My Hannukah hero

 Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 21/12/2025

My Hanukkah hero this year is an unidentified woman in black. It was Wednesday evening, the fourth night of Hanukkah, at Tel Aviv's Weizmann City Mall. With a hijab on her head, a purse on one arm and a cellphone in her other hand, she approached the menorah and blew out the four candles in a single breath. Her male companion applauded.

Then the woman returned: The shamash candle (used to light the other eight candles) was still burning; she extinguished it as well. This woman is the Palestinian Rosa Parks. A video of her protest was posted on social media over the weekend.

The incensed reactions were quick to follow: "Infuriating documentation" (Mako and Channel 14 News); "outrageous documentation" (the ultra-Orthodox news website Behadrei Haredim); "Arabic-speaking antisemite" ("The Shadow" [Yoav Eliasi] on Instagram).

Yair Foldes reported in Haaretz that the police are investigating but have not yet decided on the appropriate charge. They are considering Article 170 of Israel's Penal Law, which prohibits "destroying, damaging or desecrating a place of worship or any object held sacred by a group of persons with the intention of thereby reviling their religion or with the knowledge that they are likely to consider such destruction, damage or desecration as an insult to their religion."

Haut du formulaire

Bas du formulaire

The maximum penalty: three years in prison. All those who have burned Qurans in West Bank mosques are free, and this woman will be arrested.

As I write these lines, the police manhunt is in full swing. By Saturday evening, Monday night at the latest, the woman will be arrested. The show trial is on its way, even if Channel 14 host Yinon Magal is pessimistic: "They will catch her, photograph her next to the Israeli flag, bring her to a detention hearing and the judge will release her to house arrest."

It's well known that Israel's houses are filled with Arabs whom the courts have released. Ask the poet Dareen Tatour, who was under house arrest for half a year (!) before her trial for a Facebook post, long before October 7, 2023. For right-wingers, the candle extinguisher is a terrorist who deserves the death sentence.

It's not nice to blow out Hanukkah candles; I have no idea what motivated the brave woman, but it's hard to think of a more spectacular nonviolent act of protest.

It's permissible to disrupt the holiday that Jews celebrate to commemorate the victory of the Hasmonean revolt against the Greek occupier. On a holiday during which Jews sing, "We come to banish darkness, in our hands are light and fire," it's permissible to protest. On a holiday in which Jews sing, "Let's have a party \ We'll all dance the hora \ Gather 'round the table \ We'll give you a treat \ dreidels to play with and latkes to eat," it's permissible to spoil things. Above all, on a holiday where Jews sing without shame: "When thou shalt have prepared a slaughter of the blaspheming foe" (the literal translation of part of the first verse of "Maoz Tzur"/"Rock of Ages") – it's permissible to rebel.

It's permissible for a Palestinian Israeli to think that this celebration should be shut down with a personal act of protest: blowing out the candles in a mall. While her co-religionists and perhaps her relatives as well – in Jaffa, for example, there isn't a single Arab family without family in Gaza – are drowning in mud, freezing in the cold and hungry dogs continue to scavenge through the bodies of their trapped relatives, the Jews here will not celebrate as if nothing has happened.

Someone must remind them that the war in Gaza isn't over and the suffering is only intensifying. Someone must remind Israelis that while they stuff their faces with fancy sufganiyot, in Gaza, there are still people who are starving, or at least sick and tired of eating lentils.

There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people there who are being ravaged by winter. There are patients there who are dying slowly, in excruciating agony, for lack of medical care. And there are hundreds of thousands of children there whose friends have been killed, and for over two years they have had no school or any other framework to go to, and who are doomed to a life of ignorance and despair even if they survive the war, which is far from over.

This affects Israel's Arabs. It pains them, even if they're paralyzed by fear of a regime that arrests anyone who dares to express humanity. And now an unknown woman came, on the fourth night of Hanukkah, and for one moment blew out the candles of the celebrating Israelis, with one breath. She is a hero.

FR -> EN | ES | DE | La stratégie américaine 2025 : un récit pour masquer un changement de centre de gravité NSS 2025 : Narrative to conceal a shift in the centre of gravityRelato para ocultar un cambio de centro de gravedad Erzählung, die eine Verschiebung des strategischen Schwerpunktes überdeckt

 

Fausto Giudice, François Vadrot | 9/12/2025

La stratégie américaine 2025 : un récit pour masquer un changement de centre de gravité

La nouvelle Stratégie nationale de sécurité (NSS) publiée début décembre a été lue comme un retour de la doctrine Monroe, un durcissement trumpiste ou un simple recentrage anti-chinois. En la reprenant à la lettre et en la replaçant dans la séquence du 8–11 octobre, lorsque la Chine a montré qu’elle pouvait remodeler l’équilibre mondial sans tirer un coup de feu, une autre image apparaît : celle d’une puissance qui écrit à l’intérieur d’un ordre déjà structuré par Beijing, où l’hémisphère occidental n’est plus isolable et où l’Europe est traitée comme un risque à encadrer plutôt qu’un levier. La NSS 2025 proclame le « non-interventionnisme sélectif », renonce aux changements de régime, reconnaît implicitement l’emprise matérielle chinoise et requalifie la Russie en facteur de stabilisation continentale. Ce texte n’ordonne plus le monde : il tente de stabiliser un récit alors que le centre de gravité stratégique s’est déplacé hors de portée des USA.

