07/01/2026

In Netanyahu’s Folktale, Only 70 Young Men Are Responsible for All the West Bank Pogroms

Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 4/1/2026

The state is behind the pogroms. It is responsible for them – they serve the government’s interests. Its soldiers are always present, but not a single IDF commander has carried out what international law requires – protecting Palestinian residents

 
A Palestinian man uses a mobile phone to record a burning truck after an Israeli settler attack in a village east of Tulkarm in the West Bank in November. Photo Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP

These are two common folktales: In heaven, 72 virgins await shahids, or martyrs; in the West Bank, 70 young men from broken homes are behind all riots. It’s hard to know which of the two folktales is more far-fetched.

The second is a figment of the prime minister’s imagination: Benjamin Netanyahu even told Fox News that the youths "are not from the West Bank."

Let’s put aside the arguments that broke out over his use of the forbidden term "West Bank," and ask: Are there actually any settlers from the West Bank? They all moved there in recent decades. None of them belong there, uninvited guests in a foreign land whose time there, one hopes, will be short, and their end will be like that of crusaders, inshallah.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s concern for the handful of youths’ mental health is touching – and fitting for a man leading a government that has always prioritized mental health. Settler activists were quick to offer them treatment – the hostels and rehab centers are already being set up. But we’re not talking about 70 people, 700 or 7,000.

Haut du formulaire

The more accurate figure is 70,000, or in fact, seven million. Netanyahu’s attempt to minimize the phenomenon and attribute it to a handful of rioters is a total lie, just like the 72 virgins who are waiting for no one. It’s doubtful that even Fox News bought it.

The state is behind the pogroms. It is responsible for them, it wants them to happen – they serve the government’s interests and satisfy its residents’ wishes. Just look at the fact that they continue, unopposed.

The blame is shared by the army, the settlers and law enforcement. All settlers take part, whether actively or passively, and the riots’ evil and sadism – from mercilessly beating up the elderly to slaughtering sheep – are unpleasant to many Israelis, but make up a much broader web of violence which everyone quietly accepts.

Settlers slit the throats of lambs in the southern Hebron Hills, elite paratrooper soldiers carry out a pogrom in Deir Dibwan that would make the rioting youths proud. Running over a Palestinian who lay a prayer carpet by the side of the road is no more serious an act than soldiers shooting children throwing stones. The second is just more lethal, but no one is horrified.

Behind every pogrom – I have seen the devastating results of many of them – stand the Israel Defense Forces.

Its soldiers are always present. Sometimes they arrive late, sometimes on time, but they never perform their duty to protect the helpless victims. It has not yet occurred to a single commander in the IDF to carry out what international law requires – protecting residents.

The pogroms could be contained within a few days far more easily than Palestinian terrorism, but Israel doesn’t want to contain Jewish terrorism. It pleases all settlers and most Israelis, even if secretly, because it advances the ultimate goal – cleansing the land of its Palestinian inhabitants.

Have armed settlers ever gone out to defend their neighbors against the terrorism? Don’t make them laugh.

They see the flames rising from their fields and hear the bleating sheep slaughtered in their pens. They see the uprooted olive trees on the side of the road and hear the off-road vehicles that MK Orit Strock gifted them, precisely so that they would commit these pogroms.

Why do they need the vehicles, if not to trample fields and run over old men? Since when has the government equipped farmers with free ORVs? Would a farmer in the moshav of Avivim be entitled to one? No, because he does not commit pogroms against Arabs.

Another pogrom by around 50 rioters was reported on Saturday night, this time in Kafr Farkha. According to Netanyahu, they are almost all the existing rioters in the West Bank. Most Israelis probably believed that. How convenient and comforting.



Venezuela: ‘I dreamed of planes that clouded the day’..., by Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein

 Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, 6/1/2026
Original español: Yo soñé con aviones, que nublaban el día…
Translated by John Catalinotto

A Midsummer Night's Dream, by Silvio Rodríguez (see translation below)

It is quite difficult to express something new and different from what I have said and written in the last three days. It seems to me that the most important thing has been that Venezuela has managed to ensure constitutional continuity in the management of the state and the government after the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro. This, much to the chagrin of the United States, has been verified.

The chain of events in recent days reflects a solid rule of law and the existence of strong institutions that guarantee the strength of a country that functions in strict accordance with its National Constitution. Approved by popular referendum on December 15, 1999, the Constitution sets out a political, legal, and social contract that transcends individuals and leaders who are no longer physically present. 

We lost Commander Hugo Chávez, but before that, on Dec. 8, 2012, he showed us the way. President Maduro was kidnapped, but he, being foresighted, left us the Decree of External Emergency so that, in the event of his absence, the country would continue to function.

Since December 15, 1999, this country, Venezuela, has been following the path of law and justice in accordance with its Constitution. To interrupt this path, it is not enough to assassinate Commander Chávez and kidnap President Maduro. Let's look at what happened after January 3:

1.    That same day. Approval in the Constitutional Chamber of the temporary absence of President Maduro. It should be clear that this is not a permanent absence. To that extent, he remains the constitutional president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Delcy Rodríguez is the vice president and now in charge of the presidency. Thus, the constitutional thread has been maintained.

This is very important because European countries and the opposition attempted to argue that new elections and a “peaceful and orderly transition” were necessary. There will be no transition here because there has been no change in the regime or the government. What has happened, I repeat, is legal and constitutional continuity. This is no minor issue because it will influence the next steps and because, as President Maduro himself pointed out in his first appearance before the judge in the United States, he is—according to international law and even U.S. domestic law—a sitting president who has been illegally kidnapped.

