Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

The Cold War and Anti-Zionism

Most if not all of the contradictions that are maturing today emerge from long ago events shaped by the US’s national religions of anti-Communism and racial supremacy. The Cold War and its deeply embedded assumptions account for a great share of the waste, irrationality, brutality, and chaos that we are living through today.

The fanatical consensus that the US was engaged in a life and death struggle with the specter of Communism provided a bulwark against any but the most insipid challenges to the reigning capitalist order.

Our spineless labor leaders-- today faced with Trump’s cancellation of union contracts across the Federal sector-- owe their impotence to the Cold War compact that defanged a promising, vibrant, militant union movement. Trading the purging of Communists, leftists, even international unions and locals, and the most ardent of fighters in return for long periods of labor peace and an uncontested slender piece of the economic pie, generations of labor union “managers” collaborated with both the boss and wild-eyed Cold Warriors. Their answer today to this existential threat to hundreds of thousands of workers stripped of their union rights? The AFL-CIO politely asks me to call my legislator: “Will you call your representative and urge them to sign the discharge petition and speak out in support of the Protect America’s Workforce Act (H.R. 2550) right now?” The idea of a general strike, a sit-down strike, a march on Washington, or other forms of mass resistance is beyond their imagination, a faint memory of a bygone era when the labor movement had a left.

It was the Cold War that smashed the popular front and the New Deal legacy in the US. Rabid anti-Communism, guilt by association, and callow opportunism derailed the 1948 Progressive Party, an attempt to rescue Roosevelt’s social democratic coalition. Roosevelt’s party-- the Democrats-- relied on a compromised coalition between social liberals and unreconstructed segregationists until the 1970s, a tenuous coalition only held together by a common battle against Communism. The Johnson era Great Society provided the last gift from the New Deal. The Democrats soon realized that they could not afford to conduct an anti-Communist crusade in Southeast Asia and deliver a social safety net to its people. They choose guns over butter.

Thanks to the Cold War, US citizens became inured to endless war and dangerous aliens under every bed-- Communists, Muslims, Foreigners, terrorists, and again-- today-- Russians and Chinese Communists! The once promised peace dividend from the end of the Cold War has been drowned by waves of new faux-threats manufactured to pose the same existential threat as the once feared Soviets and their allies.

The Cold War established the universal truth that defense of “liberty” and “our democracy” would require enormous sacrifice by all. Indeed, even “our democracy” might need to be sacrificed or closeted to protect the US from its imagined foes, a continuing fear that persists today in the forms of illegal immigrants and urban violators. As civil liberties decline, we can thank the Cold War for mass passivity and submissiveness in its face.

The broadly subscribed ideas of “the military-industrial complex” and “the deep state” owe their common usage to social structures that expanded dramatically in the Cold War.

Less well-known, perhaps, is the Cold War antecedents of the current weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism. Today, the genocide in Israel is understood by growing numbers as a Zionist project, a product of an ultra-nationalist, settler-colonial ideology. Since its origin in the late nineteenth century, Zionism has sought a homeland for Jews, scattered through a vast diaspora. For some, that homeland was envisioned aspirationally. Still others brought a democratic, egalitarian vision to the notion of Zion. But the dominant thread-- boosted by the maneuvers of the British Empire-- was the creation of an exclusive, theocratic state in Palestine.

Other efforts to create a Jewish homeland-- for example a Jewish Autonomous state in the Soviet Union-- were scorned by the Zionist leadership. It was to be Israel: installed shamefully by the victorious powers after World War II in a land already occupied by a nation long suffering under British domination. Over decades, Israeli leaders sought to displace more and more indigenous Palestinians to create a Greater Israel (from the river to the sea!). Any resistance to this displacement (what we now call ethnic cleansing) was met with the cry of “antisemitism!”.

In the mid-nineteen sixties, the Israelis, along with their powerful friends in the US, devised a devious, but ingenious plan to both populate Greater Israel and discredit and disrupt the Palestine Liberation Organization.That the US security apparatus was likely involved should come as no surprise. As Kit Klarenberg and Wyatt Reed uncovered recently, after scrutinizing a recent release of CIA files, the Agency’s Counter-Intelligence Division under James Jesus Angleton was deeply engaged with Israeli interests, Mossad, and “the thousands coming from the Soviet Union”.