👉 Lire l’article sur Substack

Translated by Tlaxcala

The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy: a narrative to conceal a shift in the centre of gravity

The new National Security Strategy (NSS) published in early December has been read as a return of the Monroe Doctrine, a Trumpesque hardening or a simple anti-China refocus. If we take it literally and place it back in the 8–11 October sequence, when China showed it could reshape the global balance without firing a shot, a different picture emerges: that of a power writing inside an order already structured by Beijing, where the Western Hemisphere is no longer isolable and Europe is treated as a risk to be managed rather than a lever. The 2025 NSS proclaims “selective non-interventionism”, renounces regime change operations, implicitly acknowledges China’s material grip and recasts Russia as a factor of continental stabilisation. This text no longer orders the world: it tries to stabilise a narrative at a time when the strategic centre of gravity has moved out of reach of the United States.

👉 Read the article on Substack

Traducido por Tlaxcala

La estrategia nacional de seguridad 2025 de USA: un relato para ocultar un cambio de centro de gravedad

La nueva Estrategia Nacional de Seguridad (NSS) publicada a principios de diciembre fue leída como el regreso de la doctrina Monroe, un endurecimiento trumpista o un simple recentraje antichino. Si se la toma al pie de la letra y se la recoloca en la secuencia del 8 al 11 de octubre, cuando China demostró que podía remodelar el equilibrio mundial sin disparar un solo tiro, aparece otra imagen: la de una potencia que escribe dentro de un orden ya estructurado por Beijing, donde el hemisferio occidental ya no es aislable y donde Europa es tratada como un riesgo que hay que encuadrar más que como un palanca. La NSS 2025 proclama el “no intervencionismo selectivo”, renuncia a los cambios de régimen, reconoce implícitamente la impronta material china y reclasifica a Rusia como factor de estabilización continental. Este texto ya no ordena el mundo: intenta estabilizar un relato en el momento en que el centro de gravedad estratégico se desplazó fuera del alcance de USA.

👉 Leer el artículo en Substack

Übersetzt von Tlaxcala

Die US-amerikanische Sicherheitsstrategie 2025: eine Erzählung, die eine Verschiebung des strategischen Schwerpunktes überdeckt

Die neue Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie (NSS), die Anfang Dezember veröffentlicht wurde, ist vielfach als Rückkehr zur Monroe-Doktrin, als trumpistische Verschärfung oder als einfache Neuausrichtung gegen China gelesen worden. Liest man sie jedoch wörtlich – und setzt sie in Beziehung zu der Sequenz vom 8. bis 11. Oktober, als China zeigte, dass es das globale Gleichgewicht verändern kann, ohne einen Schuss abzugeben –, entsteht ein anderes Bild: das einer Macht, die in einem bereits von Peking strukturierten Ordnungsrahmen schreibt, in dem die westliche Hemisphäre nicht mehr isolierbar ist und Europa eher als Risiko zu kontrollieren denn als strategischer Hebel behandelt wird. Die NSS 2025 verkündet einen „selektiven Nichtinterventionismus“, verzichtet auf Regimewechsel, erkennt implizit die materielle Dominanz Chinas an und stuft Russland als Faktor kontinentaler Stabilisierung neu ein. Dieses Dokument ordnet die Welt nicht mehr; es versucht, eine Erzählung zu stabilisieren, obwohl sich der strategische Schwerpunkt bereits außerhalb der Reichweite der USA verschoben hat.

👉 Artikel auf Substack lesen

The Critical-Minerals Race Is Putting the Planet at Risk

Johanna Sydow  and Nsama Chikwanka, Project Syndicate, 5/12/2025

Johanna Sydow  is Head of the International Environmental Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Nsama Chikwanka is National Director of Publish What You Pay Zambia.

As governments weaken environmental protections to promote new mining projects, the global scramble for critical minerals is deepening social divides and harming vital ecosystems. Only reduced consumption and robust, enforceable rules can prevent long-term harm and protect basic human rights.

 

A view of the dismantled remains of an illegal gold mining camp "Mega 12", during a police operation to destroy illegal machinery and equipment in the Amazon jungle in the Madre de Dios region, in south-eastern Peru, on March 5, 2019. - Illegal gold mining in the Amazon has reached "epidemic" proportions in recent years, causing damage to pristine forest and waterways and threatening indigenous communities. Photo by GUADALUPE PARDO / POOL / AFP via Getty Images

BERLIN – The environmental and human toll of mineral extraction is becoming clearer – and more alarming – by the day. Roughly 60% of Ghana’s waterways are now heavily polluted due to gold mining along riverbanks. In Peru, many communities have lost access to safe drinking water after environmental protections were weakened and regulatory controls were suspended to facilitate new mining projects, contaminating even the Rímac River, which supplies water to the capital, Lima.

These environmental crises are exacerbated by deepening inequality and social divides in many mining-dependent countries. The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice has documented more than 900 mining-related conflicts around the world, about 85% of which involve the use or pollution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater. Against this backdrop, major economies are rapidly reshaping resource geopolitics. 

