 Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Your weekly movement news round up. You always give the people what they want brought to you from people's dispatch. That's Zoe and Prashant. I'm Vijay from Globetrotter. This is episode 156 coming to you in January. What? January 2024 extraordinary. Our first show in this new year. We're going to reflect a little bit on 2024 in a little bit. But for now, let's go straight into the main story, of course, which is the story of Israel's continued war on Gaza. Debt goals keep rising. The viciousness of the bombing in the northern half of Gaza is intensified. It's very clear that Israel is not going to easily be able to complete its war aims, which seem to be on the surface, the eradication of Hamas, and perhaps the other Palestinian factions. But underneath that language coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government suggesting a so-called Gaza Nakba. In fact, now stories coming out that the Israelis are in negotiations with the government of Rwanda to have Palestinians from Gaza essentially removed to Rwanda. This is very similar to what the British government of Rishi Sunak had proposed, which is to say to have migrants who come across into England be deported effectively without much consideration for human rights to Rwanda. Rwanda's government in Rwanda seems to have opened a shop to assist very brutal technologies of human management, let's call it. That's the kind of language they use. This is very chilling news. If it is indeed confirmed later that the Israeli government is in talks with Rwanda to move Palestinians from Palestine into this country in the southern half of the African continent without, of course, their consent. I think that's the key issue. They will not be consenting to this. They will be moved pretty viciously. Unable to attain war aims in Gaza, it looks like the momentum increasing in the region to make this a regional conflict. Three incidents took place, pretty stunning incidents. At the early part of the war, Hezbollah, the world's largest paramilitary organization based in Lebanon, released a photograph of Said Hassan Nasrallah, the Sheikh of Hezbollah, meeting with Saleh al-Aruri from Hamas and a leader of the Islamic jihad in Beirut. That photograph circulated pretty widely. Now, of course, with a drone strike, the Israelis have attacked inside Beirut, where they have assassinated Saleh al-Aruri, the Hamas leader who was the liaison to Hezbollah. This is, of course, a direct contravention of the integrity of Lebanon, which is not a party directly to the war happening in Gaza, although Lebanon and Israel don't have a peace agreement. They have had several clashes across the border in the last four and a half weeks. Hezbollah and the Israeli military have been firing at each other. The Israeli military has used illegal white phosphorus to attack small villages on the Lebanese side of the border. That's clash number one. The tendency towards the escalation of the conflict is quite on the table now. Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech. This week he will give another speech. He has been extremely measured, reserved, saying that Hezbollah has the capacity to attack Israel at a full-scale level, but is not at this time willing to do so. Very interesting speeches by Mr. Nasrallah, quite different from his attitude during the war in 2006 and then in 2014 when Mr. Nasrallah was much more militant in his views. Now cautious for good reason. They are not keen on a widening regional conflict at this time, as he says, although the regional conflict has begun. Nasrallah, which in a way is a partner to some of these movements Hamas and Hezbollah, has of course pinned down shipping in the Red Sea. So the conflict has already widened into the region. At this time, of course, suddenly there were two strikes. There was a strike in the town in Kerman in Iran, which houses the grave of Mr. Qasim Soleimani, the general assassinated by drone by the United States in Baghdad airport. That attack claimed 84 lives. Responsibility for the attack was taken by the Islamic State. Curious responsibility seems more like that this is conducted by one of the cutout groups that has been operating on behalf of the United States within Iran. But at any rate, responsibility taken by ISIS for that attack. Iran furious about it, threatening retaliation, saying that they will do it at their own time and so on. And then comes another attack. This is even more curious. A U.S. drone strike on a leader of the popular mobilization units in Iraq. This strike took place in Baghdad, striking his car, killing him outright. In fact, this one got an immediate retaliation. There was no threat to retaliate. Immediately popular mobilization units operating inside Syria attacked U.S. bases at Rukhban and at the Alomar oil fields, which the U.S. holds. Immediate attack at these points, retaliation for the U.S. strike. It's not the case, despite what Said Hassan Nasrallah has been saying. It's not the case that people are waiting to retaliate or that they are worried about the regionalization of this conflict. It has already become regional. It has already drawn in forces far afield from Gaza and would threaten to bring it further afield. Drawn in forces further afield including, of course, South Africa, Malaysia, other countries taking the case to the International Court of Justice Prashant. Tell us what's