Resist Empire

Support TomDispatch
Tomgram

Norman Solomon, When Students Are a Shock to the System

Posted on

Once upon a time, in another era, maybe even another universe, the head of a university refused to call on the police, the National Guard, or even federal troops in the face of student and other protests. Instead, he opened the doors of his school to the demonstrators.

I’m thinking of Kingman Brewster, who was the president of Yale University on May 1, 1970, as peaceful protests over racial justice and against the Vietnam War were taking place in New Haven, Connecticut. It was just days before, thanks to the killing of four demonstrators by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University, anti-Vietnam War protests would — rather like the present Gaza ones — spread across hundreds of college campuses nationwide. Yale avoided the worst of it, when Brewster, among other things, said: “I am skeptical of the ability of Black revolutionaries to receive a fair trial anywhere in the United States. In large part, the atmosphere has been created by police actions and prosecutions against Panthers in many parts of the country. It is also one more inheritance from centuries of racial oppression.” I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew promptly and publicly called for Brewster’s ouster, while the students united behind him.

No such luck these days, of course. The police are being called onto ever more campuses, starting with Columbia University where the Gaza demonstrations were first launched. Had its president, under pressure from the Spiro Agnews of this day, not called in the police to arrest students, there might be no nationwide Gaza protest movement today. Instead, as I’m writing this, more than 2,000 students have been arrested across the country, including — yes! — 44 for “trespassing” at Yale.

Rare indeed has been Brown University, where “only” 61 were arrested after two sit-ins and a hunger strike before its president finally agreed to let its governing body vote this fall “on a proposal to divest the school’s $6.6 billion endowment from companies affiliated with Israel” and the Gaza Solidarity Encampment there ended peacefully. With that in mind, let TomDispatch regular Norman Solomon, author of War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, fill you in on the ways in which American students have bravely risked their college careers and their futures to reject what he calls an all-American death culture amid a horrifying war in Gaza to which this country continues to supply the most devastating of weaponry. Tom

War Culture Hates the Ethical Passion of the Young

In the Thrall of a Dominant Death Culture

Persisting in his support for an unpopular war, the Democrat in the White House has helped spark a rebellion close to home. Young people -- least inclined to deference, most inclined to moral outrage -- are leading public opposition to the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. The campus upheaval is a clash between accepting and resisting, while elites insist on doing maintenance work for the war machine.

I wrote the above words recently, but I could have written very similar ones in the spring of 1968. (In fact, I did.) Joe Biden hasn’t sent U.S. troops to kill in Gaza, as President Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam, but the current president has done all he can to provide massive quantities of weapons and ammunition to Israel -- literally making the carnage in Gaza possible.

Read More
Tomgram

Robert Lipsyte, America’s Existential Trials

Posted on

Despite the lack of televised coverage of Donald Trump in court, the trial of the century — or do I mean of the month, week, day, minute, or second? — has caught our attention. And yes, a crucial witness is indeed likely to be a porn star. But no matter, the real news is that, for the first time in memory, the former president has actually had to shut up. The man who can’t stop talking and hasn’t done so for years is now forbidden to say a word (unless he agrees to testify at the trial, in which case he could easily sink himself, word by word by word). All anyone could hear from him in court in these weeks was possibly (as TomDispatch regular Robert Lipsyte points out today) The Donald farting or, given that he’s dozed off more than once, perhaps snoring. (I’m not there, of course, so I can’t know or confirm anything.)

But isn’t it strange to have the old man who couldn’t stop yakking transformed into an overgrown child being disciplined? It’s hard to imagine that such a figure might once again, within the year, be — yes! — president of the United States and leave so many of the rest of us functionally all too silent and on trial in a courtroom presided over by Judge Trump and crew. Because, were he to return to the White House in 2025, for so many of us, not to speak of the planet itself where all he wants to do (other than talk at the top of his voice) is “drill, baby, drill,” he could prove to be the trial of the century. As he put it recently on the campaign trail, “When they start playing with your elections and trying to arrest their political opponent — I can do that, too! If I win — which I hope I do because we’re not going to have a country — but if I win, I could then say, I don’t know: ‘This guy, this Democrat is doing great. I don’t like the poll numbers. Attorney General come down, arrest that guy, will you, please? Give him a subpoena! Indict him! That’s the end of him.'”

With that in mind, let Lipsyte, a former sports correspondent and columnist for the New York Times and author of SportsWorld: An American Dreamland, consider what strange parallels exist between O.J. Simpson (who died just weeks ago) and Donald J. Trump — both of whom he knew as a reporter years ago. Tom

Donald Trump and O.J. Simpson

Testing the Limits of Justice

It was the jokes about Trump’s rumored flatulence in the courtroom that pushed me toward despair. And don't think it was disgust with the subject matter either. After all, I’ve lived with teenagers and I wasn’t all that surprised by yet another Trump-inspired trivialization of a critical civic institution. What appalled me was the possibility that -- let's be clear here -- such stories would somehow humanize the monster, that his alleged farting and possible use of adult diapers would win him sympathy. I even wondered whether such rumors could be part of a scheme to win him votes.

So, yes, Trump can make you that crazy.

Read More
Best of TomDispatch

Noam Chomsky, Eyeless in Gaza

Posted on

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Consider it strange — or perhaps not strange at all — that when, in April 2010, the remarkable Noam Chomsky wrote his first piece for TomDispatch (adapted from his book of that moment Hopes and Prospects), its subject was — yes! — the devastation Israel was already causing in — yes, again! — Gaza and the way it was expanding control over and settlements on the West Bank. Fourteen years ago, he focused, in part, on that country’s “criminal siege” of Gaza (including the fact that, even then, the Israelis were allowing in too few trucks with food and other aid). Oh, and guess who was prime minister at that moment? Yep, one Benjamin Netanyahu. Even then, Chomsky concluded all too sadly and aptly that U.S. policy (as now) was helping to ensure that the phrase “Palestinian state” would mean “fried chicken.”

Oh, and on this rare weekend I’ve taken off while posting a distinctly “best of TD” piece, let me thank those of you who, in recent weeks, have been so kind as to offer this site a distinct and deeply appreciated financial hand. Let me also urge any of you who are TomDispatch regulars and haven’t done so to consider visiting our donation page at this very moment to ensure that this site makes it through another year (its 23rd on this strange planet of ours). Your help truly does make all the difference! Tom]

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won’t)

In Washington-Speak, “Palestinian State” Means “Fried Chicken”

The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange.  For many of the world’s conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.  In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with “minor and mutual modifications,” to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s. 

The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).  A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.  Israel refused to attend the session.  The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980.  The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

Read More