The United States, while attempting to stabilize the fossil-fuel-based global economy, is also scrambling to secure the minerals it needs for electric vehicles, renewable energy, weapons systems, digital infrastructure, and construction, often through coercion and aggressive negotiating tactics. In its quest to reduce dependence on China, which dominates the processing of rare-earth elements, environmental and humanitarian considerations are increasingly brushed aside. 

Saudi Arabia is likewise positioning itself as a rising power in the minerals sector as part of its efforts to diversify away from oil, forging new partnerships – including with the US – and hosting a high-profile mining conference. At the same time, the Kingdom is actively undermining progress in other multilateral fora, including this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30) and the ongoing pre-negotiations of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA7).

Haut du formulaire

Bas du formulaire

In Europe, industry groups are lobbying for further deregulation, with fossil-fuel companies like ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, and Siemens using misleading tactics to undermine newly established mechanisms designed to protect the rights of communities in resource-producing regions. We should be worried that the companies and countries which helped drive global warming, environmental degradation, and human-rights abuses now seek to dominate the mineral sector. Allowing them to do so will put all of humanity, not just vulnerable populations, at risk.

Governments must not remain passive. They must reclaim responsibility for steering the primary driver of mining expansion: demand. Reducing material consumption, especially in developed countries, remains the most effective way to protect vital ecosystems and prevent the long-term harms that extraction inevitably causes.

Yet despite overwhelming evidence that ramping up resource extraction threatens water supplies and public safety, governments around the world are weakening environmental protections in a bid to lure foreign investment, thereby endangering the very ecosystems that sustain all life on Earth. From an economic perspective, this approach is profoundly short-sighted.

In fact, recent research shows that responsible practices are not just morally right but economically sound. A new report by the UN Development Programme, based on five years of data from 235 multinationals, shows that companies that strengthen their human-rights record tend to perform better over the long run. Governments should therefore be wary of industry claims that profitability requires rolling back environmental regulations or ignoring human rights. When people cannot trust political leaders to protect their rights, they are highly likely to resist, with the resulting social conflict causing investment to falter. 

The backlash against Rio Tinto’s Jadar lithium-mining project in Serbia is a prime example. Many Serbians believed their government was putting corporate interests first by pushing ahead with the project despite its failure to meet even basic sustainability standards. The public outcry halted development and left the company facing steep losses. 

Only robust legal frameworks, backed by effective enforcement, can create the conditions for stable and rights-respecting development. That means safeguarding Indigenous rights; ensuring the free, prior, and informed consent of all affected communities; protecting water resources; undertaking spatial planning, establishing no-go zones; and conducting independent, participatory, and transparent social and environmental impact assessments. Given today’s heightened geopolitical tensions, multilateral forums such as COP and the UNEA remain essential for countering global fragmentation and advancing shared solutions. Mineral-rich countries should work together to raise their environmental standards, just as oil-producing countries jointly influence global prices. Through collective action, they can prevent a destructive race to the bottom and ensure that local communities, particularly Indigenous peoples and other rights holders, are heard. 

At a time when clean drinking water is growing scarcer, glaciers are melting, and agriculture is increasingly under threat, coordinated international action is no longer optional. A resolution that Colombia and Oman introduced for December’s UNEA, calling for a binding minerals treaty, represents an important step toward fairer global standards. Initiated by Colombia and co-sponsored by countries like Zambia, which understand all too well the costs of extractive industries, the proposal calls for cooperation across the entire mineral production chain to reduce environmental harm and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and other affected communities. 

By placing responsibility on resource-consuming countries, it aims to ensure that the burden of reform does not fall solely on mineral-producing economies. Importantly, it also addresses the dangers posed by tailings dams and other mining waste, which have led to devastating failures and hundreds of deaths. Taken together, these measures offer a rare opportunity to begin correcting the inequalities that have long defined mineral extraction. All countries, especially mineral producers that have historically been excluded from the negotiating table, should seize this moment. UNEA7 provides a window for achieving resource justice. 

Hegseth is “the killer”… and this is not a Netflix series

 Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, 4-12-2025
Translated by Tlaxcala

While Donald Trump was sketching out the composition of his cabinet after being elected and before taking office, he made a decision: the neoconservatives who had caused him so many problems during his first administration would have no place this time. Thus, he excluded, among others, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams, who had held senior positions in his previous government.

But something went wrong. After the last Senate election, the upper chamber ended up with 53 Republican senators, 45 Democrats and 2 independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Among the 53 Republicans elected, four — Rick Scott and Ashley Moody, both part of the Florida mafia, Bernie Moreno, of Colombian origin and senator for Ohio, and Ted Cruz, of Cuban origin and senator for Texas — later joined by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, identify ideologically with the fascist far-right grouped within the neoconservative sector of the current U.S. administration.

Although a minority, they held enough votes to determine outcomes in the Senate. They made this known to Trump, who needed them to pass his projects, so he reluctantly had to accept whatever they demanded… and they demanded the State Department, where they installed one of their own: Marco Rubio. From that moment, Trump became politically blackmailed by this group. Many decisions stem from this coercion exerted by the neoconservative wing of his government. And apparently, he can do nothing, because thanks to them not only his cabinet was approved, but also the budget and the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA),” an absurdity passed by senators eager to please the president.

