logic, says Giménez, and has assumed a fight against LGBTIQ+ groups and measures to curb climate change, while manifesting strong support in favor of Israel and the United States.
That is why the discussions at the UN on the prevention of violence against girls and women, the ceasefire in Palestine, and the withdrawal of the Argentine delegation from COP29, show the rejection of certain political causes which the president himself calls “the Cultural Battle”. As part of this battle he has attacked journalists, politicians and intellectuals, and founded the new think tank Faro Foundation whose objective is to: “To promote the ideas of economic liberalism and the historical values of Argentine culture, in order to contribute to the economic and social development of our Nation, fighting the cultural battle.” This confrontational attitude has led him to have several impasses with regional political leaders such as Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
But this confrontational attitude, more typical of a media commentator, has its limits. For example, Giménez reminds us that after announcing before his presidency that he would never negotiate with China because they are communists, Milei eventually had to negotiate with Beijing because of the importance of that country for the Argentine economy.
Likewise, Milei has openly positioned himself behind the geopolitical line of US President-elect Donald Trump, attending several select meetings organized by the US president. Milei, according to Giménez, intends to position himself, unsuccessfully, as an international leader who will inspire a global political transformation. Perhaps that is why he has made more trips abroad than within the country, especially to the United States. Likewise, his closeness with the International Monetary Fund stands out.
His revisionist ideological struggle
Milei has also had a significant impact on the ideological dispute in Argentina with his bizarre and aggressive speeches.
For example, he said that he would be delighted to drive the last nail in the coffin of former Peronist president Cristina Fernández, who is the subject of a judicial process that seeks to disqualify her politically and put her in prison.
He has also questioned the figures of human rights organizations on the number of dead and disappeared caused by the last military dictatorship in Argentina. His vice-president, Victoria Villarruel, is a descendant of a military family and before his death, had paid a personal visit to Rafael Videla, head of the last military dictatorship. Milei wants Argentines to forget the dictatorship as if it’s something that can be left behind, says Giménez. In order for Milei to advance his political and ideological project to “make Argentina great again”, he must break certain established and socially consensual notions “and generate other discourses closer to capitalism, revisionist, discuss the importance of the university and public employment…and that includes relativizing one of the darkest periods of Argentine history such as the military dictatorship,” Giménez explains.
Milei has vigorously gone after his ambitious goals of economic liberalization and austerity, without asking “at what cost?” The significant rejection of such policies by broad sectors of the population and the deepening of social conflict will continue and intensify. Milei still has three years left in his presidency, so the future of his government is uncertain. What is certain is that he does not seem to be slowing down his pretensions, but rather accelerating the radical neoliberal program that he defends to the hilt.
Original article republished from Memo under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Shrine of Shimon in Chamaa, Lebaon [Ibrahimamirnaeem/Wikipedia]
Israeli occupation forces destroyed a historic religious shrine during their incursion into the village of Chamaa in southern Lebanon on Friday night, Lebanese media have reported. Lebanese sources revealed that the occupation forces deliberately rigged explosive charges on what is known as the Shrine of Shimon in Chamaa and completely destroyed it.
The state-run National News Agency reported that the occupation forces withdrew from the hill where the shrine was located due to significant resistance from Hezbollah. A UN peacekeeping site nearby was hit by artillery fire as a result of the bombardments, according to the report.
The UN peacekeeping forces said on Friday that a live 155mm artillery shell struck their headquarters in the western sector but did not explode. UNIFIL reported that Italian peacekeeping forces stationed there dealt with the shell safely, adding that no peacekeeping personnel were harmed in the strike.
Since the start of its ground incursion into southern Lebanon, the occupation forces have blown up and demolished entire villages, employing a scorched earth policy to prevent Hezbollah from operating in areas near the border with the settler-colonial state.
Democracy is a precious, and essential part of our society. Our leadership must always be accountable to the people, and if they are not, we risk oppression. We are, without a doubt, lucky to live in a liberal representational democracy, and when the time comes to vote, we should. So why then, are people acting politically, with civil resistance, outside of this mechanism?
Over the last twelve months, thousands of people in the UK have engaged in peaceful resistance, and over a hundred (and counting) have been imprisoned. It’s not just in this country, in Canada ‘Save Old Growth’ are blocking motorways demanding no more felling of ancient trees. In France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Norway, the USA and Australia, ordinary people are resisting, disrupting transport and cultural activities – demanding that their states act to protect, not destroy, life.