2.    On January 3 itself. The Decree of External Emergency signed in advance by President Maduro comes into force, anticipating a situation such as the one that occurred in the early hours of that day. The decree restricts freedom of movement and the right of assembly, provided that these measures are proportionate to the seriousness of the situation. However, it does not limit the right to life, it prohibits torture and incommunicado detention. The State continues to guarantee the right to due process, to defense, and to access to timely information.

3.   January 3. Meeting of the National Defense Council (State Public Powers, Minister of Defense, Chief of the Strategic Operational Command of the Armed Forces, Vice President of Citizen Security, Councils of Vice Presidents, Foreign Minister, and some special guests). According to Article 323 of the Constitution, this body is the highest authority on matters of defense.

4.   January 5. The new National Assembly for the 2026-2031 term was sworn in with the deputies elected in the last legislative elections on May 25, 2025.

5.   January 10. The Vice President, in her capacity as acting president, will deliver the annual message to the National Assembly and the country, reporting on the activities of the State during 2025. According to what President Maduro had previously announced, the fundamental themes of the message will be: Democracy and Participation; Community Strengthening; Economy and Production; Security and Defense; and Training and Communication.

Of course, the return of President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores will be the top priority. I have been able to gather some information about what happened. The attacks resulted in around 80 deaths, including 32 Cuban allies of the president, and that was just in Fuerte Tiuna. There are other casualties in different parts of the country, but they have not been counted. Investigations are still ongoing to detect security breaches.  The loss of weapons was minimal because they had previously been dispersed throughout the country.

President Trump is lying when he says there were no casualties. There were casualties, but they took the bodies away and hid them because, having carried out an illegal operation under U.S. domestic law, he has no way of justifying the deaths of his country's soldiers.

 The U.S. elite have no inhibitions against killing citizens of any other country in the world, but they are highly sensitive to the casualties of their own people, in this case it is in an unauthorized war. Their wounded were transferred in complete secrecy first to Puerto Rico and then on a secret flight to a military hospital in Houston, Texas. 

At this moment, in Venezuela, there is territorial control by the people together with the Armed Forces throughout the country and a military deployment across the entire national territory. Today, the country is battered and hurt by the kidnapping of the president and his wife, but in strategic terms, the United States' action cannot be considered a victory. Even if the operation had a tactical purpose of achieving certain objectives, the United States did not achieve them either.

1. It did not succeed in changing the regime or the government. It was unable to install a friendly puppet government in Venezuela’s national territory.

2. It did not succeed in fracturing the Armed Forces, which remain united around the acting president.

3. It did not fracture the government or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which is the backbone of the political process initiated by Commander Chávez.

4. Nor did it succeed in seizing Venezuela's natural, energy, and mineral resources.

As [author of “The Art of War”] Sun Tzu says, “if a strong contender fails to defeat the weak, then he loses, regardless of the damage he has inflicted.”

The institutional framework of the state remains strong. This was already evident on the afternoon of Jan. 3, following the solid and forceful intervention of Delcy Rodríguez, who has taken on her new responsibility with integrity.

 On Monday the 5th, in an event that received little coverage but was of the utmost emotional, spiritual, and moral importance, the acting president, after taking the oath of office before the National Assembly, went to the Cuartel de la Montaña, where the remains of Commander Chávez rest, to pledge before him to continue his work and his thinking.

She then went to the General Cemetery of the South to perform the same ceremony at the tomb of her father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a brilliant revolutionary leader who was assassinated in July 1976 after being captured and brutally tortured by the repressive forces of the representative democracy that ruled Venezuela for 40 years.

It has become clear that if the United States eventually dares to invade the country, defense plans will be put into action to repel the aggressor. Not only is the Bolivarian Revolution active in the streets, but the resistance will continue, even if it lasts for many years and produces many losses, and the struggle will be fought with a strategic geopolitical vision. Therefore, the fundamental elements to guarantee resistance are:

1.    Political unity to defeat the enemy's attempts to divide the Bolivarian Revolution.

2. A people in arms, in a popular-police-military fusion.

3. Strategic patience, as reaffirmed by Vice President Delcy Rodríguez in her speech.

4. Nerves of steel, calm and sanity, so as not to fall for the provocations of the United States, or its lies and its threats.

5. Maximum awareness that emerges from political training and organization.

Now, a new battle has begun, a legal one in the United States. Initial reports from New York indicate that President Maduro is well prepared and politically strengthened to wage this new fight in which life has placed him. He has very good lawyers, but above all, he has the conviction that—even in conditions of extreme adversity—his cause is just and belongs to the people.

In the last three days, encouraging events have taken place that could signal a different course from that outlined by the imperial forces. Given the lack of consistency in the charges, the U.S. government has been forced to withdraw the accusation that the president led a non-existent drug trafficking organization called the “Cartel of the Suns.” It is one thing to construct a farce that the media is eager to reproduce and quite another to present evidence to prove it. 

Likewise, the displays of solidarity with Venezuela and with President Maduro and his wife, the mass marches, the statements by political and social organizations, governments, and leaders from all corners of the globe, could be signaling that, without our having intended it, the cause of Venezuela and the freedom of President Maduro—especially given the integrity and dignity he displayed in his first appearance before the judge—could become an instrument of struggle and organization for millions of citizens around the world who love justice, freedom, and independence. 

Similarly, we must be alert to the threat of the United States taking over Greenland.

 It is not that I wish the same fate on the noble Inuit people as we have suffered, but given that the largest island on the planet is Danish territory and therefore part of the European Union and under NATO control, it remains to be seen what would happen under all these circumstances if Trump carries out his threat. Will European countries judge him in the same way they now judge Venezuela?

 Even without carrying out his intimidation and extortion, Trump is forcing European powers to take a stand on what would be another clear outrage against what was once called international law and even today, when this law no longer exists, states cling to it like an umbilical cord that provides them with a hypocritical attachment to life.