Thus, Trump managed to get his cabinet nominations approved. However, when it came to appointing the head of what was then the Department of Defense — now renamed Department of War — the vote resulted in a tie that had to be broken by Vice President J.D. Vance.

 
How to draw Pete Hegseth, by  Michael de Adder

This is how Peter Brian Hegseth, known as Pete, assumed the country’s highest military office despite the rejection of half the senators, including three Republicans. The arguments against him centered on his lack of experience, as well as rape accusations brought by a woman in 2017 — apparently “resolved” through a payment for silence.

Hegseth, a shadowy figure born 45 years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, whose prior “experience” amounts to being a television host known for ultra-reactionary and conservative views — including pronounced and explicit homophobia based on the notion that homosexuality was alien to Western civilization — had declared that “the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”

His disposition is also plainly visible in his tattoo of the “Jerusalem Cross”, symbol of the Christian crusaders, reflecting extremist Christian ideology. Another tattoo includes the expression “Deus Vult”, Latin for “God wills it”, a Crusades battle cry later adopted by white supremacists.

Hegseth has authored four books. In the first, he offers an apology for the slave-based societies of the Southern states prior to the Civil War. He also believes that “women should never have been given the right to vote.” In his second book, American Crusade (2020), he wrote: “Just as the Christian crusaders repelled the Muslim hordes in the 12th century, American crusaders must show the same courage against today’s Islamists.”

Trump considered his brief participation in the U.S. Army National Guard sufficient grounds to appoint him secretary of Defence, ignoring the fact that he rose only to the rank of captain and completed no advanced officer or strategic command training. What must generals and admirals with 35 or more years of service think of being commanded by a captain? Someone might argue that expertise is not gained only within the armed forces — true — but this captain has no political experience either: he failed in his bid to become a senator for his home state, which pushed him into a television job at Fox News, where lack of qualifications are not a great obstacle.

Upon assuming the new post, quickly revealing his lack of preparedness for such responsibility, he — in collusion with Marco Rubio — has led his tenure in two directions. First, he has pushed for a strategic reorientation of U.S. military doctrine, shifting its priorities from countering China and Russia — repeatedly stated by senior military leaders in congressional testimony — toward internal threats and the situation in the Western Hemisphere. According to an expert consulted by the German outlet Politico, the shift “does not appear to align at all with President Trump's aggressive positions toward China.”

The second orientation, arising from the first, is that military doctrine should focus on protecting U.S. borders supposedly threatened by drug trafficking and migration, including combating these “enemies” inside the country itself.

An increasing number of influential voices in the U.S. are warning about the risks such a doctrine poses. Journalist Tucker Carlson warned that “in the future, the United States could face a civil war.” His argument is based on protests against ICE and on the disturbances linked to Antifa, designated by the Trump administration as a “terrorist organization”. Hegseth and Rubio want to involve the U.S. armed forces on behalf of Trump and the Republicans in any such internal conflict. Likewise, governors have shown increasing resistance to allowing military presence in their states without authorization.

Another facet of Hegseth’s leadership is his intention to “clean out” the Pentagon of high-ranking officers “linked to the Democratic Party” or who adopted inclusive policies under the Biden administration. In this context, the secretary of War (he changed the department’s name from Department of Defence) has fired or sidelined at least two dozen senior military officers in the past ten months. Likewise, about twenty generals and admirals have requested early retirement, including Admiral Alvin Hosley, head of U.S. Southern Command.

Many of these officers were expelled with little explanation, sometimes contradicting the advice of senior commanders who had served with them in combat. These actions have reportedly created a climate of “anxiety and distrust”, forcing leaders to take sides and at times pitting them against one another.

Simultaneously, sources reveal that the Pentagon chief has delayed or cancelled the promotions of at least four senior officers because they previously worked for retired General Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 2023.

In one of the most notable changes, Trump appointed a new vice chief of staff of the Army to replace General James Mingus, who served less than two years. He nominated Lieutenant General Christopher LaNeve — unsurprisingly, a close adviser to Hegseth in his role as Senior Military Assistant.

This was the context in which, on Tuesday, September 30, Hegseth gathered — for the first time since World War II — more than 800 generals and admirals at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, about 30 km from Washington.

The unusualness of the meeting was not only its scale but its purpose. One might assume it was meant to discuss global strategic matters, but it was not. Despite Trump’s introductory remarks about a “very beautiful meeting” to discuss “excellent military results”, the reality was different.

The atmosphere was tense: many generals worried about the security risks of bringing so many high-ranking officers into one location, when a videoconference using the Pentagon’s secure internal systems would have sufficed, avoiding complex logistics. Confidentiality was also compromised.

 Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

In his speech, Hegseth attacked “woke ideology”, claiming it had developed within the military under previous administrations. Among measures he announced: no allowance for overweight personnel, bearded personnel, long-haired personnel, or “superficial individual expressions”. He also attacked women, saying they would not be allowed in combat, and announced the return of “hard-core fighters” who had left under the “woke department”. He promised reforms in harassment-investigation methods, declared “the end of men wearing dresses”, as well as of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, promising a new army shaped after the MAGA administration.

Before Hegseth’s remarks, Trump had declared that major urban centers were “very dangerous places [so] we will bring them to order one by one […] It will be an important task for some of the people in this room […] It is an internal war,” he concluded.

