Friday, May 15, 2026

Opinion: Trump in China, the Summit” with no real agenda and no concrete agreements ends.


“Summit” with no real agenda and no concrete agreements ends. 

from Navdeep Singh

 

Highlights: 

 

(1) Trump introduced to historical term “Thucydides Trap”, for first time in his life, briefly reflects on it, refracts it through the prism of Sleepy Joe.

 

(2) “At the Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests in the Temple of Heaven, President Xi explained for President Trump and his family the concept of harmony among all beings and respect for the law of nature.” That is to say, Trump groks at the convergence between Buddhism-Confucianism, and Taoism, forcing to reflect that “at the heart of Chinese philosophy is a belief in the innate goodness of humanity. 

 

This principle is encapsulated in the ancient phrase: “Man on earth, good at birth. The same nature, varies on nurture.” This idea suggests that humans are not born in conflict with one another but are shaped by the environments and relationships around them. (

 

3) That is to say, Trump takes note that, unlike many parts of the world where religious conflict has shaped history, Chinese philosophy has fostered mutual respect, allowing these traditions to coexist and enrich one another, and that:

 

(4) “Harmony in this context is not about uniformity. It seeks to embrace diversity, weaving diverse threads into a coherent tapestry. This principle underpins Chinese social life, where the wellbeing of the collective is prioritized, and individual growth is seen as inseparable from the health of one’s relationships and community. It offers a powerful counter-narrative to Western individualism, showing that strength and progress emerge from connection, not isolation.”

 

Meanwhile, a near trillionaire gets on a plane with 11 other billionaire tycoons, takes selfies and videos at the Great Hall of the People. 12 US billionaire and soon to be trillionaire American robber barons went to Beijing to beg the Communist Party of China for deals last night. The same billionaires and politicians who call China an "evil empire" are now standing in Beijing with their beggar’s bowls and hands out. They told Africa to stay away from China. They told Europe to cut ties. They told everyone China is a massive threat. “But when their economy is about to collapse, when their factories are shutting, when their own system is failing, where do they run?”

 

“The historical unity of the ruling class is realized in the state.” — Antonio Gramsci

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” — George Carlin

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

New Counterterror Strategy Eyes Tucker Carlson

 New Counterterror Strategy Eyes Tucker Carlson

Administration deems anti-Trump right wingers terrorists

Ken Klippenstein May 13, 2026 

Republished from Ken Klippenstein on Substack

Sebastian Gorka

Subscriptions are declining - PLEASE becoming a paid subscriber so I can keep doing this work!

Two right-wing figures — Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes — have been named as possible domestic terrorists, according to the Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official.

Sebastian Gorka, himself a former right-wing influencer turned National Security Council principal, has been making his rounds on conservative media, giving interviews little-noticed by major media to describe the meaning and purpose behind the President’s new National Counterterrorism Strategy (which I reported on previously). 

Between grandiose monologues about his vision of a crusade to save Western civilization from “anti-American” and “anti-Christian” extremism, Gorka let slip that the administration’s war on “domestic terrorism” isn’t just aimed at the left. It targets anyone who isn’t in line with the broader MAGA agenda. While Trump’s national security directive NSPM-7 clearly singles out the left with its list of so-called terrorism indicators, many of them could describe people on the right as well.

Asked by Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow if there’s any “right-wing terror” or “extremism” threat, Gorka replied by pointing to former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and streamer Nick Fuentes — both of whom have become vocal critics of the Trump administration — arguing they aren’t actually conservatives anyway. Here’s the exchange:

MARLOW:  “ I wanna get your thoughts on any right-wing terror … Do you regard it as a threat at all or anything that's important to be considering right now?” 

GORKA: “…I'm not sure that Nick Fuentes or Tucker Carlson are conservatives. If you are lauding Sharia law, if you are saying that there are Muslim states that seem to be better qualitatively than America in terms of freedom and prosperity, I'm not sure that means you're part of the conservative movement.  So if you remove those individuals and you understand that they're not conservatives, what's left?”

Gorka’s charge that Carlson lauds Sharia law is, to put it lightly, ridiculous. 