They are ordinary people – coming together and acting out of love as much as fear and grief. Engaging in civil resistance, and defying a state, that while democratically elected, has proved deeply harmful. There’s no denying this harm – while the International Energy Agency has made it clear we can have no more new oil and gas development, the UK Government is ready to approve new oil fields and issue new exploration licenses, a death sentence for millions.
Our politicians say they are ‘committed to reaching net zero’. What they are actually committed to is kicking the can down the road and round the corner. Gambling on unproven or non-existent technology to reverse our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Instead of taking action, they’re making the problem worse for another 30 years, literally pouring fuel on the fire. The UK is the home of BP and Shell who are making eye-watering profits, and enjoying tax breaks to destroy life – because “pensions”, because “jobs”, because “economic growth”.
A stable climate is not a competing policy demand to be set against pensions, transport, or public sector funding. One provides the basis for everything else, there simply isn’t a contest. Our predicament is almost comically simple – either we stop the destruction of the global systems that enable ordered civil society to work or we lose everything we value, our traditions, our cherished landscapes and, crucially, democracy. There are no free and fair elections on a burning earth.
In 2019 the MoD published a report outlining what is coming if we don’t immediately reduce carbon emissions – “increased conflict over diminishing natural resources”. That’s code for war. War over food and water – and we know what war looks like, flattened cities, dictator warlords, child traffickers waiting on borders, tortured grandfathers – it’s being documented once again in Europe.
So what has happened in the UK to protect against this future? Traffic on the M25 has been disrupted, London bridges closed, oil terminals have been blockaded and occupied, football matches interrupted. Inept radio hosts have sparked viral memes about growing concrete and inspired themed stag nights. Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, XR and Stop HS2 have been painted on both the Left and Right as an eco-mob, eco-fascists, as selfish, naive and childish. But perhaps the most damaging criticism is that they are anti-democratic.
It’s as if every right and freedom we enjoy has been handed to us by a benign government. As if the Suffragettes never smashed windows, as if the race riots never happened, as if Stonewall simply wrote letters, as if those demanding disability rights didn’t chain themselves to railings and buses, as if the poll tax was scrapped due to reasonable debate and discussion or waiting politely for a chance to vote. Change requires citizens to stand up and resist harmful governments, it is part of democracy.
Resistance has nothing to do with “protest”. Protest is when you express your disapproval. You do not express disapproval when murderous governments engage in an act condemning the world to go over 1.5C in the 2030s – a death sentence for small island states and millions in the global south. Pakistan today demonstrates what we face – 33 million people impacted by floods and agriculture decimated.
We know what to do. It’s what the Suffragettes did, it’s what the Civil Rights movements did, it’s what everyone does when the inalienable right to life and a livelihood are violated. We engage in non-violent civil resistance.
What we must do now is block and disable the cogs of the machine. This is not a “tactic” – it is an act of self respect, an act of solidarity, an act of love and necessity.
We must resist now or we will look back with longing at all we have lost. The last 250 years of sacrifice and tears expended by generations to create decent societies is about to be snuffed out in the blink of an eye. The word betrayal does not cover the reality of what is going on. All our traditions, all our values, all that we claim to stand for is about to be lost.
It’s not about winning. It’s about doing what has to be done. Those who fought fascism in the 20th century, those who are fighting the oil companies across the global south, those fighting the Russians in Ukraine, they act because they know someone has to stand up.
The next generations are watching us. Can you feel the weight of billions of children yet to take their first breath? They are saying “Are you mad? Get out there, and stop this – or you condemn us forever”.
dizzy: 1. I submit that we exist in a plutocracy rather than a democracy. 2. I couldn’t find the MoD article containing the quotation “increased conflict over diminishing natural resources”. I suspect that it existed but is no longer published openly. There are plenty of official reports making similar points and it is a reasonable statement. For example the WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011, ‘Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict’ Alex Evans, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, September 9, 2010 makes similar claims. Edit: Despite that article being a very wooly academic paper, I think that it does make that claim
Although the conflict risk posed by climate change and resource scarcity will almost always be better understood as a ‘threat multiplier’ than as a sole cause of violent conflict, a range of potential linkages between climate, scarcity and conflict risk can nonetheless be identified, whether through intensifying existing problems, or through creating new environmental problems that lead to instability.
USAID (2009). Climate Change, Adaptation and Conflict: A preliminary review of the issues. CMD Discussion Paper no. 1, October 2009