happening with that. Right. So the hearings are probably scheduled for the 11th and 12th of January at the International Court of Justice. Now the case made by South Africa is, I think, a case all of us should read. It's an 84-page document. And a very, very powerful but also very succinct document that captures both the depth and the breadth of the horrors Israel has inflicted on the people of Gaza over the past three months or so. And I think also highlighting the fact that many of the countries, many countries in the world have actually made very similar claims. The basic claim in this complaint is that Israel has by its acts of omission and commission are with genocidal intent. Now, I think two or three things need to be sort of stated very explicitly. And I think these are important things to note in this document. Point number one is, of course, the fact that a lot of the arguments made in this case in this 84-page document are statements by UN officials, statements by independent watchdog, statements by various organizations, which for many, many months have really been warning about the genocidal nature of Israel's attacks in Palestinians, in some cases in so many words and in some cases by actually describing the situation. We talked about many of these statements on the show before. For instance, the fact that, you know, aid agencies have been talking about how it's impossible for them to do their work. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres talking about life being hell. So many statements made by leaders of the United Nations, the body which is supposed at some level to sort of, you know, monitor and respond to this. So a very strong part of their case comes from these statements and that itself goes to show. Just we have seen many of these statements, but the compilation and which is why I think this 84-page document is a must read because it actually brings together so many of these statements made over the months, not just by leaders of the UN, but by leaders of so many countries across the world. We have Brazil, we have Venezuela, you know, you mentioned Malaysia, so many countries which have backed this case because their leaders at various points of time, their governments have actually recorded and registered this. So I think it's very important to note that. Point number two is the fact, I think, that it situates the genocidal nature of Israel's actions over the past three months in a long history of what Israel has been doing. In fact, the first section, many pages of this document are dedicated to chronicling what has been the impact of the previous wars. So, you know, the case South Africa is making is that these are not acts in isolation, these are acts in compile. These are the acts we are talking about right now. There is a long history of it and this is in continuation of what Israel did in 2014, what Israel did in 2021. For instance, all these, all these years, the kind of atrocities is inflicted. And these are pretty much a continuation of that, although the case specifically examines these incidents. And I think point number three is very important is, you know, it also, again, it's kind of astonishing to read because many of these statements are made one at one set of time. But it basically chronicles every major statement made by key Israeli leaders, key military figures, which express this genocidal intent. You talked about, of course, the discussions with Rwanda, Netanyahu statements, but leaders of Israel, military leaders of Israel, political leaders of Israel have been making these genocidal statements from day one. And, you know, it is essential when to essential to examine the sum total of all these statements to see that these are not stray comments being made to, you know, please certain vote banks or anything of that sort. This is the policy of that country. There's no doubt about that because the continuity of the continuum of those statements very clearly indicates that. So I think keeping these three things in mind, it's very important to sort of see some of those key aspects of it. You know, the fact that it is not just the horrific death toll, of course, which is really on the minds. I mean, every day we have like about hundreds of people dying, the kind of so many of them children, a point which the South African case makes clear time. And again, so many of the victims are children, but it's not just about the deaths. It's also about the way in which massive sections of the population are basically restricted to smaller and smaller parts of the territory. It is basically the denial of health infrastructure to even those who are wounded. It is the prevention of people from being born through basically attacks on health infrastructure. It is and also through the denial of basic necessities such as food by basically Israel creates those conditions whereby basic necessities such as food are denied hygiene is denied, which basically endangers the threat of even those who are yet to be born. So the case is a very comprehensive, you know, description of all these aspects. There's also an attack on the cultural and in the heritage of the people of Gaza itself, whether it be through place of worship, whether it be through libraries, universities, anything, you know, everything has been flattened. There's also a point where that, you know, when you look at when you look at visuals from space, Gaza does not