Here’s what Carlson actually said:

CARLSON: “But you go to a country like Japan or the Emirates or Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and you see that when people are self-confident, when they’re really pleased with what they’re doing, and they believe their system is the right system — that self-confidence results in a kind of welcoming attitude. So you'll be sitting at dinner in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and you'll say, you know, I just, I'm really kind of pro-Jesus, like I'm a Christian. They’ll be like, ‘That’s so great!’ 

HOST: And they don’t have the same beliefs?

CARLSON: No, they’re Muslims. It's a country governed by Sharia law! — [laughs] — I mean, and they're like, ‘That's great!’ 

Is Carlson naive for mistaking his Four Season’s experiences in whatever Gulf monarchy with an egalitarian society? Absolutely. But “lauding Sharia law?” Come on. 

I’m an absolutist when it comes to free speech, for the right and the left (and anyone inside or outside that spectrum). Gorka as a government official has no business sticking his nose into whether people define America in the same way he does. 

And let’s be real: none of this is actually about extremism. It’s about the fact that Carlson, like Fuentes, recently broke with Trump — bitterly — over the Iran War. That's the real offense. So now they’re being cast as extremist threats. But to avoid alarming conservatives, the administration can't just say that — it has to first strip them of their conservative credentials, redefine them as something foreign-affiliated and dangerous, and then go after them.

That’s how the terrorism two-step works: the Trump administration just asserts that a right-winger isn’t really a right winger and then it can say it doesn’t target right-wingers. This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy (No Scotsman puts sugar in his tea / But Ian from Glasgow does / Well, no true Scotsman does). That, in a nutshell, is how NSPM-7 can be weaponized against the right without calling it that. 

You don’t have to like Carlson or Fuentes (an avowed anti-Semite who is quite easy not to like) in order to see that. Consider, for a moment, the rhetoric that likely fueled Gorka’s freakout.

Carlson has called Trump’s Iran war “the single biggest mistake Trump, or any American president, has made in my lifetime.” He has slammed the strikes as “reprehensible and immoral,” insisting the war “doesn’t serve American interests in any conceivable way” and suggesting it happened “at the behest and then the demand of Israel.”

When Trump ordered strikes on Iran, Fuentes said in a social media post: “NO WAR WITH IRAN. ISRAEL IS DRAGGING US INTO WAR. AMERICA FIRST.” 

You can imagine why Fuentes feels so strongly about Israel.

Taken together, that’s the substance Gorka is trying to launder out of the “conservative movement” by redefining Carlson and Fuentes as something else: in Carlson’s case, a Sharia fan.

At this point you might be wondering why none of this has been reported — a question big mouth Gorka answers in an interview with actor-turned-media commentator Dean Caine about the National Counterterrorism Strategy. Gorka beams about how little negative coverage the media have given the Strategy, calling it “delicious.” 

Gorka said:

“I did a kind of press call when we released the strategy. 50 articles were written that day about the press call. Only one of them from those putzes at Politico was even slightly negative... We are moving so fast, they just can’t keep up with us, which is delicious.”

Here Gorka is mostly right — the media really have been asleep at the wheel on this story. 

I say “mostly” because I wrote a negative story about the Strategy. I’m guessing he’ll notice this one.

Subscribe for journalism that isn’t asleep at the wheel

Green Party and UK Elections. Polanski: the Next Left Smear Campaign


Reprinted from the UK Socialist website Left Horizons

Polanski: the next left smear campaign

May 12 2026

By Joe Langabeer

A quote attributed to Mark Twain reads: “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Well, in this case, history is repeating itself when it comes to Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, with him being characterised as ‘antisemitic’ in a smear campaign by the press and right-wing politicians.

It was noticeable – and it astonished a number of Jewish people present – that when the Jewish establishment organised a ‘march against antisemitism’ last weekend, Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, was not invited, while the leader of Reform UK was invited and was represented by his deputy to spoke to cheers from those present. One antisemitism campaigner, Ruvi Ziegler, told the Financial Times,  “We cannot fight racism alongside racists. Inviting Reform UK to speak in such a rally is objectionable, inconsistent given the exclusion of the Greens and highly damaging.”