If this were not the case, how can we explain how one of the two most obsequious allies of the United States in the world, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, demanded that Trump provide explanations for his operation in Venezuela? As the old saying goes, “when you see your neighbor's beard on fire, put yours in water.

These are events that are beginning to emerge in a world that was shaken on Jan. 3. Since Aug. 19, I have stated countless times that an invasion of Venezuela by large units of the U.S. armed forces did not seem possible. 

However, I also said on several occasions, such as in September during the Workers’ Party (PT) seminar in Mexico, that: “Notwithstanding the above, we cannot rule out the possibility that the United States will carry out some other type of terrorist action against Venezuela. In this context, its big problem is how to get out of the conflict it [the U.S.] got itself into with a ‘victory’ that allows it to demonstrate to its public opinion that the action taken made the United States safer. That is not so difficult in the face of public opinion that has been dumbed down by the media.”

On Oct. 12, I said: “What we are seeing is the parallel development of a psychological war that is reaching all parts of Venezuela and the world. This psychological warfare aims to create division and panic, to try to cause some kind of chaos that will provoke internal confrontation and thus be able to take advantage of the disorder to kidnap and/or assassinate leaders and officials with special tactical operations.”

I have also always said that this situation will be resolved in Venezuela and the United States. It will not be China or Russia or anyone else who will resolve this confrontation. These and other countries have been sincere allies and friends of Venezuela. We appreciate that, but beyond statements of condemnation and rejection and Security Council meetings whose resolutions are useless because the United States vetoes them, they will do nothing more. They have their own problems and their own issues. Venezuela does not seem to be one of them.

We will resolve it ourselves if we are able to resist, but the real decision will be made in the United States, where almost 70% of citizens reject Trump's declared war against Venezuela, even repudiating his decision to override the authority of Congress, as he himself has said, when he also proposed as a new mission to assassinate the president in charge of Venezuela. 

Just two weeks ago, I wrote an article in which I characterized the U.S. government as Nazi. Some considered it an exaggeration. In it, I gave the disputes, among them that “...Nazi ideology is characterized by ultra-nationalism and supremacism, which establish the existence of a superior race that must expand based on hatred against so-called ‘inferior beings’; totalitarianism that imposes absolute control of the state, as Trump seeks to do by minimizing and undermining Congress, the courts, and other branches of power; militarism that involves the exacerbation of military force and aggression as instruments of expansion and war; and finally, anti-communist and anti-liberal ideology in opposition to socialism and democracy…”

Today, not only the U.S. people, but also a large part of the media that retains some semblance of decency, and even the elite, repudiate Trump for the events of Jan. 3. They do so not out of love for Venezuela or President Maduro. They do so because Trump is on track to destroy the political system of the United States and, with it, the hegemonic system of world domination that the U.S. rulers have built since the end of World War II.

That does concern them, and they will take extraordinary measures to save it. Citizens will have to wait until November to express their opinion at the polls. If Trump is defeated, his base of support will weaken and the Republicans will have to take a position. These 11 months will be extremely dangerous. It is not only the fate of Venezuela or Latin America that is at stake, but the future of humanity.

During World War II, humanity united against Nazi-fascism. Today, part of the planet, including some major powers, seems comfortable coexisting with the Nazi government of the United States. They seem preoccupied with their own problems while accepting that Latin America and the Caribbean are the “backyard” of the United States. 

Many things will happen in the coming years. We must be prepared for them. Contrary to what one might assume, I am optimistic because I learned from Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro that a revolutionary, when he believes in the people, always is one. And I feel confident because, as that extraordinary phrase from Cuban popular dialectical thought says, “The good thing about this is how bad it is getting.”

In the early hours of Jan. 3, as I woke my son to move him to a safer room in the house, given the proximity of the place where the democratic missiles of the United States were striking, I don’t know why, but I remembered Silvio’s words: 

“I dreamed of planes that clouded the day, just when people were singing and laughing the most...” and immediately I saw the end of his poem, which becomes a song of struggle for the peoples of Our America: “...if I capture the perpetrator of so much disaster, he will regret it...”




06/01/2026

Gli iraniani e l’Euromania come patologia collettiva
Un’analisi critica della situazione, di Mostafa Ghahremani

 Tradotto da Tlaxcala

Dott. Mostafa Ghahremani arrivò in Germania dopo la rivoluzione iraniana del 1979 e studiò medicina umana e odontoiatria a Francoforte. Oggi lavora come specialista in chirurgia plastica ed estetica in una clinica privata tedesca. In quanto attivista critico della società, segue da anni gli sviluppi politici in Iran. È autore di una monografia su Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, figura importante ma spesso trascurata della rivoluzione iraniana e poi ministro degli esteri, condannato a morte e giustiziato nel 1982.


Il modo in cui noi iraniani·e affrontiamo la cultura e la civiltà occidentale mostra tratti chiaramente morbosi, anzi patologici. Si tratta di un incontro che non si basa su una comprensione critica e storica, ma su una forma di fascinazione, passività e accettazione immediata e non filtrata. Per questo motivo – a differenza dello scrittore e critico culturale Jalal Al-e Ahmad, che all’inizio degli anni ‘60 definì questa condizione “ossessione per l’Occidente” (gharbzadegi غرب‌زدگی) – preferisco il ter mine “Euromania” (غرب‌شیفتگی gharbshiftegi). Questo termine proviene dalla letteratura specialistica della psichiatria e indica più precisamente un attaccamento eccessivo e un disturbo della capacità di giudizio.


A mio parere, l’Euromania nella società iraniana può essere caratterizzata da tre tratti centrali:

  • un attaccamento eccessivo,
  • un’ammirazione acritica,
  • e una condizione quasi compulsiva che rende impossibile ogni distanziamento epistemico.

