afellowkid

Man I hate this dude

The history of the Middle East since 1948 shows Israel constantly striving for peace, only to be rebuffed time and again by the Arabs.

-- Antony J. Blinken, "Lebanon and the Facts", 1982

Israel is not, has never been, nor will ever be the irreproachable, perfectly moral state some of its supporters would like to see. Israelis are, after all, only human. Still, one pedestal the Jewish state can stand on--and stand on alone in the Middle East--is that of a democracy. Yes, there are tragic excesses in the occupied territories. True, the invasion of Lebanon claimed many innocent lives. The fact remains, though, that Israelis question themselves and their government openly and honestly. Eventually, as in other democracies, those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.

-- Antony J. Blinken, "Israel's Saving Grace", 1982

The summer of 1982 may be remembered in history as the time Israel passed from adolescence to adulthood. The illusions of a child are left behind. But the Jewish state remains special, an oasis in a desert. Its citizens have built a working democracy from scratch in a region that has no others. Israelis must treasure that democracy, protect it with all their will. For if they don't, the growing pains that are Lebanon, Shatila and Sabra, the repression of Arabs and the feud between Ashkenazim and Sephardim could turn into a plague.

-- Antony J. Blinken, "The Danger Within", 1983

I just found out about this guy today, and after a cursory look into his work, I thought of your post because it seems he is potentially covering this kind of thing, Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett. This page lists the courses he teaches as "The Political Economy of Mass Communication", "The Political Economy of Hollywood and the Press", and "Media Representation and Propaganda in Times of War and Terror". And when I looked him up he has books titled (for example) "Media Imperialism", "Approaches to Media", "Conflict Propaganda in Syria: Narrative Battles", "Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda".

Considering that I only just now found out about him, I can't exactly vouch for his work, but he wrote this 2021 article about Ukraine which is how I found him.

Richard Medhurst posted a couple of videos recently talking about this:

Part 1 - "Israel and the United States want the giant amounts of gas in Gaza, and to create a rival to China's New Silk Road."

Part 2 - "Israel and the United States plan to turn Gaza into the "Ben Gurion Canal", a rival to Egypt's Suez Canal. This is about controlling the world's most geostrategic shipping lane."

The New Atlas touches on and reads some quotes from this paper a bit in this video: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=MWzF5NvFdOs&t=2507s (@41:54)

A very normal quote from the paper:

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

An example of what's discussed in the New Atlas video:

[Brian Berletic speaking about the paper] They also laid out the the whole Iran nuclear deal, they didn't mention it by name, but they were talking about a deal they would propose to Iran, deliberately sabotage, blame its failure on Iran, and then use that as a pretext for military aggression. So it says, "in a similar vein any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper International context both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to and minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support, however grudging or covert, is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer"--and they're talking about a widespread conviction--not an understanding of a fact, but the belief in a US fabricated lie--so they say to "strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer, one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down" because, for the wrong reasons they admit in this paper--and many other policy papers, including from the Rand corporation--that if Iran ever did have nuclear weapons they would be used solely as a deterrent.

It says, "under those circumstances the United States or Israel could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by refusing a very good deal." I mean remember shortly after this paper was published, under the Obama Administration the Iran nuclear deal was proposed. Eventually it was signed, it was implemented, the Iranians adhered to it, and then under the Trump Administration it was the US unilaterally withdrew from it, blaming Iran, just as the Brookings institution spelled out. And the Biden administration was supposed to reinstate it, but of course that was never going to happen because that was not the plan as laid out by the real policy makers of US foreign policy, these unelected, corporate-funded think tanks.

These think tanks produce these policy papers, teams of lawyers craft parts of these policy papers into bills, the bills go with lobbyists to Washington to be rubber stamped--many people in Washington don't even read them--and then the bill is sent to the corporate media to sell these policies to the public. It's very important to understand how the US really operates where foreign and domestic policy really stem from. Not your elected representatives, unfortunately. The fact that this Brookings institution ploy to propose sabotage, unilaterally withdraw from and then use a deal with Iran as a pretext for military aggression transcended the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administration. This demonstrates the continuity of US foreign policy regardless of who sits in the White House and whoever is running Congress.