The defenders of the establishment are replicating material almost from the exact same playbook as they used when they went after Jeremy Corbyn during his period as Labour leader from 2015-2019. Ultimately, it is because the right-wing are starting to panic that Polanski and the Greens could gain significant power by the time of the next general election. So they are already preparing the ground for a campaign against Polanski, ranging from the ridiculous to the outright sinister. The latest ‘scandal’ is his failure to pay the proper council tax on a house-boat!

Whilst there have been rumblings from the press for a while that the Green Party are beginning to accept ‘antisemites’, due to Polanski’s criticisms of Israel and its genocide in Gaza, the door was burst wide open when Polanski retweeted someone who criticised the  heavy-handed police approach in taking a man who had targetted and attacked Jews in Golders Green, north London. It has been reported that the attacker was mentally unwell, which was also used as criticism in the post that Polanski retweeted.

The press were already on the march, alongside right-wing Labour MPs calling Polanski an antisemite and suggesting that “he was unfit for office”. The attacks on him escalated further when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, wrote a letter to Polanski suggesting that he was attempting to “undermine the police” by retweeting the photo.

Polanski did apologise for that retweet, but has since rightly come out to criticiseRowley for “interfering with the local elections” by attempting to whip up a negative perception of Polanski and the Greens before the elections had even taken place. Not that it had much effect on the Green vote, which surged, largely at Labour’s expense.

The hypocrisy of Trevor Phillps

The press and media have since been on a relentless campaign to label Polanski as antisemitic, claiming that he does not care about the Jewish community and that he should resign as leader. In a woeful interview on Sky News, presenter Trevor Phillips attempted a hit job on Polanski. Phillips presented a series of hypotheticals that no one would reasonably be able to answer, alongside constant aggressive interruption.

Even when Polanski attempted to bring up the conflation between antisemitism and Zionism – an association encouraged by Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu – Phillips was condescending towards him and dismissed his argument, even though Polanski’s argument is central to much of the discussion and mislabelling of antisemitism that we see today.

Phillips will not admit his bias when it comes to this issue, but during the 2019 general election he was one of the public figures who wrote a letter to The Guardian claiming that he would refuse to vote for Corbyn on the grounds of the latter’s alleged antisemitism. The following year, however, Phillips himself was suspended from the Labour Party for making racist tropes about Muslims, saying that he was worried about the number of Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children, and criticising Muslims for not wearing poppies on Remembrance Day.

That suspension was handed down by the then Labour General Secretary Jennie Formby, an ally of Corbyn, but when Keir Starmer and the right-wing regained power in the party they reinstated Phillips’ membership.

Racist Enablers

Immediately after that interview, a panel of guests discussed various actions being taken on antisemitism. The panel involved former General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Mick Lynch, The Times columnist Melanie Phillips, (more on which below) and former special adviser to the Liberal Democrats, Polly Mackenzie.

The discussion centred around the banning of pro-Palestinian marches. Lynch gave a fairly reasonable response, arguing that banning these marches would not change someone’s opinion on whether they were antisemitic or not.

But Melanie Phillips argued that these protests should be banned, with comments suggesting that people are fabricating stories about atrocities by Israel in Gaza. She claimed that people were making up accusations that “Israel were killing babies in Gaza”.

She didn’t mention that the charity Save the Children estimated that 20,000 children have been killed since Israel began its assault on Gaza, one child every hour. In a report from Al Jazeera earlier this year, Israeli forces reportedly killed a Palestinian child in northern Gaza, despite the supposed “ceasefire” that came into force last October. Such reports are emerging constantly, but Melanie Phillips either does not read them, or actively ignores them in order to fuel a narrative in defence of Israel.

Because she is a staunch Islamophobe, she has written for countless right-wing newspapers, including The Spectator, where she falsely accused the president of the British Muslim Initiative, Muhammad Sawalha, of being antisemitic — an allegation for which both she and The Spectator later had to print an apology.

She has also used her platform to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories, including an article in the Daily Mail in 2007 where she used the term “cultural Marxism” to explain why she believed the UK had become so accepting of gay civil partnerships.

The term “cultural Marxism” has historically been used by the far-right. It comes from the idea that progressives and people who considered themselves Marxist, many of whom happened to be Jewish, have infiltrated institutions with causes on social justice and were manipulating children and young people in the process.