Sono passati più di due secoli dai nostri primi incontri con l’Occidente, ma questi incontri non hanno mai portato a una comprensione profonda della logica interna, dei meccanismi di potere e delle basi epistemologiche della civiltà occidentale. L’Occidente non è stato percepito come una totalità storicamente stratificata e contraddittoria, ma prevalentemente come un insieme di realizzazioni pronte, istituzioni e modelli consumabili. In questo quadro, in particolare, la connessione interna tra sapere, potere, istituzione e soggetto nella modernità occidentale è rimasta trascurata. Di conseguenza, la nostra conoscenza dell’Occidente si è largamente esaurita nelle sue manifestazioni e nei meccanismi esterni di funzionamento, ed è rimasta cieca a un’analisi storica della produzione di “verità”, “razionalità” e “normatività” all’interno di questa civiltà. L’Occidente è apparso nel nostro pensiero più come un modello neutrale e universale che come un progetto storico specifico, sorto in stretta connessione con rapporti di dominio, processi di disciplinamento e riproduzione del potere.

Persino importanti intellettuali iraniani contemporanei, nonché pensatori riformisti religiosi e secolari, non sono stati risparmiati da questa limitazione epistemologica. I loro soggiorni per lo più relativamente brevi in Occidente, spesso senza un accesso profondo alle sue tradizioni filosofiche, storiche e critiche, non hanno permesso una comprensione strutturale e fondamentale della modernità occidentale. Pertanto, una parte sostanziale del loro confronto con l’Occidente si è basata meno su una critica immanente della tradizione moderna e più su percezioni selettive e in parte idealizzate.

Purtroppo, queste interpretazioni, a causa del ruolo d’avanguardia di questi pensatori nel campo intellettuale iraniano, sono diventate esse stesse un fattore determinante nella diffusione dell’Euromania tra i ceti medi urbani. Questi strati hanno gradualmente iniziato a considerare l’Occidente non più come un oggetto di conoscenza critica, ma come metro ultimo di razionalità, progresso e persino virtù. Il risultato di questo atteggiamento è stata la persistenza di una condizione in cui la società iraniana, nelle aree politiche, economiche e culturali, è rimasta esposta a una forma di egemonia occidentale sia morbida che dura.

Questo dominio distruttivo si è manifestato da un lato nella sottomissione delle strutture statali e nella facilitazione dello sfruttamento delle risorse naturali ed economiche del paese; dall’altro, attraverso il reclutamento e l’integrazione delle élite intellettuali e scientifiche iraniane nelle istituzioni occidentali – nel contesto della migrazione e della fuga dei cervelli –, ha portato alla riproduzione della disuguaglianza epistemica.

Inoltre, l’imposizione di modelli di vita e di pensiero occidentali come unici modi di esistenza legittimi e razionali ha causato un estraniamento delle élite dai loro stessi contesti sociali e storici e ha rafforzato un’autodistruzione strutturale.

Il risultato di questo processo è stata l’incapacità delle élite di fornire risposte efficaci ai problemi reali della società, nonché il ripetuto fallimento di progetti di riforma, sviluppo ed emancipazione; poiché questi progetti erano per lo più concepiti sulla base di una razionalità e di un’etica che non sono emerse dal contesto storico e culturale della società iraniana.

Dal punto di vista del sottoscritto– che ha vissuto, studiato e lavorato ai massimi livelli professionali in una delle società occidentali più centrali per oltre quattro decenni – la via per liberare l’Iran dalla condizione di dipendenza onnicomprensiva ed egemonia oggi non risiede né in un rifiuto semplicistico dell’Occidente né nella sua accettazione acritica, ma nel superamento consapevole e critico del fenomeno dell’Euromania.

In questo contesto, l’istituzione e lo sviluppo degli Studi occidentali (occidentalismo) come disciplina critica e storica della conoscenza – in tensione e al contempo in corrispondenza con l’orientalismo – appare come una necessità imprescindibile. Una tale ricerca sull’Occidente può rendere visibili le basi filosofiche ed epistemologiche nonché i meccanismi interni della civiltà moderna, il suo rapporto con il potere, l’etica, la razionalità e la tradizione, e impedire che l’Occidente venga ridotto a un modello universale e senza alternative. Progettata correttamente, questa conoscenza può contribuire a recuperare la fiducia epistemica, a rinnovare la certezza collettiva di sé e a formare una razionalità critica e indigena.

L’ascesa dell’Iran sulla via della libertà, dell’indipendenza, dell’autodeterminazione strategica e dello sviluppo sostenibile non sarà possibile senza il superamento di questa patologia collettiva dell’Euromania.

Le changement de régime parfait : quand capturer vaut mieux que détruire

 Andrés Izarra, Pulso, 5/1/2026
Traduit par Tlaxcala

Andrés Izzara (1969) est un journaliste chaviste vénézuélien qui a été deux fois ministre et a rompu avec Maduro en 2018, estimant que si Chávez avait un projet socialiste, Maduro misait sur un « projet néolibéral de droite ». Il vit en exil à Berlin. Nous publions cette traduction à titre purement informatif.

Aux premières heures du 3 janvier, Donald Trump a fait ce que beaucoup disaient qu’il ne pourrait pas faire sans en payer le prix fort : un changement de régime au Venezuela. Des hélicoptères Chinook transportant des forces Delta sont entrés à Caracas, ont enlevé Maduro et l’ont déposé quelques heures plus tard dans une cellule à Brooklyn. Le 5 janvier, il a été présenté à un juge fédéral, inculpé pour narco-terrorisme.