The meeting will not go down in history for its content but for the stunned faces of generals and admirals listening to the speeches and to the tirades against obesity, beards, homosexuality in the armed forces, and the need to limit the presence of women.

Another facet of Hegseth’s management is his unprecedented attacks on the media, targeting individual reporters and the industry as a whole. Since his arrival, some outlets have been expelled from shared spaces, journalists’ movement inside the Pentagon has been restricted, and some press credentials have been revoked.

Among the journalists harshly attacked is Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, a veteran Pentagon reporter repeatedly targeted by Hegseth’s “acid” remarks. Courtney Kube of NBC News was also targeted after coverage that — according to The New York Times — included unflattering information about Hegseth’s past, such as testimony from a family member regarding abusive behavior toward his second wife. These details surfaced during his nomination. Shortly after taking office, Hegseth ordered that she be expelled from the Pentagon — an order that could not be executed for lack of legal basis.

In his most recent action, Hegseth allegedly ordered the killing of two fishermen who survived an attack after being baselessly accused of drug trafficking. Democratic Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut called the attacks “illegal killings” and “troubling”, and stated that Congress is receiving very little information from the Trump administration. Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged but dismissed a White House memorandum justifying the attacks. “Based on what I know now and on reading this memo, these are illegal killings,” he said. “They are illegal because the idea that the United States — and this is the administration’s justification — is engaged in an armed conflict with any Venezuelan drug trafficker is absurd. It would not stand in any court.”

In this context, a true internal war has erupted, with discussion emerging about the loss of “confidence” in Hegseth’s ability to negotiate at high levels, according to a Politico article published on November 21. This led to an escalation of rhetoric within MAGA circles. One of its most notorious representatives, far-right activist Laura Loomer, accused Driscoll of ties to the Democratic Party and of “planning a coup d’état against Hegseth.”

According to Politico, the latest trip to Kiev by senior Pentagon officials, led by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, illustrates Hegseth’s loss of credibility and relevance.

No one knows whether Hegseth can withstand the heavy pressure he is under. Weeks ago, a source close to the Pentagon said he appeared so nervous that he seemed “on the verge of exploding.” Surrounded by one of the world’s most powerful protective apparatuses, he has been particularly concerned for his safety since the assassination of ultraconservative activist Charlie Kirk during a public event.

According to the British Daily Mail on September 29, citing sources close to him, Hegseth’s fear “is reflected in erratic behavior toward his staff.” Two anonymous Pentagon insiders said that in recent weeks he has launched tirades, lashed out at subordinates and become obsessed with security matters. “He has a manic quality — or rather, an even more manic quality, which is saying something,” said one source, describing him as visibly distracted, restless, standing up and pacing during meetings.

Now, like the coward he is, he has refused to take responsibility for the “kill them all” order that led to the murder of the fishermen in the Caribbean, pushing Admiral Frank M. Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, to absorb all the repercussions. According to The Washington Post, “Bradley, then head of Joint Special Operations Command, oversaw an attack in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth against a vessel suspected of drug trafficking. The Post reported that “Bradley ordered a second strike after identifying two survivors via drone feed, following Hegseth’s directive to leave no survivors.”

We shall see what consequences might arise from admirals with more than 35 years of service — now commanding aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers and cruisers — ending their careers by destroying small civilian vessels and killing peaceful fishermen. This may also help explain why suicides, drug addiction and post-war trauma are rising daily within the U.S. armed forces. To maintain this machinery, they also need the drug trade they claim to fight. It is part of the functional framework of that decadent society.

Socialism Is Neither a Sin nor a CrimeLessons from Mamdani’s victory in New York

Faber Cuervo, 2/12/2025
Translated by Tlaxcala

If socialism were a “sin” or a crime, why would a socialist candidate have won the mayoralty of New York, the most representative city of capitalism? Socialism is the highest achievement to which politics—understood as care for others—can aspire. Authentic socialists seek to make human freedoms effective, those that truly guarantee dignity. Socialism is “good living”: that nothing necessary should be lacking for any of us, without distinction of skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation or social class. No one is free until they have secured their freedom to be well nourished, their freedom to obtain good health care, good education, a safe home, and a dignified job. Capitalism is a raffle cage of hamsters running endlessly in circles so that every two weeks they can buy the few freedoms the market offers them.

Molly Crabapple

That Zohran Mamdani, a socialist of Indian origin, has conquered the New York mayoralty is a breath of fresh air, the possibility of spreading socialist thought, refining the ideological line, reorganizing social bases, and strengthening a great party of manual and intellectual workers not only in the United States but in Latin America and the world.

The rejection, obstruction and crushing of socialist projects have historically been ordered from Washington and New York, the anti-communist capitals of the planet. Like an extension of the Ku Klux Klan, they demonized everything suspected of being “red”; on U.S. soil any allusion to socialism was prohibited, McCarthyism was born, figures accused of being communist were persecuted and expelled (Charlie Chaplin, the great comic actor, among them), and the labor movement was dismantled.