There was a campaign akin to this in Germany prior to 1933, where the Nazis used the terms “cultural Bolshevism” and “Jewish Bolshevism”, claiming that Jewish people were spreading causes (and revolutionary politics), particularly on issues related to sex, gender and identity, throughout the Weimar Republic. [There is a very good breakdown of the definition of “cultural Marxism” written by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which you can read here.]

Melanie Phillips has also written books that spread her Islamophobic propaganda. One example is Londonistan, published in 2006, which has since been co-opted by the far-right to claim that London, and indeed the United Kingdom as a whole, has become dominated by Islamism.

It is disgraceful, given her track record, that she should be allowed on a panel discussing antisemitism. Yet Trevor Phillips makes no attempt to reveal her background, so that an unsuspecting Sky TV audience might assume she has some authority, because she is “a Times columnist”.

The Times well represented

This was the nature of the supposed “interview”, in reality a hit-job, done on Polanski by Trevor Phillips. What was not disclosed during the programme is that both Trevor and Melanie Phillips write for The Times.

We can expect a lot more of this in the future

All of this is important because, since that interview was aired, both Trevor and his namesake Melanie have used their platforms as commentators to write pieces attacking Polanski, and The Times itself has been incessantly attempting to discredit him.

Yet there was one attack that will leave Times readers questioning whether the paper is itself contributing to the rise of antisemitism. The paper printed a cartoon of Polanski kicking a police officer whilst they were tasering the Golders Green attacker. There is very little wit or satire in the drawing, qualities for which political cartoons were once respected, but when you look more closely at Polanski’s face, he has been drawn with a visibly crooked nose, what appears to be a classic antisemitic image.

Owen Jones reported in his blog Battlelines that the Green Party submitted a complaint to The Times, with a statement criticising the hypocrisy of the paper for attacking Polanski over alleged antisemitism, whilst itself producing antisemitic depictions of Jewish people in its cartoon. As the statement also noted, Polanski, who is Jewish, faces antisemitism on a daily basis and, as he stated both in the interview and elsewhere, two people have already been arrested for antisemitic actions directed against him.

Has The Times retracted the cartoon and apologised to Polanski? Have both of the Phillipses — who have since written columns claiming that “Jewish people must be protected” — criticised the newspaper for its racist stereotyping in the depiction of Jewish people? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO.

Instead, The Times has simply moved on to attacking Polanski in increasingly ridiculous ways, including reports that the British Red Cross denied that Polanski was a spokesperson for them, although Polanski said as much during his leadership campaign. Polanski has since clarified that he misspoke when describing himself as a “spokesperson”, but made it clear that he had campaigned and carried out work for that organisation.

Does any of this actually matter? Of course it does not. But much like during Corbyn’s time in Labour, the press will stop at nothing to discredit the left in the most shallow and incredulous ways possible and nowadays, the Green Party is a part of the left, infused not only with Polanski’s radicalism, but with the support of many former Labour members.

I will always remember the run-up to the 2017 general election, when the Daily Mailran a 13-page attack on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, repeatedly describing him as a “terrorist” throughout much of the coverage. The reality, both then and now, is that the right are becoming increasingly worried about the prospect of the Greens gaining significant power.

Polanski has seen a surge in popularity because of his shift towards more left-wing ideas and policies, and that terrifies the establishment, which is why attacks are now being directed against him.

Polanski’s Test

But these predictable attacks by the pro-capitalist media, most of it owned by billionaires, there are serious issues that Polanski needs to address. He will need to learn from the mistakes of Jeremy Corbyn and not bend to the pressure of the media. The media, weakness will only invite more attacks. Polanski needs to take the fight directly to the press and the establishment and for him it will be a real test, one of many he will face before the next general election.

This is an important issue because it may have had some effect, notably within the ‘old guard’ of the Green Party, those who dominated the party before its new leader was elected and before its surge of mostly radical members. Former leader, Caroline Lucas, for example, who is nowhere near as radical as Polanski, has criticised the supposed antisemitism within the party. We have seen this before, during the Corbyn period. Polanski should push back against such accusations because ultimately they only seek to undermine him.

In my opinion, Polanski missed a trick when criticising the Metropolitan Police over their handling of the Golders Green attack, and it is a scandal that no newspaper appears to have done its due diligence in scrutinising the response of the Met when the attack took place.