Les USA préparent la combinaison orange de Maduro, par Arcadio Esquivel, Costa-Rica, 4/12/2025


Un succès suspect tant il est impeccable

Pour emmener Noriega en 1989, les USA avaient dû raser El Chorrillo et tuer des milliers de personnes. L’opération avait pris près d’un mois. Où était l’armée « chaviste » ? Les collectifs armés ? La Milice bolivarienne ? Les roquettes russes ? La « guerre populaire prolongée » qu’ils promettaient ? « Ce n’est pas d’entrer qui est facile, c’est de sortir », fanfaronnaient-ils. Ils sont entrés, sont sortis et l’ont emmené sans la moindre résistance.

L’histoire devra élucider les détails de la négociation qui a ouvert les portes d’une prison fédérale de haute sécurité aux USA à Maduro et à sa femme. Le succès tactique n’est pas revenu qu’aux forces spéciales usaméricaines. Il revient à une trahison parfaitement exécutée.

Le triomphe stratégique

Cette opération redéfinit le « changement de régime » pour le XXIe siècle, à la lumière des bourbiers irakiens et afghans. Son triomphe stratégique est d’obtenir le contrôle effectif du Venezuela sans payer le prix de la reconstruction nationale (nation-building). Pas de reconstruction institutionnelle, pas de désarmement des milices, pas de création de nouvelles forces de sécurité. Pas d’occupation avec cent mille soldats pendant une décennie. Pas d’insurrection, pas de vide de pouvoir, pas de chaos à gérer.

Trump l’a dit sans détour : il s’agit de capturer des ressources, en commençant par le pétrole. La démocratie peut attendre.

Ce que Trump exécute aujourd’hui, avec la collaboration enthousiaste des Rodríguez [Delcy et son frère Jorge, ancien vice-président, ancien président de l’Assemblée et grand magouilleur, NdT], n’est pas une libération : c’est une appropriation néocoloniale. Il s’arroge, par la force pure, le droit de gouverner le pays. De décider qui commande et qui ne commande pas. D’ouvrir le sous-sol vénézuélien à ses compagnies pétrolières. D’administrer un pays de 31 millions d’habitants comme s’il s’agissait d’une concession.

S’il s’agissait d’une transition démocratique, si Delcy était le pont temporaire que certains imaginent, il y aurait des élections dans quelques mois, pas une période d’adaptation à l’occupation pétrolière usaméricaine.

Le changement de régime n’a pas eu lieu pour la démocratie vénézuélienne. Il a eu lieu pour le contrôle yankee.

Delcy n’est pas une Balaguer

Certains disent que Delcy serait une Balaguer : la continuiste qui prépare la transition démocratique. Elle ne l’est pas. Trujillo avait construit un régime personnaliste, il incarnait l’État. Quand on l’a tué, le vide était inévitable. Balaguer a servi d’amortisseur pendant l’organisation de la transition.

Le madurisme, c’est autre chose. Ce n’est pas un régime personnaliste, mais patrimonial : un réseau de militaires, de bureaucrates et d’hommes d’affaires qui a capturé l’État pour l’administrer comme un butin. Un régime ne se définit pas par les noms qui l’occupent ni par sa rhétorique. Il se définit par la façon dont le pouvoir fonctionne : à qui il doit allégeance, sous quelle pression il opère, quelles sont les limites de ce qu’il peut faire ou dire.

Pendant des années, le madurisme s’est légitimé, du moins dans le discours, par sa « résistance » aux USA. Ils pouvaient être corrompus, autoritaires ou incompétents, mais ils étaient « anti-impérialistes ». Cette fiction leur donnait une cohésion interne et un soutien politique. Cette fiction est terminée.

Aujourd’hui, Delcy Rodríguez est là où elle est parce que Trump l’y a mise. Elle doit son poste à Washington. Elle peut répéter des slogans, garder le cabinet, invoquer Chávez, même diriger la campagne « Free Maduro ». Mais la substance du régime a changé. De facto, c’est un pouvoir subordonné aux diktats usaméricains.

Le triomphe de Trump a été de sortir Maduro du siège du conducteur alors que la voiture roulait, et de s’y asseoir lui-même.

Quand le leader d’un régime personnaliste tombe, le système s’effondre. Il n’y a plus d’État sans lui. Quand le parrain d’une mafia tombe, la structure ne s’effondre pas : elle s’adapte. Elle cherche un nouveau patron. Elle négocie sa survie. Les allégeances ne sont ni idéologiques ni morales. Elles sont contractuelles. Ce qui importe, c’est de rester dans le business.

C’est pourquoi Trump a pu enlever le parrain sans démanteler la structure. Il n’a pas détruit l’appareil chaviste pour construire quelque chose de nouveau. Il l’a capturé et l’a mis à son service.

Voilà le changement de régime parfait. Non parce qu’il est moralement acceptable ou légalement justifiable, mais parce qu’il atteint l’objectif, le contrôle d’un pays, sans assumer les coûts qui ont englouti les USA en Irak et en Afghanistan.

Il n’y aura pas à expliquer pourquoi des soldats meurent à Caracas dans cinq ans. Ni à justifier des milliers de milliards de dollars en reconstruction. Il y aura du pétrole qui coulera, des contrats signés et un gouvernement local qui obéit sans que Washington ait à gouverner directement. C’est pourquoi c’est historique. Non pas à cause de l’opération militaire, mais à cause du modèle qu’elle inaugure :

Ne pas détruire les États. Les capturer.
Ne pas occuper des territoires. Contrôler les élites.
Ne pas construire des nations. Rediriger celles qui existent.

Et tout a fonctionné parce que le régime de Maduro n’était pas révolutionnaire, mais mafieux. Et les États mafieux, par leur nature même, sont transférables.