But history keeps surprising us with its dialectical turns and paradoxes. Today, in the 21st century, in the year 2025, while another Henry Kissinger reappears with his Operation Condor that filled Latin America with dictatorships that demonized, persecuted, tortured and assassinated thousands of socialists, a migrant with socialist thinking wins the mayoralty of New York. It happens that the new emperor, Donald Trump, listens in his Oval Office to the “extraterrestrial” Mamdani, accepted into the political sphere reluctantly.

Socialism has slipped into the country that banned it. It finds its way into the Big Apple, strolls down Wall Street. “I would prefer not to,” Bartleby would say. But this is an idea that has circulated for more than a century and a half—an idea forced to face attacks of all kinds, from all sorts of civil, ecclesiastical, and military authorities. They will have to learn to live with it; no one knows what they will try to do to topple it, just as they did in many other countries.

Portrait of the bourgeoisie, 1939-1940, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Ciudad de México, Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas

The Wobblies (1979)A documentary on the IWW by Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer

The Wobblies (1979) par Fausto Giudice

A documentary on the IWW by Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer

Lire sur Substack

Pas de musique sans justice/No Music without JusticeLettre ouverte au directeur de la Philarmonie de Paris, Olivier ManteiOpen Letter to Olivier Mantei, Director General of the Philharmonie de Paris

English version after the French original

Ce dimanche 30 novembre 2025, le Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra donnera un concert à la Philarmonie de Paris (Cité de la Musique) sous la direction de son directeur musical Lahav Shani, qui est aussi directeur musical de l’Orchestre philarmonique d’Israël et sera celui de l’Orchestre philarmonique de Munich à partir de septembre 2026. Un précédent concert donné le 6 novembre au même endroit par l’Orchestre symphonique d’Israël sous la même direction avait été le théâtre d’incidents, à la suite desquels 4 manifestants propalestiniens ont été mis en examen et ont déposé à leur tour diverses plaintes pour agressions et violation du secret de l’enquête. Plusieurs organisation viennent d’adresser la lettre ci-dessous au directeur de la Philarmonie.-Tlaxcala

Jeudi 27 novembre 2025

Monsieur le Directeur,

Depuis le début du génocide à Gaza, on atteste de près de 70 000 personnes assassiné.e.s, hommes, femmes et enfants compris. Toujours à Gaza, ce sont 345 personnes qui ont été assassinées et 889 blessées par l’armée israélienne, depuis l’entrée en vigueur du « cessez-le-feu », le 11 octobre dernier, cessez-le-feu violé plus de 500 fois. En deux ans, c’est 6 fois la bombe d’Hiroshima qui s’est écrasée sur un territoire d’à peine 150 kilomètres carrés. L’aide humanitaire et médicale reste bloquée alors qu’avec l’hiver les épidémies s’apprêtent à emboîter le pas à la famine. Tous les jours les cadavres s’amoncèlent lorsqu’ils ont la « chance » d’être retrouvés. Lundi 24 novembre, c’est en armes que les milices israéliennes ont chassé les enfants du Théâtre national palestinien (El-Hakawati Theatre) de Jérusalem occupée. Ces armes feront certainement moins parler d’elles que de pauvres fumigènes brandis face aux ambassadeurs culturels de l'État d’Israël.

Le génocide, tel qu’il a été caractérisé par les instances de droit international compétentes, se poursuit sous nos yeux. Et vous, que faites-vous ?

Protestations contre une série de concerts de l'Israel Symphony Orchestra au Carnegie Hall de New York, 15 octobre 2025

Non content d’inviter l’Israel Philharmonic Orchestra (IPO) et son chef titulaire, ambassadeurs officiels de l’état colonial en plein génocide, non content d’accueillir ces musicien.ne.s qui se font le relais de la déshumanisation des Palestinien.ne.s par des propos de désinformation condamnables sur leurs réseaux sociaux à l’instar d’Eleonora Lutsky qui nous parle de « Hamaswood » et Kirill Mihanovsky qui désigne les Palestinien.ne.s  de « monstrueux voisins », non content d’attaquer en justice des militant.e.s pacifiques qui appellent au boycott légitime des institutions culturelles israéliennes qui participent à la normalisation du génocide, vous, vous décidez de vous enfoncer avec votre institution dans le mensonge en espérant ne jamais avoir à assumer vos responsabilités face à l’histoire et face à la justice.

Vous avez menti à vos salarié.e.s lors d’une assemblée générale extraordinaire en qualifiant de violent.e.s des militant.e.s pacifistes, en passant sous silence la violence des insultes racistes et homophobes d’une partie du public, en affirmant que vous ne saviez pas que l’orchestre allait jouer l’hymne israélien alors qu’il l’interprète régulièrement lors de ces tournées. Car oui, cet hymne n’a pas été joué en réaction à l’action de nos camarades, c’était déjà un acte prémédité.