According to a report in the Financial Times, the attacker, Essa Suleiman, had apparently assaulted another man earlier that same day. Scotland Yard carried out searches but were unable to find him. Also, he had reportedly been referred to Prevent six years earlier as a potential danger, but, as reported by The Guardian, the case was closed within six weeks because authorities concluded that he was not dangerous.

In the footage of the arrest the police response does appear to be unnecessarily aggressive and violent. But that should not have been where the criticism ended. Instead, some focus should have been on why the police were involved in such a confrontation in the first place, when there had been multiple opportunities to stop this man before the attack ever happened.

We can expect a crescendo of criticism directed at Polanski in the coming months. Even the Guardian has been splashing Polanski “scandals” across its pages. We have been here before with Jeremy Corbyn, and we will continue to see these kinds of smears whenever a left-wing alternative to the Conservatives, Reform UK, or the right of Labour begins to emerge.

So far, the Green Party and Polanski have been better than Corbyn at levelling criticism against establishment figures like Sir Mark Rowley, The Times and when there have been smear attempts. But Polanski must also ensure that he is not undermined from within the Greens themselves. The Greens and Polanski must hold their nerve and when there are attacks on them – and there will be – they need to bring the discussion back to policy, the area where the establishment and the right-wing have nothing to offer. 

Opinion: If Starmer gets his way, Reform - not the Greens - will be his legacy

If Starmer gets his way, Reform - not the Greens - will be his legacy

The question for Polanski, as for Corbyn before him, is whether the spear of an insurgent politics can pierce the billionaires' defences


Johnathan Cook May 12, 2026

[First published by Middle East Eye]

There are two conclusions to be drawn from last week’s momentous local elections in Britain.

The first, and most obvious, is that two-party politics in the UK is now finished. After a century of being at the centre of British political life, Labour’s time is over. It is a spent force, whoever leads it.

Voters now understand that the party is too utterly captured by Big Business to ever again serve as a meaningful counterweight to the right – or as a vehicle for progressive, anti-austerity politics.

In this election, Britain’s decades-long Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics was finally unmasked as a charade.

The electorate is no longer having it.

Previous Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, elected by members a decade ago, was the last-gasp effort to make the party relevant to ordinary people. But the rightwing faction that dominates the parliamentary party – and the billionaire donors and media who stand with it – soon demonstrated who had the upper hand.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer had to dissemble, pretending to be the Corbyn continuity candidate, to win over the membership. But once installed as leader, he rode to power on the coattails of the billionaires.

It will be the same hidden hand, belonging to the same Epstein class, that nudges Starmer’s successor to the forefront in the coming months.

But Labour, offering only a game of catch-up with the right, is doomed electorally.

Pretender to the throne

The second lesson is that Labour is determined, before it sinks into terminal irrelevance, to pave the way for a far-right, Reform-led government under Nigel Farage.

It would be too charitable to suggest that this will be an unintended consequence of Starmer’s dismal, dishonest performance as prime minister.

In a real sense, Starmer’s political trajectory has done more than simply discredit the status-quo politics championed by modern Labour. It has also, by implication, painted Reform as the sole legitimate pretender to the throne.

Starmer and the Labour right did not just carry out a comprehensive, Stalin-esque purge of the progressive left after Corbyn’s ousting. They did not just drive that same Labour left into the embrace of the once-marginal Green Party, sending the latter’s popularity soaring.

No, they chose to launch the same dirty-tricks campaign against the Greens, centred on a supposed “antisemitism crisis”, which they earlier weaponised against the Corbyn left.

In doing so, the Labour right, alongside the British establishment and the state and billionaire-owned media, revealed their true colours: with two-party politics over, they would much prefer the baton be passed to the far-right than the progressive left.

That real-world conspiracy, out in the open, propelled Reform to its massive haul of seats in councils across England, and to its surprise successes in the Welsh and Scottish parliaments.

It also hampered the Greens, as we shall see, by tainting their political brand.

Insurgency politics

Last week’s results proved there is a craving for meaningful change – and the two traditional parties, Labour and the Conservatives, are structurally incapable of delivering it. Each is captured by the billionaire class.

The only game in town now is insurgency politics. That is what Reform claims to be offering, as do the Greens. Both cleaned up in disillusioned Labour and Tory heartlands.