I'm glad you found it worthwhile!

What conversations were US officials having about Congo in 1960?

[CIA Director] Dulles, Allen W. "Telegram From the Central Intelligence Agency to the Station in the Congo", August 1960:

Paper Prepared in the Central Intelligence Agency [for vice president Nixon], "Operations in the Congo", 1960:

Dulles, Allen W. "Telegram From the Central Intelligence Agency to the Station in the Congo", September 1960:

Office of the Historian editorial note:

Although not directly involved in his moment of death, the above is an example which shows much of what the CIA and US State Department do, which is set up every possible condition they can think of for coups, killings, and other "accidents" and "excesses" to happen, working on multiple possible avenues at a time, whether they themselves are directly carrying out the final act or not, or whether simply their assets and other allies are (usually with some generous funding via legal and illegal means, while the State Department uses legal avenues to remove funding from the target--i.e., via sanctions, loan denials, etc. to prepare the ground for worsening conditions).

Here is an article which is an imaginary interview of Kwame Nkrumah about the events in Congo, which uses quotes from his work "Challenge of the Congo". Nkrumah himself had also been subjected to a CIA-backed plot in his own country of Ghana.

ProleWiki page on Lumumba

For a point of view from a DPRK author, this book: Modern Korea: The Socialist North, Revolutionary Perspectives in the South, and Unification.

For a ML point of view: ProleWiki page on DPRK. There are also pages on south Korea, Korea, and the Korean War.

For a Korean diaspora and activist perspective, of people who travelled to DPRK multiple times on delegation trips: KEEP: Stories from North Korea episode on The East is a Podcast. Also Nodutdol's zine, Sanctions of Empire (there is a link to PDF on that page if you click the zine cover image).

For a south Korean leftist/left-leaning/peace point of view (try machine translation if you don't know Korean, my apologies for not knowing an English one for this): "Understanding North Korea" article series by Tongil Times, especially their 북현대사 ("North Modern History") series, and "North Korea through the constitution" series by Sovereignty Research Institute.

I imagine it's because of this: Nuclear-capable US B-52 strategic bomber touches down in S. Korea for first time

The article I linked above is from south Korea's main center-left liberal paper. It comments this:

An American B-52 strategic bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons was scheduled to land at a South Korean air base on Tuesday. This marks the first time a B-52 has ever landed at a South Korean air base, and is seen as a warning directed at North Korea in response to its growing nuclear and missile capabilities.

Considering that the B-52 is capable of dropping nuclear bombs while in flight, there’s little military utility in landing at an air base in South Korea. However, the strategic bomber does have considerable significance on a symbolic level, underlining the US’ commitment to extended deterrence against North Korea’s nuclear threat.

Considering that North Korea has warned about the potential outbreak of nuclear war each time US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers or strategic bombers are dispatched to the Korean Peninsula, it is likely to have an even more dramatic reaction to a US strategic bomber landing in South Korea for the first time.

Notable also is that under south Korea's current conservative Yoon administration, the new appointee (since June) to Minister of Unification is a north Korea hawk who wants nukes for south Korea:

Notably, as Kim Young-ho is a hard-liner on North Korea who has argued for the overthrow of the Kim Jong-un regime and has stressed that South Korea should arm itself with its own nuclear weapons time and time again, critics point out that his appointment dulls the value and meaning of the unification ministry, which should carry out unification policies aimed at North Korea.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korea Studies, commented that Thursday’s personnel appointments “signal the launch of a ‘ministry of confrontation’ or a ‘ministry of North Korean absorption’ that aims to unify [Korea] through absorption via antagonism and confrontation rather than a unification ministry seeking peaceful unification through dialogue and cooperation.”

The atmosphere within the ministry as it welcomes outside figures for its two chief positions is uneasy. One official told Yonhap News that “it seems like the unification ministry is being demanded to completely change its organizational identity, such as what it does, its approach, and the mindset of its members.”