Beginning in 1963 with the Cleveland Council on Soviet Anti-Semitism, a movement swept across the US to “Save Soviet Jewry”. In a few short, remarkable years, banners were hanging from every synagogue and a host of other buildings throughout the US. The media decried Soviet antisemitism, portraying the Soviet Union as a hotbed of Jew-hating. Politicians of both parties joined the crusade, calling for economic sanctions against the USSR, culminating eventually in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Students were mobilized in a “human rights” campaign to condemn the Soviets.

As the chief international material and moral sponsor of Palestinian liberation-- arming and training the Palestine Liberation Organization-- the Soviet Union argued that its foreign policy rejected the Zionist project and aimed at defending the fate of an oppressed nation pushed off its land. The relentless propaganda campaign waged in the West sought to create the opposite impression-- that opposing the Zionist ideology was tantamount to antisemitism, a conflation that weighs heavily today.

The campaign furthered another goal: the wholesale exodus of privileged, educated Soviet Jewish citizens to Israel to help build Greater Israel. It became less of a campaign to attack alleged antisemitism in the USSR and more of a ruse to direct Soviet Jews to Israel.

Consequently, the main slogan of the movement became: Let My People Go!. That is, remove any emigration barriers that Soviet authorities might place in the way of a brain drain. At the time, Jews held seventeen-times more highly honored Ph.Ds as their percentage of the population. As quoted by William Mandel, Professor Zvi Gitelman of the University of Michigan wrote in his article The Jewish Question in the USSR since 1964 that Jews “play social, political, cultural, and economic roles greater than their numbers would indicate.” In fact, at the time of the “Save Soviet Jewry” campaign, Jewish cultural life was undergoing somewhat of a renaissance.

One rare voice in the US resisting the Cold War entangled stereotypes of Soviet Jewry (Congress appropriated $50 million in 1972 “to assist in the movement and resettlement of Soviet emigrants”-- code for stimulating immigration to Israel) was author William Mandel. A Jewish-American who was once the United Press International expert on the Soviet Union and a Hoover Institute fellow at Stanford, Mandel wrote two well-informed books that dealt extensively with Soviet nationalities with a strong focus on Soviet Jews: Russia Re-examined (1964) and Soviet, but not Russian (1985).

Mandel acknowledged that “The overwhelming majority of Soviet Jews, like the overwhelming majority of American Jews, have no desire whatever to leave their native land. Zionism cannot admit that, because it would undermine U.S. government economic and military aid as an ally against the USSR. Therefore it maintains an unending campaign against non-existent persecutions of Jews in the Soviet Union.”

Of course sane, informed voices like Mandel’s carried little weight against the media and the punditry’s relentless charge of Soviet antisemitism. Once again, hysteria, ignorance, and political calculation trumped the truth. The “Save Soviet Jewry” movement became a further example of how official anti-Communism turned the truth on its head.

Thus, it was the Cold War and its intrigues that brought the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism into the US mainstream and established it as an unassailable truth.

Overcoming these Cold War myths and indoctrinations remains one of the biggest obstacles to building a formidable left in the US.

Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com

Friday, August 1, 2025

Two-Party Duplicity

And yet there never was a more widespread feeling in England than now, that the old parties are doomed, that the old shibboleths have become meaningless, that the old watchwords are exploded, that the old panaceas will not act any longer… But in England, where the industrial and agricultural working-class forms the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working-class, neither more nor less… Yet the English working-class allows the landlord, capitalist, and retail trading classes, with their tail of lawyers, newspaper writers, etc., to take care of its interests. No wonder reforms in the interest of the workman come so slowly and in such miserable dribbles. The workpeople of England have but to will, and they are the masters to carry every reform, social and political, which their situation requires. Then why not make that effort? Frederich Engels, A Working-Men’s Party, July 23, 1881

In the middle of July, the House of Representatives considered amendment 114 to H.R. 580 that would reduce US military aid to Israel by $500 million, the amount designated for Israeli missile defense. Sponsored by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the amendment offered a rare opportunity for our national leaders to show a modest objection to Israel’s genocidal foreign policy or, as in the case of Greene, to voice opposition to an unnecessary subsidy from a debt-ridden country to a country with universal healthcare and subsidized education-- the lack of which account for two of the biggest factors in personal debt in the US. 