But this is not really a fight between two competing insurgencies. Farage and Reform are cosplaying insurgency politics.

Like President Donald Trump in the United States, they are a wing of the billionaire class pretending to be taking the billionaires on. They are another captured party, another safe pair of hands for the super-rich.

With the Tories and Labour structurally incapable of fixing a system purpose-built to siphon off public wealth into the private coffers of the billionaires, Reform has come up with a crowd-pleasing solution.

Farage isn’t promising to tackle a corrupt political system that keeps the super-rich in power. No, his function is to shift attention away from the billionaires’ malign role and direct it instead towards immigrants and Muslims.

Farage knows where his bread is buttered. And so should the rest of us, given the revelation that the butter was thickly plastered on – to the tune of £5 million – by an expat cryptocurrency trader living in Thailand.

Reform has an endless number of such skeletons in its closet. Among the latest to be exposed was a candidate elected last week to Sunderland council, who among his recent grossly racist and sexist social media posts, suggested of the local Nigerian population that the city should “melt them all down and fill in the pot holes”.

Chorus of concern

Racism is endemic to Reform. It’s central to its platform. Immigrants – always “illegal” – are viewed exclusively as a problem that must be dealt with firmly. Islam and Muslims, in Reform’s view, need to be discussed as a threat to “the British way of life” and western “civilisational values”.

But note this: racism is not central to the media discourse about Reform. However often the profound racism of its members and candidates is exposed, none of it sticks to the party itself. None of it stains the moral character of Farage as leader.

Contrast that with the treatment of the Greens since their new leader, Zack Polanski, took the party from irrelevance a year ago to membership numbers of 230,000 – larger than the Conservatives, and possibly even than Labour by this point.

Polanski is the country’s only Jewish party leader. But he spent much of the local election campaign defending himself and his party from the constant accusation that the Greens were institutionally antisemitic. In this extraordinarily twisted political climate, even Reform felt confident about smearing the Greens as racist.

The media rushed to add every incident, however small or unrepresentative, to a ledger suggesting that there was something unhealthy, even sinister, about the Greens under Polanski. At every opportunity, the media chorus of concern that antisemitism is once again surging – as it supposedly did under Corbyn – was laid at the Greens’ door.

In the ultimate paradox, the insinuation that the Green Party was rife with Jew hatred authorised a wave of grossly antisemitic caricatures of Polanski himself – in the Telegraph, Times, Mail and Sun – that would not have looked out of place in the Nazi publication Der Sturmer.

In turn, claims by the establishment that Iran is ultimately guiding this wave of antisemitism subtly imply that the Greens are really acting in the service of a foreign enemy. The subtext – levelled against Britain’s only Jewish leader, remember – is that Polanski’s party is unpatriotic, that it is serving another master.

In the topsy-turvy, manufactured political and media consensus, racism does not define the racist platform of Reform. But it does define the anti-racist platform of the Greens.

Firing squad

There is a reason that the Greens’ current moment under Polanski feels so familiar – like a rerun of the hounding of Corbyn through 2017 and 2018. Because that is exactly what it is.

Now, as then, an insurgent leftwing party, led by a popular figure, is disrupting the cosy ping-pong politics of the two main, establishment-serving parties.

Now, as then, the left insurgency appears to be growing into something bigger than simply a political party. It is tapping into a wider mood that will not be satisfied with tinkering. It demands wholesale change.

Now, as then, the insurgency is emphasising how the billionaire class has captured and corrupted the political system, and how it maintains “mainstream” narrative control through its ownership of the establishment media.

Now, as then, the insurgency is challenging the lifeblood of Britain’s ruling class: its permanent “rip-off” austerity politics at home, and permanent warmongering politics abroad.

Now, as then, the establishment is playing dirty: it studiously avoids addressing the political issues raised by the insurgents, because it knows it would lose such debates. Instead, it focuses on staining the moral character of the insurgent leader.

And finally, now as then, it has learned that the best way to smear the insurgents, and drain energy and political momentum from the movement, is by tarring them as antisemites.

If the Greens were forced to run the gauntlet during this local election campaign, just wait for the firing squad they will face when the national elections arrive in a few years’ time.