 

Loro hanno i martelli, noi siamo i chiodi: la “politica di difesa” europea ignora la sicurezza umana

Ben Cramer, 5/1/2026
Tradotto da Tlaxcala

Familiarizzatosi con la sociologia della Difesa all’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Ben Cramer si avvicinò alla polemologia, per poi unirsi al Department of Peace Studies a Bradford prima di fare le sue prime esperienze all’interno di Greenpeace nelle campagne per il disarmo. Ricercatore al CIRPES, ha lavorato sull’esercito di milizia svizzero – per conto della Fondation pour les Études de Défense Nationale. Giornalista, ex-produttore del programma ‘Fréquence Terre’ su RFI, co-conduce nel 2008 il primo dibattito al Parlamento Europeo sul tema ‘Sicurezza Collettiva e Ambiente’, dopo aver operato in un gruppo di riflessione sulla proliferazione nucleare all’interno del Centre d’Études et de Recherches de l’Enseignement Militaire, il CEREM. Ricercatore associato al GRIP a Bruxelles (sull’impronta delle attività militari e il cambiamento climatico), si sforza di popolarizzare il concetto di ‘sicurezza ecologica’ e di evidenziare i ponti tra sicurezza, ambiente e disarmo. Sitio web: https://athena21.org

Dobbiamo decostruire la logica del martello e del chiodo. Questa constatazione dovrebbe suscitare vocazioni ma, nel frattempo, mentre il pensiero strategico è in panne, la nozione di sicurezza non si è liberata dal giogo militare. E finché la priorità è data alle armi, al loro uso, alla loro sofisticazione, ogni distruzione, incluso l’“infanticidio differito” evocato dal padre della polemologia Gaston Bouthoul, si concluderà con l’accaparramento e lo stupro delle risorse planetarie. A queste tattiche di distruzione si aggiungeranno, nel quadro delle guerre ibride, operazioni volte a dissuadere i civili dal giocare il ruolo loro spettante nel definire ciò che la società dovrebbe difendere e come.


A titolo di spiegazione, sembra opportuno cogliere quanto le élite che ci governano siano intrappolate dalla tecnologia di cui si sono dotate. Essa determina le loro opzioni o, più precisamente, limita il loro margine di manovra, come illustra l’ordine del successore della portaerei Charles-de-Gaulle che rappresenta 42.000 tonnellate di ... gesticolazione diplomatica. L’annuncio di questo cantiere faraonico (e neanche europeo!) conferma la negazione in cui sprofondano coloro che rifiutano di realizzare che la modernizzazione a lungo termine della forza di attacco costituisce uno degli elementi più emblematici per fare dello Stato sovrano un agente di insicurezza suprema.

Ma come scriveva lo psicologo usamericano Abraham Maslow: “Se l’unico strumento a disposizione del potere è un martello, è tentante trattare tutto come se fosse un chiodo” (The Psychology of Science, 1966, una frase spesso attribuita a Mark Twain). Così, poiché coloro che ci governano hanno solo martelli a portata di mano, ogni situazione (simbolizzata da un chiodo) deve essere trattata con il “pugno duro”; ogni perturbatore è necessariamente un nemico destinato ad essere annientato. La formula può sembrare antiquata o superata nella misura in cui l’obiettivo delle guerre future consiste nel controllare e non nel far morire. Il nemico non è sempre quello che si ostenta.

Per assicurare una maggiore sicurezza, bisogna prima designare le minacce credibili e saper fissare le priorità. Eh sì, per parafrasare uno slogan della SNCF, una minaccia può nasconderne un’altra. In un mondo che ha perso ogni razionalità, in cui la maggior parte degli Stati spende di più per la sicurezza nazionale che per l’istruzione dei propri figli, gli indicatori sono inefficaci. Purtroppo, difendere la tesi secondo cui l’analfabetismo e/o la discalculia costituiscono una minaccia maggiore per l’umanità del terrorismo non è politicamente redditizio. Ecco perché alcuni fanno del sensazionalismo omettendo di dire che le vittime del terrorismo sono sei volte meno numerose del numero di morti ai passaggi a livello in Francia (dati 2020).

La distorsione tra percezione e realtà è un mezzo per rilevare l’istrumentalizzazione della minaccia. Ad esempio, la campagna mediatica condotta da Donald Trump, per insinuare che il coronavirus fosse una tattica premeditata da Pechino, non ha permesso di sottrarre centinaia di migliaia di cittadini usamericani alla morte. In ogni caso, alle minacce “fake” si aggiungono falsi allarmi e quindi, risposte inappropriate. Questo fenomeno non è riservato a un solo paese, fosse pure il più imperiale. Allora, che fare?

Zij hebben de hamers, wij zijn de spijkers: het Europees „defensiebeleid” negeert de menselijke veiligheid

Ben Cramer, 5/1/2026
Vertaald door Tlaxcala

Door zich te verdiepen in de sociologie van Defensie aan de École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales maakt Ben Cramer kennis met de polemologie, om zich vervolgens aan te sluiten bij de Department of Peace Studies in Bradford voordat hij zijn eerste ervaring opdoet binnen Greenpeace in ontwapeningscampagnes. Als onderzoeker bij CIRPES werkt hij aan het Zwitserse militiesysteem – in opdracht van de Fondation pour les Études de Défense Nationale. Journalist, voormalig producent van het programma ‘Fréquence Terre’ op RFI, co-moderert hij vanaf 2008 het eerste debat in het Europees Parlement over « Collectieve Veiligheid en Milieu »; na actief te zijn geweest in een denktank over nucleaire proliferatie binnen het Centre d‘Études et de Recherches de l‘Enseignement Militaire, het CEREM. Als geassocieerd onderzoeker bij GRIP in Brussel (over de ecologische voetafdruk van militaire activiteiten en klimaatverstoring) streeft hij ernaar het concept « ecologische veiligheid » te populariseren en de bruggen tussen veiligheid, milieu en ontwapening te benadrukken. Website : https://athena21.org