look the same anymore. That has been the extent of the bombing, which the South Africa, which the Israelis have conducted. So, you know, the question of genocidal acts is not just, you know, is not it's basically an all out offensive on the people of Palestine itself. And that is the case. South Africa is making an international court of justice. Now this is with regards to genocide convention, which both Israel and South Africa are signatories to. Israel is of course announced that it will seek, it will contest these, you know, these facts that South Africa is presenting. Now the important thing is that South Africa is asked for a provisional verdict, provisional steps, which involve calling for an immediate halt to this assault. Now question number one, if the ICJ issues such provisional orders, will Israel heed them? They have not heeded the Security Council, they're not heeded the General Assembly. They have not heeded the powerful opinion of leaders from across the world. They have not heeded the voices of millions of people on the streets. So what we will come out of this ICJ process is very important to watch in the coming week. We should also, of course, emphasize that some of this process starts when the United States government put in place the Abraham Accords with Morocco, with Bahrain and others. And that was, of course, the brainchild of Donald Trump. Zoe Donald Trump running in 2024 to come back to the presidency. He seems to be running into some problems. Today is January the fifth. There's an anniversary tomorrow. What's happening in the United States and will President Trump be back in office? Well, yes, we are one day away from what was a the anniversary of what was a very, very crazy day, which was the storming of the Capitol on January 6. And this was, I mean, for many reasons, I think we saw so many people across the world kind of paying attention to this crazy thing that happened, which was unprecedented in US history. It saw hundreds of people storming the Capitol building during the Electoral College certification process. I think many people were confused by what was happening because the US electoral system is so crazy. It's not done by direct votes. So, you know, a lot of confusion about why even were the results not certified yet? What does this process even mean? But in any event, there was this riot in the Capitol building really incited by Donald Trump and his administration saying that the election had been stolen, saying that, you know, this was an illegal process, that he was a rightful winner, and that this counting process had to be reversed because there had been all of these irregularities. People, there were people who were killed through this in this riot because of the response because of the violent incursion and the response of the authorities who were extremely unprepared. There's a lot written about the collusion between different bodies of law enforcement and the Trump administration kind of on purpose, not really fortifying security. There's a lot to say regarding that, but I think where it comes up today several years later is that currently, again, 2024 elections, we're seeing kind of genocide, Joe, he's going to face a Republican contender. Since the January 6 riots, there has been a lot of legal pressure against Donald Trump. It became very clear to the political establishment of the ruling class that Trump was a problem that it could not, that they were unable to contain, at least for Democrats, I don't think they really anticipated the level of which this would escalate. And in some senses, they started to use different legal apparatuses at their disposal to try to kind of contain his rise. So, for example, Trump was banned from Twitter, which was one of the main social media platforms that he communicated to people through and was constantly publishing about the election seal, et cetera, et cetera. There was kind of this investigation into the January 6 events. There's been many different iterations of investigations. And currently in different states, he's facing cases by the legal authorities in those states because, again, elections are organized kind of on a state-by-state basis to ban him from the ballot. But on the basis that he incited an insurrection, incited his uprising against the government, which subverted the Democratic process in the U.S., this has taken place in Colorado and Maine, which have ruled that he cannot be on the ballot. Again, it's still undergoing a legal process, the appeals, et cetera. But it is certainly an interesting development, given these are only two states. It's unlikely those will spread to all of the other states. And what other tools will liberals and maybe other sections of the ruling class use to try to ban him from the ballot? Because they really do see him as a credible threat to the Democratic institutions in the United States. And all of their attempts to suppress him have been futile until now, and he continues to grow in popularity. So I think it's a crazy anniversary. Many of us remember those images of people storming in the QAnon shaman, which was, again, repeated on January 8, which we're going to talk about a bit later. But this was a moment of maybe reckoning for the United States where it hadn't taken seriously this right wing threat, this radicalization of society, and of sectors that really want to impose this anti-working class, anti-immigrant sort of