The British establishment is once again cornering the insurgent, anti-racist left with a double-bind ultimatum. It must hollow out its moral core by jettisoning its opposition to apartheid, genocide, wars of aggression, the military-industrial complex, and the war machine’s interminable assaults on the environment – or be condemned as Jew haters.

As became clear through these latest elections, the Greens are going to face relentless hounding until they agree to ditch Polanski. They will be required to find a “moderate” leader ready to cosy up to Big Business – and make their party as politically superfluous as Labour has become under Starmer.

Caught in quicksand

Anyone who imagined that Polanski would be spared Corbyn’s fate because he is Jewish was not paying close attention during the pile-on a decade ago.

The British media and political classes successfully obscured what they were up to then, during what they characterised as a Labour “antisemitism crisis“. The reality was that a disproportionate number of Corbyn’s supporters who were suspended and expelled by the party bureaucracy as antisemites were, in fact, Jews.

That was the reason the left spoke at the time of antisemitism being weaponised – an observation that itself became grounds for expulsion from the party.

Non-Jewish politicians – including prominent rightwing factionalists in Labour – as well as non-Jewish media commentators were among those rushing to label Corbyn-supporting Jews as “self-hating” or “the wrong sortof Jews”.

Polanski now finds himself in exactly the same kind of political quicksand. The more he fights against his smearing, the more smearing he faces, as evidenced by the media’s antisemitic caricatures of him.

Note another feature of this process. Jewish Voice for Labour, the main group of Jews inside Labour who backed Corbyn, were – like the Jews who march against the Gaza genocide – erased from the media’s narrative about a supposedly “antisemitic left“.

They had to be, because their very existence made nonsense of establishment claims that it is the anti-racist left, not the racist right, that poses a threat to Jews.

Polanski’s Jewishness, as he has pointed out, is being carefully erased from coverage too. It has to be if the vilification campaign is to land.

Trading in tropes

But there is a further ominous development at work. The British ruling class is not just exploiting what it describes as a rise in antisemitism; it is stoking it for its own political survival.

Paradoxically, it is the very people casting themselves as the protectors of the Jewish community who are trading in the antisemitic tropes they accuse others of.

It is Starmer, Farage, Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch, and Metropolitan police chief Sir Mark Rowley who are responsible for fuelling the kind of antisemitism they claim to be tackling.

The growing clamour to crack down on the marches against Israeli crimes in Gaza and southern Lebanon – or even ban them – depends on an assumption that any vocal opposition to genocide equates to a racist threat to Jews.

That, in turn, depends on a perverse premise: that all Jews support Israel; that the two are inseparable. By extension, it implies that any Jew who calls out these crimes, such as Polanski, is an impostor.

The conflation between Israel and Jews is clearly in breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism – a definition that British politicians extol, while cynically wielding it to malign and crush the left.

Consider the event that served as the starting gun for the latest outpouring of concern about antisemitism, and the opportunity to pile on Polanski: the stabbing of two Jews in Golders Green late last month. Though you would not know it from most of the media coverage, or even statements issued by police, the accused perpetrator also attacked a Muslim man.

The political and media classes sought to downplay the attack on the Muslim man, because it disrupted a more convenient, and simplistic, narrative they are determined to advance.

Discourse trap

The argument being pressed into service by the establishment – blaming pro-Palestine marches for a rise in antisemitism – is clearly ridiculous.

Had no pro-Palestine marches taken place over the past 30 months, images of children torn to pieces by US-supplied Israeli bombs would still be on our feeds. There would still have been news of Israel levelling Gaza’s hospitals, and starving its population month after month. Palestinians taken hostage by Israel, as well as their whistleblowing Israeli captors, would still have revealed that the Israeli army trained dogs to rape them.

Anyone who blames Jews for the Gaza genocide, or for the ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon, isn’t doing so because of the London marches. At the protests, the distinction is always clear, and indicated by the visible participation of a significant Jewish bloc.

Are The Iranian Demands Really Unreasonable as Trump Says?

US Bases in Middle East Uninhabitable Source


Richard Mellor

Afscme Local 444, retired
HEO/GED
5-12-26


I don't visit CNN often, but a recent report titled Clash of Perception attempts to explain the deadlock in US-Iran negotiations. Reading it after following independent journalists and reputable international outlets is a jarring experience.