Though only a gesture, a yes-vote on the amendment would have brought great attention to the ongoing brutal genocide in Gaza, to the nuclear-weapon-backed bully daily slaughtering starving Gazans as though it were a sport. It would have slowed the flow of US dollars supporting Israeli violence.

A yes-vote would have shown some actual principle behind the hollow slogan of “Make America Great Again” espoused by so many who neither really care about the US people nor have any idea where its greatness would lie. 

But the amendment received only six votes, and few “news” purveyors even bothered to report it. 

Some will heap praise on the four Democrats and two Republicans, citing their courage and independence.

But that profoundly misunderstands the moment.

It is wrong to offer accolades to those who are simply doing what they should do. The fact that there are so few supporting the amendment is less an expression of the moral worth of the six than a measure of the depravity of the many. We expect our representatives to do that which is morally correct. Gratitude is reserved for those who exceed their duty, not those who simply do what any decent person should do. 

Voting no-- as did 422 House members-- is a despicable, scurrilous act. Voting to give the Israeli government even a dollar for its death-dealing enterprise deserves our utter scorn. 

It is important to fully grasp what it means for nearly the entire legislative body of a country to back the genocide of another people, a people virtually defenseless for over eighteen months.

It would be easy, but cynical to see the House vote as reflecting their constituents or their apathy. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 32 percent of US respondents approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, a substantial decrease since the beginning of Israel’s systematic killing of Gazan civilians. Therefore, the House vote is far from a reflection of the sentiments of all US citizens. 

Instead, it is a result of the corruption of US politics, specifically the two-party system. AIPAC-- the leading lobbying group for Israel’s interests in the US-- distributed $29,078,901 to 335 House members last year, according to Open Secrets. Other Israeli interest-groups contributed to House members, as did US apocalyptic fundamentalists that identify with Israel’s supposed Biblical role. 

Of course, it is not only the issue of Palestine’s right to exist that is shaped by the wholesale purchase of the two-party system. Publicly-run national healthcare, free of insurance companies-- overwhelmingly popular with the people-- never gets a serious legislative debate because of the influence of the profit-sodden insurance industry and Big Pharma. And the unpopular wars and massive defense spending keep coming, thanks to the effective, generous lobbying of the military-industrial behemoth.

My Italian-born grandmother often repeated a saying meant to explain crass opportunism and shamelessness: “Sei come Bertoldo, che mostra il culo per un soldo” (Bertoldo, shows his ass for a penny). Over fifty years of following the Democratic Party has taught me the real meaning of the insult.

Besides our morally corrupt representatives, the US mainstream media has historically thrown its support behind Israeli policies, almost without exception. Only alternative media and a profound distrust of the capitalist “news” outlets nourish opposition to official support for genocide.

What is truly remarkable, given the long standing “bipartisan” toadying to Israel and the high and growing costs of dissent in the US, is the noble actions by students and activists in the US who risk careers, arrests, and even deportation to show that everyone is not bought and sold in political life. 

The old Nixonian notion of a silent majority in the US has been turned on its head. Today, it is not an alleged conservative trend that exists beneath the political life shaped by elites, but a latent pacifism, egalitarianism, and class partisanship smoldering beneath the surface of ruling-class politics (a part of which has defected to right populism out of impatience and frustration). 

That sentiment is ill-represented by the broken, bankrupt two-party system. 

Neither major US political party captures this undercurrent. But this fault is especially true of the Democratic Party that traditionally claimed to be a home for more progressive policy. A mid-July poll conducted by The Wall Street Journal shows how distant the Democratic Party is from the people. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party-- the highest number since the poll was initiated in 1990.

Where the Republican Party broke into negative net favorability in 2005, the Democrats sank into negative territory in 2016 and today stand 20 points below the Republicans, who, nonetheless, also remain out of favor. 

The WSJ article captures well both the decline of the two-party system and the collapse of the Democratic Party in the face of Trumpism:

On the whole, voters disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and foreign policy. And yet in each case, the new Journal poll found, voters nonetheless say they trust Republicans rather than Democrats to handle those same issues in Congress. 