policies in the country. So as we're coming up on the election year, these issues are coming to the fore once again and on this anniversary of that date. A lot of these questions about how did it happen and how did these sectors become so radicalized remain? And I think that it will definitely come out in November. You're listening to Give the People What They Want brought to you from People's Dispatch, that's Zoe and Prashant. I'm Vijay from Globe Trotter. Happy to be with you as ever. This is a 156th show. This is 2024, about 2 billion people, actually more than 2 billion people. Roughly half the world's population will vote this year in 70 different countries. There will be elections in 70 different countries. Eight of the 10 most populous countries in the world will go and have their ballots affirmed. That includes, of course, India, a very large country will be going into its election to elect a new Prime Minister. But we'll also have elections in Rwanda, in Russia, in Iran, in Bangladesh on the 7th of January. Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, and the list goes on. A very important year for democracy, although at the end of 2023, democracy had its own contradictions. You had in November an election in the Netherlands, which brought in the far-right leader, Gert Wilders. And then, of course, in Argentina, you had the election that brought in Mr. Javier Millay. Democracy has its own zigzags, as it were. And the likelihood in 2024 of this trend being reversed is not really there. We shall see what will happen in Rwanda, for instance. We already talked about how Rwanda and Chad have been approached by the Israeli government. If Palestinians, it's likely in Rwanda, Mr. Paul Kagame will be re-elected. It's also likely in South Africa that the African National Congress-Tripartite Alliance with the trade unions and the Communist Party will win that election, squeaking through. But this is not like the election 30 years ago when the Tripartite Alliance swept the election. South Africa having trouble with the ability to deliver basic needs to people, including electricity, unpopular in some sections, but will likely win. Mexico, not clear whether the successor to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Claudia Scheinbaum is going to walk in to the president's office. It's not clear. It's to be seen in Bangladesh on January 7. Already, real sense of unease about that election, the violence that it might provoke, not clear again. But this is where we are. We are in a world where democracy is riddled with contradictions. Let's go back to get a little report on Brazil, on its democratic shenanigans, January 8, another anniversary. Yeah, well, January 8 inspired in many senses by January 6. Again, last year, days after Lula was inaugurated as president of Brazil, we had seen, following the elections, leading up to the elections, the right wing in Brazil was really laying the groundwork for months. And really even for years to what was the January 8 storming of the capital city, Brazilia, thousands of people bust into that city who went into the area of the three branches of government in the capital, stormed the legislators, stormed various different offices of the branch of power in Brazil, destroyed cultural patrimony of the country, destroyed these buildings, artwork, so many other things. Once again, in similar fashion to Trump supporters, the Proud Boys declaring that the election had been stolen, the electoral process is rigged, and that Jair Bolsonaro should be president. I think what's interesting about January 8 is that it holds a mirror up to the process of January 6, and the way that it was handled, the way it was responded to, very, very different than January 6. Similarly, again, it was definitely something that was in the making that people could have seen coming. Was there enough deterrence to this? Maybe not. However, the response was quite swift by Lula's weak old administration. Thousands of people were arrested then and there, detained on the day of the storming. There have been extensive, extensive investigations into the financing of these acts, into the role that Jair Bolsonaro played. He continues to face many legal processes in Brazil regarding his participation in this. It actually fled to the United States, to Miami, the safe haven of all right-wingers in Latin America, and even some from other countries, they have now joined this tradition. But he went back to Brazil where he's now facing, again, many charges. Essentially, it's interesting to look at how January 8 did happen, because it was a consolidated plan from the right-wing since the 2018 elections, when Jair Bolsonaro even won the elections to say that this electoral system, the way that it's going, the way that it's organized, is fraudulent. Even though I won these elections, I should have won by more. Right then and there, Jair Bolsonaro begins to plant the seed, which over the course of those four years, and then leading up to the elections in October 2022, is really amplified. I went to a lot of the Bolsonaro visa protests where you saw every single message was about how the electoral system was rigged and how there had to be intervention into the courts of the country, overturning all institutions, and so beyond questioning the electoral system, it also kind of created this sense that the entire system of democracy itself in the country, not even of democracy, but