Trump described the latest Iranian response as "a piece of garbage" and rejected it outright. 


So let's examine what Iran is actually demanding.


Iran wants formal recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway that sits alongside its own coastline in the Persian Gulf, the body of water named after Persia, what Iran was called until around 1959. Iran wants full relief from the US sanctions that have devastated its economy and contributed to years of social unrest. Americans should understand what sanctions mean in practice: they cut individuals and states off from the global economy and from the necessities of life. Trump sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza, means she cannot even open a bank account. US /EU sanctions have cost 38 million lives according to a recent report from the Lancet.


Iran wants an end to hostilities on all fronts — that includes sanctions. It wants an end to the US naval blockade of its ports. It wants the right to civilian nuclear power but says it is willing to negotiate the specifics, with the primary condition being an end to the war that the US and Israel initiated.


Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, puts it this way: "We're in a standoff because President Trump doesn't understand why these guys are not making a deal to save themselves." The Iranians, Vakil adds, don't trust Trump and have been "personally burnt by him." That is, to put it mildly, an understatement.


The US and Israel assassinated Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei in the opening strikes of February 28th, along with key government figures including Ali Larijani, who had been central to the negotiations. Mojtaba Khamenei has since taken his father's place. Calling this being "personally burnt" by Trump is generous in the extreme.


On the first day of the war, a US Tomahawk missile struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, southern Iran, killing at least 156 people — over 110 of them schoolchildren. The US claims it as an accident, the result of outdated targeting data. One wonders how many people were killed in Afghanistan by US drone operators based on “outdated targeting data.”. 


Gen. Dan Caine stated the US military has struck over 13,000 targets in Iran, claiming severe damage to its air defences, navy, and weapons manufacturing capacity.


To oppose this is not to validate the Iranian government or its record. Washington embraces and has installed, many despotic regimes. Trump himself memorably joined the Saudi ruling elite around the glowing orb — the same elite responsible for the murder and dismemberment of journalist and US citizen, Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2019. The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and installed the murderous Shah that banned all opposition and imprisoned and tortured opponents.


Iranian Foreign Minister Esmaeil Baghaei has framed the disagreement as being "between a party that is solely seeking its fundamental rights and a party that insists on violating the rights of the other side." I personally think this is a valid argument. 


What is unreasonable about demanding an aggressor cease its aggression? The distrust is such that Iran is also demanding any agreement be guaranteed by major powers and ratified at the UN Security Council — an institution whose legitimacy the US has itself shattered through its support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the continued violence in the occupied territories where illegal settlers murder Palestinians at will and destroy their homes and farms. 


Trump, meanwhile, demands Iran dismantle its nuclear program entirely and hand over its enriched uranium stockpile. He called for "unconditional surrender" as recently as March 6th. What the US and Israel wants is an Iran completely subservient to US and Israeli power. 


According to Justin Wolfers, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, when all costs are factored in — energy, environmental, inflationary, equipment replacement, and veteran healthcare — the war will cost far more than the $25 billion figure cited by the lunatic Hegseth, amounting to roughly $4,000 per US household. (New York Times, May 8, 2026.)


This war was unprovoked and illegal. It is being waged at enormous cost to the American taxpayer and at devastating cost to the Iranian people and their communities. The Iranian negotiating position — stop the war, lift the sanctions, provide guarantees against future attack — is a just one. The refusal to acknowledge this in the US corporate media tells you everything you need to know about the state of that media and the so-called claims of press freedom.


Alan Browne commented on this blog last week on the social crisis in the US and the savage assault on workers’ living standards and the difficulties workers face keeping their heads above water. This trend is continuing and the social crisis of this war is deepening at home and will continue as US imperial power declines until a mass movement, and, arising out of that, an independent political party based on the working class, our organizations, and communities, emerges as a real alternative to the Democrats. 


Capitalism cannot resolve a global crisis of its own making. I think it was Rosa Luxemburg who once wrote that the only alternative to the madness of the so-called free market and capitalist production was “Socialism or Barbarism”. Given the existence of nuclear weapons and the looming, market driven climate catastrophe, that threatens human life on this planet we are we are now facing socialism or annihilation.