 

We moeten de logica van de hamer en de spijker deconstrueren. Deze vaststelling zou roepingen moeten wekken, maar ondertussen, terwijl het strategisch denken stagneert, heeft het veiligheidsbegrip zich niet bevrijd van het militaire keurslijf. En zolang prioriteit wordt gegeven aan wapens, hun gebruik, hun verfijning, zal elke vernietiging – inclusief de 'uitgestelde kindermoord' die de vader van de polemologie Gaston Bouthoul noemde – uitmonden in de toe-eigening en verkrachting van planetaire hulpbronnen. Aan deze vernietigingstactieken zullen, in het kader van hybride oorlogen, operaties worden toegevoegd die burgers moeten ontmoedigen om hun rol te spelen bij het definiëren van wat de samenleving verondersteld wordt te verdedigen en hoe.


Ter verklaring lijkt het verstandig te bevatten hoezeer de elites die ons besturen gevangen zitten in de technologie waarmee zij zich hebben uitgerust. Die bepaalt hun opties of, meer precies, beperkt hun manoeuvreerruimte, zoals geïllustreerd door de bestelling van een opvolger voor het vliegdekschip Charles-de-Gaulle dat 42.000 ton ... diplomatiek gebaar vertegenwoordigt. De aankondiging van dit megaproject (en niet eens Europees!) bevestigt de ontkenning waarin zij wegzinken die weigeren te beseffen dat de langetermijnmodernisering van de aanvalsmacht een van de meest emblemische elementen is om van de soevereine staat een agent van ultieme onveiligheid te maken.

Maar zoals de Amerikaanse psycholoog Abraham Maslow schreef: « Als het enige gereedschap dat je hebt een hamer is, is het verleidelijk alles te behandelen alsof het een spijker is. » (The Psychology of Science, 1966, een zin vaak ten onrechte toegeschreven aan Mark Twain). Omdat zij die ons besturen dus alleen hamers bij de hand hebben, moet elke situatie (gesymboliseerd door een spijker) worden behandeld met de "harde lijn"; elke verstoorder is noodzakelijkerwijs een vijand die vernietigd moet worden. De formule kan "achterhaald" of verouderd lijken voor zover het doel van toekomstige oorlogen controle is in plaats van doden. De vijand is niet altijd degene die men ophemelt.

Om grotere veiligheid te waarborgen, moeten eerst geloofwaardige bedreigingen worden geïdentificeerd en prioriteiten worden gesteld. Ja, om een SNCF-slogan te parafraseren: het ene gevaar kan het andere verbergen. In een wereld die alle rationaliteit heeft verloren, waarin de meeste staten meer uitgeven aan nationale veiligheid dan aan het onderwijs van hun kinderen, zijn indicatoren niet effectief. Helaas is het politiek niet rendabel om te beweren dat analfabetisme en/of dyscalculie een grotere bedreiging vormen voor de mensheid dan terrorisme. Daarom overdrijven sommigen en verzwijgen zij dat de slachtoffers van terrorisme zes keer minder talrijk zijn dan het aantal doden bij overwegen in Frankrijk (cijfers 2020).

De vervorming tussen perceptie en realiteit is een middel om de instrumentalisering van bedreigingen op te sporen. De door Donald Trump geleide mediacampagne, die insinueerde dat het coronavirus een vooropgezette tactiek van Peking was, heeft bijvoorbeeld niet kunnen voorkomen dat honderdduizenden Amerikaanse burgers stierven. In ieder geval komen bij de "valse" bedreigingen valse alarmen en dus ongepaste reacties. Dit fenomeen is niet voorbehouden aan één land, zelfs niet het meest imperiale. Dus wat te doen?

05/01/2026

Ellos tienen los martillos, nosotr@s somos los clavos: la “política de defensa” europea ignora la seguridad humana

Ben Cramer, 5-1-2026
Traducido por Tlaxcala

Al familiarizarse con la sociología de la Defensa en la École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Ben Cramer se inició en la polemología, para luego unirse al Department of Peace Studies en Bradford antes de hacer sus primeras armas dentro de Greenpeace en las campañas por el desarme. Investigador en el CIRPES, trabajó sobre el ejército de milicia suizo –por encargo de la Fondation pour les Études de Défense Nationale. Periodista, ex productor del programa ‘Fréquence Terre’ en RFI, copresentó en el 2008 el primer debate en el Parlamento Europeo sobre el tema “Seguridad Colectiva y Medio Ambiente”, después de haber actuado en un grupo de reflexión sobre la proliferación nuclear dentro del Centre d‘Études et de Recherches de l‘Enseignement Militaire, el CEREM. Investigador asociado al GRIP en Bruselas (sobre la huella de las actividades militares y la alteración climática), se esfuerza por popularizar el concepto de 'seguridad ecológica' y resaltar los puentes entre seguridad, medio ambiente y desarme. Sitio web: https://athena21.org/

Tenemos que deconstruir la lógica del martillo y el clavo. Esta constatación debería suscitar vocaciones pero, mientras tanto, mientras el pensamiento estratégico está estancado, la noción de seguridad no se ha liberado del corsé militar. Y mientras se dé prioridad a las armas, a su manejo, a su sofisticación, cualquier destrucción, incluido el “infanticidio diferido” que evocaba el padre de la polemología Gaston Bouthoul, se saldará con el acaparamiento y la violación de los recursos planetarios. A estas tácticas de destrucción se añadirán, en el marco de guerras híbridas, operaciones destinadas a disuadir a los civiles de jugar el papel que les incumbe en la definición de lo que la sociedad debe defender y cómo.