Vous avez été cordialement invité, au regard des appels palestiniens et dans le cadre du droit international, à annuler les venues de Lahav Shani, de l’IPO et du Jerusalem Quartet pour le rôle institutionnel qu’ils occupent dans la politique d’effacement par la culture du crime de génocide commis par Israël. À ces appels, là encore, vous avez répondu par le mensonge et par l’instrumentalisation outrancière des artistes palestinien.ne.s programmé.e.s dans votre institution pour justifier votre collaboration avec les institutions culturelles de l’état génocidaire. Ce mardi 25 novembre, vous avez décidé d’assumer cet agenda politique et d’entraîner toute votre institution dans le discours de propagande en répondant positivement à la demande de Lahav Shani de s’expliquer auprès de vos salarié.e.s. Un discours d'explication qui n’est autre qu'un redoublement de condamnation qualifiant la protestation pacifiste d’ « attaque armée » à l’encontre de l’identité israélienne. Or, chacun des appels à boycott que vous avez reçus était très clair sur la nature de l’action : « nous n’appelons pas à boycotter des artistes du fait de leur nationalité israélienne mais du fait de leur participation institutionnelle à la politique d’effacement des vies palestiniennes orchestrée par l’État israélien. »

Vous imposez à vos salarié.e.s le discours de propagande par l’explication - hasbara - alors que vous refusez le dialogue avec celles et ceux qui vous alertent depuis le début sur cette complicité avec le pire. C’est votre manière de passer sous silence les voix palestiniennes.

Cacher vos décisions derrière le supposé apolitisme de la musique classique relevait déjà de l’outrage face aux souffrances endurées par les Palestinien.ne.s depuis plus de deux ans et à l’égard du droit international. Devions-nous espérer, après un tel acharnement à maintenir la collaboration avec les ambassadeurs du génocide notamment par le recours démesuré à la force policière et judiciaire, que vous reveniez à la raison ? Vous êtes aujourd’hui prêt à excuser un tel affront à la dignité humaine et au droit international - comme l’a été l’hymne de l'État génocidaire qui a retenti dans vos murs. Et tout cela pourquoi ? Pour ne pas prendre le risque d’annuler un concert avec Martha Argerich parce que cela ferait mauvais genre auprès de vos confrères ? Ou pour ne pas froisser l’extrême droite politique et médiatique qui, depuis le 6 novembre, vous soutient inconditionnellement comme elle a soutenu la politique génocidaire ?

Renoncez donc à vos valeurs humanistes de pacotille et assumez l’agenda réactionnaire que vous avez décidé d’endosser en ouvrant les portes de votre institution à celles et ceux qui nient la valeur des vies palestiniennes et le droit international. Vos mensonges se poursuivent car non, cette institution n’est plus la nôtre. Vous l’avez livrée au fascisme qui ronge le monde, vous en avez fait l’étendard de la déshumanisation, la normalisation des heures les plus sombres de notre présent. Vous n’avez jamais souhaité nous écouter lorsque nous vous avons alerté. Vous faites la sourde oreille au bruit des bombes lorsqu’elles explosent sur Gaza en tuant par milliers hommes, femmes et enfants, mais vous ouvrez votre scène à celles et ceux qui les lancent là-bas, mais aussi au Qatar, en Iran, au Yémen, au Liban et en Syrie.

À quoi s’attendre pour les concerts des 30 novembre et 16 janvier prochains ? À une Philharmonie aux allures de bunker, nouveau fief des forces de l’ordre et de la répression dans le 19e arrondissement de Paris ? À une réunion au sommet des institutions et associations négationnistes du génocide en cours et qui, par le pire travers antisémite qui consiste à associer toustes les Juif.ve.s du monde à l’état d’Israël, instrumentalisent l’histoire et la culture juive à des fins guerrières ?  Si vous n’entendez pas les souffrances des Palestinien.ne.s avez vous au moins compris celles de vos salarié.e.s et des mélomanes que vous traînez dans votre complicité outrageante ?

Au nom de la musique que nous défendons, au nom de l’humanité que nous incarnons et puisqu’il s’agirait encore selon vous de notre institution, nous vous exhortons à cesser toute collaboration avec les institutions culturelles et académiques israéliennes qui lavent les mains des génocidaires. Après vous avoir invité cordialement à envisager l’annulation des venues de Lahav Shani et du Jerusalem Quartet, nous vous l’exigeons. Et malgré vos habitudes policières prises le 6 novembre dernier, nos revendications et surtout les voix palestiniennes dont nous nous faisons le relais ne souffriront aucune de vos répressions. Enfin, dans le doute que tout cela soit entendu il nous faudra constater que vous n’avez pas été à la hauteur de vos fonctions d’un point de vue politique et moral et qu’il nous semblera justifié d’exiger votre démission au nom de la dignité des victimes d’un génocide que vous avez décidé de normaliser. L’histoire finira par juger les auteur.ice.s du génocide et leurs complices. À ce jour, vous êtes sur le banc des accusés.

Tahia Falestine !

Artistes pour la Palestine - France
Palestine Action
Union Juive Française pour la Paix
Tsedek
Culture en luttes

On Sunday, November 30, 2025, the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra will give a concert at the Philharmonie de Paris (Cité de la Musique) under the baton of its music director Lahav Shani, who is also music director of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra and will be music director of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra from September 2026. A previous concert given on November 6 at the same venue by the Israel Symphony Orchestra under the same conductor was the scene of incidents, following which four pro-Palestinian protesters were charged and in turn filed various complaints for assault and violation of the secrecy of the investigation. Several organizations have just sent the letter below to the director of the Philharmonic. -Tlaxcala

Thursday, 27 November 2025

Sir,

Since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza, nearly 70,000 people have been killed—men, women, and children included. Still in Gaza, 345 people have been killed and 889 injured by the Israeli army since the so-called “ceasefire” came into effect on October 11, a ceasefire that has been violated more than 500 times. In two years, the equivalent of six Hiroshima bombs has been dropped on a territory barely 150 square kilometers in size. Humanitarian and medical aid remains blocked while, with winter approaching, epidemics are preparing to follow in the footsteps of famine. Every day, bodies pile up—when they have the “luck” of being found. On Monday, November 24, armed Israeli militias forced children out of the Palestinian National Theatre (El-Hakawati Theatre) in occupied Jerusalem. These weapons will certainly attract less attention than a few harmless smoke flares raised in front of the cultural ambassadors of the State of Israel.