In some cases, the disparities are striking. Disapproval of Trump’s handling of inflation outweighs approval by 11 points, and yet the GOP is trusted more than Democrats to handle inflation by 10 points. By 17 points, voters disapprove rather than approve of Trump’s handling of tariffs, and yet Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on the issue by 7 points.

By any rational standard, one would have to conclude that voters are dissatisfied with both parties, but view the current Democratic Party as beyond hope. They may disapprove of Trump, but find nothing suggesting an alternative with the Democrats.

The WSJ article quotes Democratic Party pollster, John Anzalone: “The Democratic brand is so bad that they don’t have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party… Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they’re for and what their economic message is, they’re going to have problems.”

The hope that they will reconnect flies in the face of years, even decades of tailing the Republican Party, locating their platform slightly left of the Republicans, a place that Party leaders felt confident would hold labor, African-Americans, women, and other groups in the Party’s clutches. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats were vigorously pursuing the suburbanites and bedroom communities with lifestyle politics. Democrats gave the people answers to micro-aggressions when they were desperately looking for help with economic macro-aggressions.

Many loyal Democrats and earnest liberals are pressing the Party’s watchdogs to read the polls and repent, citing recent studies that show that working-class voters are hungering for an active social justice agenda. The Democratic Party left represented by DSA and Jacobin hope to rescue the Democratic Party from its leaders by underscoring the recent Mamdani primary victory as well as polling that shows that working people want what Mamdani offers and much more-- better pay, better benefits, cheaper prices, affordable housing, health care, etc.

But experience teaches that the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, Schumers, Jeffries, and Bookers are determined to steer the Democratic Party ship on the course dictated by its billionaire donors. They are perfectly happy allowing Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to paint the ship with left-wing slogans, provided that they don’t threaten to abandon the ship.

However, there is good news and cause for hope.

A mid-May poll conducted by the ultraright Cato Institute and YouGov found that-- with 18 to 29-year-olds-- socialism is quite popular and-- to their shock-- Communism has substantial support as well. Despite years of indoctrination, the Cato fellows were hysterical to discover that 62 percent of these youngsters had a favorable view of socialism and even 34 percent had a favorable view of Communism. After all the years, the money, and the effort in painting Marx, Engels, and especially Lenin as agents of Satan, the kids still don’t get it! One can only hope that more of their elders will show the same independence and escape the clutches of the capitalist propaganda mill.

But there is more good news, coming from the UK! 

In a bold move, Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana have announced the founding of a new party to the left of the Labour Party. The Labour Party-- since its brief flirtation with left social democracy after World War II-- has been drifting, even rushing, rightward. In many ways, like the Democrats, it has postured as the home of liberal and reformist ideas. And like the Democrats, it will not depart from business friendliness, minimal social advance, and an imperialist foreign policy today. Any deviance from conformity has been met with strict discipline and ostracization.

Former popular leaders of Labour-- counterparts to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez in the US Democratic Party-- have signaled that they have had enough by announcing the creation of a new, left party on Thursday, July 24. In first-weekend polling, Corbyn and Sultana’s no-name party drew 15% of the respondents, roughly the same share as the in-power Labour Party polls.

On the following Monday, Morning Star commented enthusiastically: 

Four hundred thousand and counting. Sign-ups to be part of founding the new party initiated by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana already surpass the membership of any existing political party in Britain.

While the appetite for a left alternative to Labour has long been clear, even supporters of the project cannot have expected a response on this scale…


[The] …rejection of the post-Thatcher political settlement is in reality a rejection of the consequences of the right’s policies — privatisation, deregulation and deindustrialisation — since these have been pursued by both governing parties since the 1980s…


[T]his is a very encouraging beginning. The march of authoritarianism and racism across this country, the disgusting consensus behind complicity in Israeli genocide and the attempt to keep public ownership and wealth redistribution off the table can all be challenged by the emergence of a left movement on this scale. No socialist can close their eyes to that.

Of course, we have to temper our optimism by acknowledging the tremendous challenges ahead. We saw how the auspicious start of the German alternative left party organized by Sahra Wagenknecht in 2024 faltered after remarkable early success. Nonetheless, the new German party, while failing to maintain its momentum, succeeded in shifting politics leftward and restoring confidence in a class-based agenda.

In the Corbyn/Sultana party, many see even greater opportunity to escape the stale politics of social austerity and military aggression. The initiative has already rocked the UK political system.

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com