A modo de explicación, parece acertado captar cuánto las élites que nos gobiernan están atrapadas por la tecnología con la que se han dotado. Ésta determina sus opciones o, más exactamente, limita su margen de maniobra, como ilustra el encargo del sucesor del portaaviones Charles-de-Gaulle que representa 42.000 toneladas de ... gesticulación diplomática. El anuncio de este macroproyecto (¡ni siquiera europeo!) confirma la negación en la que se hunden quienes se niegan a darse cuenta de que la modernización a largo plazo de la fuerza de ataque constituye uno de los elementos más emblemáticos para convertir al Estado soberano en un agente de inseguridad suprema.

Pero he aquí, como escribía el psicólogo usamericano Abraham Maslow: “Si la única herramienta de la que dispone el poder es un martillo, es tentador tratar todo como si fuera un clavo” (The Psychology of Science, 1966, una frase a menudo atribuida a Mark Twain). Así, puesto que quienes nos gobiernan sólo tienen martillos a mano, toda situación (simbolizada por un clavo) debe ser tratada con la “mano dura”; todo perturbador es necesariamente un enemigo destinado a ser aniquilado. La fórmula puede parecer “pasada de moda” o obsoleta en la medida en que el objetivo de las guerras futuras consiste en controlar y no en hacer morir. El enemigo no es siempre el que se enarbola.

Para asegurar una mayor seguridad, primero hay que designar las amenazas creíbles y saber fijar las prioridades. Sí, para parafrasear un eslogan de la SNCF, una amenaza puede esconder otra. En un mundo que ha perdido toda racionalidad, en el que la mayoría de los Estados gastan más en seguridad nacional que en la educación de sus hijos, los indicadores son inoperantes. Desgraciadamente, defender la tesis de que el analfabetismo y/o la discalculia constituyen una amenaza mayor para la humanidad que el terrorismo no es rentable políticamente. Por eso algunos exageran y omiten decir que las víctimas del terrorismo son seis veces menos numerosas que el número de muertos en pasos a nivel en Francia (cifras de 2020).

La distorsión entre percepción y realidad es un medio para detectar la instrumentalización de la amenaza. Por ejemplo, la campaña mediática dirigida por Donald Trump, para insinuar que el coronavirus era una táctica premeditada por Pekín, no permitió sustraer a cientos de miles de ciudadanos usamericanos de la muerte. En todo caso, a las amenazas “fake” se suman falsas alarmas y, por tanto, respuestas inapropiadas. Este fenómeno no está reservado a un solo país, aunque sea el más imperial. Entonces, ¿qué hacer?

They have the hammers, we are the nails; European “defense policy” ignores human security

 Ben Cramer, 5/1/2026
Translated by Tlaxcala

By familiarizing himself with the sociology of Defense at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Ben Cramer gained an introduction to polemology, before joining the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford and then doing his first stint with Greenpeace in disarmament campaigns. As a researcher at CIRPES, he worked on the Swiss militia army—on behalf of the Fondation pour les Études de Défense Nationale. A journalist and former producer of the ‘Fréquence Terre’ program on RFI, he co-hosted the first debate in the European Parliament on ‘Collective Security and Environment’ in 2008; after having been involved in a think tank on nuclear proliferation within the Centre d‘Études et de Recherches de l‘Enseignement Militaire, the CEREM. As an associate researcher at GRIP in Brussels (on the footprint of military activities and climate disruption), he strives to popularize the concept of ‘ecological security’ and highlight the bridges between security, environment and disarmament. Website : athena21

 


We must deconstruct the logic of the hammer and the nail. This observation should spark vocations, but in the meantime, while strategic thinking is stalled, the notion of security has not freed itself from the military straitjacket. And as long as priority is given to weapons, their handling, their sophistication, any destruction, including the ‘deferred infanticide’ evoked by the father of polemology Gaston Bouthoul, will result in the appropriation and rape of planetary resources. To these tactics of destruction will be added, in the context of hybrid wars, operations aimed at dissuading civilians from playing the role incumbent upon them in defining what society is supposed to defend and how.

By way of explanation, it seems wise to grasp how much the elites that govern us are trapped by the technology they have acquired. It determines their options or, more precisely, limits their room for maneuver, as illustrated by the order for the successor to the aircraft carrier Charles-de-Gaulle, which represents 42,000 tons of ... diplomatic gesticulation. The announcement of this (not even European!) megaproject confirms the denial in which those who refuse to realize that the long-term modernization of the strike force is one of the most emblematic elements in making the sovereign state an agent of supreme insecurity.

But as the USAmerican psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” (The Psychology of Science, 1966, a phrase often misattributed to Mark Twain). Thus, since those who govern us only have hammers at hand, every situation (symbolized by a nail) must be treated with the “hard line”; every troublemaker is necessarily an enemy destined to be annihilated. The formula may seem “has-been” or obsolete insofar as the goal of future wars is to control rather than to kill. The enemy is not always the one we brandish.

To ensure greater security, credible threats must first be identified and priorities set. Yes, to paraphrase an SNCF slogan, one threat can hide another. In a world that has lost all rationality, in which most states spend more on national security than on educating their children, indicators are ineffective. Unfortunately, arguing that illiteracy and/or dyscalculia constitute a greater threat to humanity than terrorism is not politically profitable. That is why some exaggerate and omit to say that the victims of terrorism are six times fewer than the number of deaths at level crossings in France (2020 figures).

The distortion between perception and reality is a means of detecting the instrumentalization of threat. For example, the media campaign led by Donald Trump, insinuating that the coronavirus was a premeditated tactic by Beijing, did not prevent hundreds of thousands of USAmerican citizens from dying. In any case, to “fake” threats are added false alarms and thus inappropriate responses. This phenomenon is not reserved for a single country, even the most imperial one. So what to do?