As things fell through under the previous president, Moon, who was a liberal but who made some peaceful cooperation efforts with DPRK, and Trump, who made talks with DPRK but then threatened them, and piled on sanctions without lifting them when DPRK made efforts toward appeasement, and now Yoon came in who is a conservative and USA stan and major anti-communist who is promoting a NATO-like alliance in Asia and having war exercises and military parades etc., DPRK basically has stepped back from appeasement efforts at this time, strengthening ties with its other neighbors, and instead not shying away from making criticism when threatened with "decapitation drills" from the US and conservative Yoon regime (whom large numbers of south Koreans have been protesting and calling to resign due to his warmongering, among other things).

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney

Apparently the attacker was also their landlord:

According to the Will County sheriff’s office, the woman had called 911 to report that her landlord had attacked her with a knife, adding she then ran into a bathroom and continued to fight him off.

The Muslim civil liberties organization called the crime “our worst nightmare” and part of a disturbing spike in hate calls and emails since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. The group cited text messages exchanged among family members that showed the attacker had made disparaging remarks about Muslims.

I happened to come across these articles today, linking in case you still wanted info on this topic

AP corrects story falsely claiming homosexuality is illegal for Palestinians

Why I painted a rainbow flag on Israel’s apartheid wall

The Real Oppressors of Gaza's Gay Community: Hamas or Israel?

I don't know much about the subject specifically in Gaza or in Palestine in general, aside from this academic paper which is about the use of pinkwashing as a colonizer tactic. Regarding advocacy groups it mentions the group alQaws. Here is an article by alQaws: Queer Liberation & Palestine. Quote from article in which they warn about the weaponization of LGBTQ issues to further colonial agendas:

Israeli settler colonialism, and tactics such as “pinkwashing” weaponize our queer experiences to place us in opposition to our own society and communities. Pinkwashing is a form of colonial violence. It promotes harmful narratives and policies that alienate queer Palestinians from our own communities. Our answer to pinkwashing is to say that liberation is indivisible, and that there will be a place for all of us at the rendezvous of victory. The Israeli criminal government and Zionist LGBTQ movement manipulate and exploit queer Palestinians’ lived realities to advance a colonial agenda. The standards for solidarity and action cannot be set by the colonizer.

Another article from them: No Queer “Co-Resistance” with Colonizers: Confronting Normalization and Pinkwashing

In alliance with anti-colonial coalitions, alQaws developed and popularized the concept of “pinkwashing” to expose how Israel and its defenders use the language of LGBTQ rights to distract from the oppression of Palestinians. Over the years, Palestinian activists came to recognize that pinkwashing is not simply an outward-facing propaganda machine—it is a direct form of colonial violence, one that pushes Palestinians to view ourselves and our communities through the lens of colonial prejudice.

Pinkwashing relies on exploiting progressive rhetoric about “tolerance” and “gay rights,” to conceal the violent nature of the occupation and settler-colonialism in Palestine. Normalization, similarly, draws on liberal ideals of “dialogue” and “partnership.”

5 Way to Support Palestinian Queers

Perpetuating tiresome tropes of presenting Palestinians as inherently oppressive and Israel as a liberal state that protects LGBTQ rights is counter-productive and factually baseless. Israel is a settler-colonial state that offers no rights to Palestinians, queer or otherwise. Our struggle as queer Palestinians is against Israeli colonialism as much as it is against homophobia and patriarchy in Palestine. Israel uses pinkwashing tactics to lie about “saving” LGBTQ Palestinians from their society. We ask that you steer away from these lies that are intentionally used to justify their colonization of Palestine. alQaws and our allies in Palestine will continue to amplify our message as well as provide protection and a political home for LGBTQ Palestinians. Israeli LGBTQ groups do not have a say in the work that should be done to fight patriarchy and homophobia in Palestine, including the incitements led by the Palestinian police.

As I said, I don't know much about it beyond the above, which I have not looked deeply into, so take this information with a grain of salt.