The genocide—characterized as such by the relevant international legal bodies—continues before our eyes. And you, what are you doing?

Not only have you invited the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra (IPO) and its principal conductor, official ambassadors of a colonial state in the midst of committing genocide; not only have you welcomed musicians who relay the dehumanization of Palestinians through reprehensible disinformation on their social media—for instance, Eleonora Lutsky speaking of “Hamaswood,” or Kirill Mihanovsky referring to Palestinians as “monstrous neighbors”; not only have you taken peaceful activists to court for calling for the legitimate boycott of Israeli cultural institutions that participate in the normalization of genocide—you have chosen to plunge your institution deeper into falsehood, hoping never to have to assume your responsibilities before history and before justice.

You lied to your employees during an extraordinary general assembly, describing peaceful activists as violent, ignoring the racist and homophobic insults from part of the audience, and claiming you did not know the orchestra would play the Israeli anthem even though they perform it regularly on tour. Yes—the anthem was not played in response to the action of our comrades; it was a premeditated act.

You were cordially invited—considering the Palestinian calls and in accordance with international law—to cancel the appearances of Lahav Shani, the IPO, and the Jerusalem Quartet due to the institutional role they play in the cultural whitewashing of the crime of genocide committed by Israel. To these calls you again responded with falsehoods and with the blatant instrumentalization of Palestinian artists programmed in your institution, using them to justify your collaboration with the cultural institutions of a genocidal state.

This Tuesday, November 25, you chose to fully assume this political agenda and drag your entire institution into the propaganda narrative by agreeing to Lahav Shani’s request to address your employees. His “explanation” was nothing more than a renewed condemnation, describing peaceful protest as an “armed attack” against Israeli identity. Yet every call to boycott you received was very clear: “We are not calling for a boycott of artists because of their Israeli nationality, but because of their institutional participation in the erasure of Palestinian lives orchestrated by the Israeli state.”

You impose propaganda—hasbara—on your employees through these explanations, while refusing dialogue with those who have been warning you from the start about this complicity with the worst. This is your way of silencing Palestinian voices.

Hiding behind the supposed apolitical nature of classical music was already an outrage given the suffering endured by Palestinians over the past two years and in the face of international law. After such relentless efforts to maintain collaboration with the ambassadors of genocide—calling disproportionately on police and judicial force—were we to hope you might come to your senses?

Today you are ready to excuse an affront to human dignity and to international law—just like the anthem of the genocidal state that resounded within your walls. And why? To avoid risking the cancellation of a concert with Martha Argerich because it would look bad among your peers? Or to avoid offending the far-right political and media forces that have supported you unconditionally since November 6, just as they support genocidal policy?

Cast aside your sham humanist values and assume the reactionary agenda you have chosen to adopt by opening your institution’s doors to those who deny the value of Palestinian lives and international law. Your lies continue, because no—this institution is no longer ours. You have handed it over to the fascism eating away at the world; you have made it a banner of dehumanization and the normalization of the darkest hours of our present. You never wished to hear us when we warned you. You turn a deaf ear to the sound of bombs exploding over Gaza, killing thousands of men, women, and children, but you open your stage to those who drop them there—and in Qatar, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria as well.

What are we to expect for the concerts of November 30 and January 16? A Philharmonie turned into a bunker, new stronghold of law enforcement and repression in Paris’s 19th arrondissement? A summit of institutions and associations denying the ongoing genocide and—through the very worst form of antisemitism, which consists of conflating all Jews worldwide with the State of Israel—instrumentalizing Jewish history and culture for warlike purposes?

If you cannot hear the suffering of Palestinians, have you at least understood that of your employees and of the music-lovers you are dragging into your outrageous complicity?

In the name of the music we defend, in the name of the humanity we embody, and since this is supposedly still our institution according to you, we call on you to cease all collaboration with Israeli cultural and academic institutions that wash the hands of the perpetrators of genocide.

After having cordially invited you to consider cancelling the appearances of Lahav Shani and the Jerusalem Quartet, we now demand it. And despite the policing habits you embraced on November 6, our demands—and above all the Palestinian voices we relay—will not tolerate any repression from you.

Finally, should all this go unheard, we will be forced to acknowledge that you have failed to meet the political and moral responsibilities of your position, and it will seem justified to demand your resignation in the name of the dignity of the victims of a genocide you have chosen to normalize.

History will judge the perpetrators of genocide and their accomplices. As of today, you sit on the defendants’ bench.

Tahia Falestine!

Artistes pour la Palestine - France

Palestine Action

Union Juive Française pour la Paix

Tsedek

Culture en lutte