just the political establishment in Brazil is completely corrupt and will never actually serve the interests of the people. And it's a notion that's really divorced from any sort of reality. It's a notion that's divorced from the fact that the government continues to roll out very important social programs, that it has a very, very comprehensive intervention in daily life of Brazilians. And it kind of just sows this discord within Brazilian society about whose voices matter, what does it mean to actually respond to the voices of people? This means just responding to the right. And I think that Lula has been able to counter this narrative, both through his swift punishment of these sectors of society that actually drove this insurrection, but also by really showing that his state intervention is having a material impact on the lives of people. People were at a very vulnerable state under Jair Bolsonaro. Extreme economic insecurity, high levels of hunger and homelessness. Of course, Lula in his one year in presidency has not been able to reverse all of these conditions, but he has showed that he can, with state intervention, respond better to people's needs. And so I think that this is showing an interesting way in how to respond to this narrative of trying to destroy the democratic institutions in this notion that we have to kind of upturn society at large. So these two parallel events, very, very different responses, and we're at very different places where we are today. I think we lost Vijay Prashant, but do you want to close us out with a little update from the UK? Right. Interesting that you ended with democratic processes and their impact. We are looking at the United Kingdom, where British junior medical doctors are on strike. The strike will last until the 90th. It's a six day strike at the beginning of the year. A strike that was not a sudden strike they had warned about for a long time because of the basic fact that the government has refused to heed their very basic demands, which is the restoration of pay. Now, I think it's important to note that these junior doctors have seen their pay reduced by 26% since 2008. That is, in the past 15 years or so, their effective pay has kind of reduced by, you know, the salary loss is about 26% because of various factors including inflation. And basically, their pay has really not kept up with the economy with prices, for instance. And the doctors have been negotiating for a long time with the government last year. I think they were on strike not continuously, but over various days for about 28 days or so. And this reflects a longstanding dissatisfaction amongst various sections of the National Health Service employees in the United Kingdom, whether it be nurses, whether it be senior doctors, whether it be junior doctors, are experiencing a huge amount of dissatisfaction with their jobs because of the continuous underfunding and under-resourcing of this very important health service. And I think there are two things to note over here. One is that on the one hand, this is causing a drain of health professionals who are going to other locations where they get better salaries. On the other hand, of course, in many cases countries in the global north, in Europe, recruiting to somehow continue their health systems, recruiting professionals from the global south, people from Asia and Africa and paying them lower salaries and thus affecting the health conditions, health systems in those countries as well. So this is kind of causing some kind of a chain reaction whereby the refusal of governments to provide even basic resources is causing this having this impact across the world which is why it is an important strike to sort of look at. The fact remains that, you know, what do you call it? The junior doctor is not at all happy about having to go to strike. In fact, they've talked about how reluctant they are to do so. They've asked that the government negotiate in good faith but it does not look like the government is negotiating in any sort of good faith at all. And so in this context, I think, you know, very important to kind of watch this strike but also strikes by health professionals across the world. It's a topic we cover regularly on People's Dispatch with our friends at the People's Health Dispatch where we really kind of see how these strikes are actually interconnected. The struggles of health workers in the African continent, in South Asia, in Europe, in Latin America, many of them very closely connected for the struggle to build a better, more healthier world. And it is this struggle that the advocates of austerity, the advocates of life, for instance, Javier Millay, the kind of policies he's talking about. It is this struggle that they seek to sort of suppress by both repression and by underfunding, both of which go hand in hand. So very important struggles to watch out. Thanks so much Prashant for that inspiring update as doctors continue to fight for quality healthcare. That's all we have for you today at Give the People What They Want. Remember, like the show, share it with a friend. Make sure to follow People's Dispatch on all social media platforms. Check out our website on a daily basis because we bring you cutting analysis on the latest global events and stories for movements across the globe. So make sure you're following that. We will be back next week, next Friday with even more updates. Stay tuned.