I love the Hearts of Pine. Been to my share of games. Have spent hundreds of bucks on gear. I’m on a first name basis with one of the owners. And I appreciated the statement they made last month calling for accountability after ICE murdered Johan Sebastian Guerrero Duran.

All that said, the city of Portland should not carve out an exception to our working waterfront zone in order to allow them to build a $50 million dollar soccer stadium on land protected for marine-based industries.

Why? Well, soccer stadiums can operate anywhere. Cargo ships, barges, trawlers, and tugboats cannot. Nor can the longshoremen and women, stevedores, harbor pilots, and deckhands who service them. They need deep water ports, which is what the western waterfront provides.

As background, a couple weeks ago, the Hearts of Pine announced they had put Cassidy Point, the westernmost corner of our waterfront, under contract to build an 11,000 seat soccer stadium. That sale is contingent on the city approving a carveout to our longstanding protections for marine-based freight and industrial uses, which need access to the deep water of the harbor.

The zone was first put in place in the late 1980’s after a developer transformed Central Wharf into a string of 150+ high-end condos (now called Chandler’s Wharf). The backlash to that development led to a citizen referendum in which Portlanders voted 2-1 to freeze all non-marine development on the water side of Commercial street.

That zoning has been modified carefully over the years, and only after extensive input from those working the piers. Those modifications have allowed for a certain percentage of non-marine uses, mostly on the upper floors of old or new structures, in order to provide some economic diversity. 

Overall, the amount of space in Portland that marine business can use is decreasing. But for the western half of the waterfront, where the Hearts of Pine want to build their stadium, there’s been some real growth in marine industries. 

Eimskip, a shipping company, moved into the International Marine Terminal at the beginning of the western waterfront in 2013. Around the same time, Portland Yacht Services turned 23 acres of what was fallow land into a thriving boat restoration and storage business. And between those two sites, a massive cold storage facility was built. 

This has meant hundreds of new good-paying jobs, doing exactly the work that can only be done on the waterfront. A real success story of how protecting land for its best community use, not simply its most profitable return for an investor, can help everyone.

But Cassidy Point was recently purchased by a multi-billion dollar out-of-state hedge fund. Those investors have reportedly been trying to make a quick buck by flipping it. Apparently, both the Maine Port Authority and Eimskip had been interested in buying it before the hedge fund, because they had wanted to expand commercial shipping to that area.

But my guess is the hedge fund managers know that if they could find a buyer who would seek to rezone the property out of its protected status, they could exponentially maximize their profit (some estimates say eliminating its protected status inflates the value ten times). That’s where the Hearts of Pine came in. 

When I was mayor, Portland developed a comprehensive plan where groups from all across the city came together to discuss what we wanted to see for Portland by 2030. Fully 91% of Portland residents surveyed at the time supported “continued protections for Portland’s working waterfront.” That is why two of the plan’s major goals for the waterfront are the “ … mitigation of market trends that could compromise the balance between marine industries and competing development,” and “recognize and reinforce waterborne transport of goods and people as foundational to our community.”

Even in our most recent overhaul of our building code, the waterfront protection zone, in its entirety, was kept intact.

So, what to do? Clearly we love our soccer team. And if the owners want to spend their own money building a new stadium, they certainly have that right. But, as I said above, soccer stadiums can go anywhere. They could put it out on Riverside Street (hey, if it is good enough for our homeless shelter, it should be good enough for soccer). Or maybe next to 295, just up from Cassidy Point, where there are huge swaths of land near going unused. The Hearts of Pine owners said they actually looked at 12 viable sites.

But wherever it goes, it should not go on the waterfront. Supporting the home team matters, but in this case, the home team I side with are the women and men who need the waterfront to make a living.

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post Portland’s working waterfront is no place for professional soccer appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Two new books document how U.S. media enable the Gaza genocide.

The post Complicit Coverage appeared first on Democratic Left.

HAPPY LABOR DAY: A FESTIVAL OF RESISTANCE WITH VERMONT MAY DAY STRONG

This Labor Day, join Vermont May Day Strong and your friends, neighbors, and fellow workers for a Festival of Resistance. We'll have free food, music, activities, tabling, and a few brief speeches from Vermont workers standing up against the Trump regime and the billionaire class. Whether it's healthcare workers fighting for safe staffing at UVM Medical Center, Healthy Living workers resisting anti-democratic union busting, or migrant workers organizing for their right to dignified work free from attacks by ICE and Border Patrol, Vermont's workers are standing up, pushing back, and doing so together. The Festival of Resistance is an opportunity for us to celebrate the organizing we have done, the power we continue to build, and our past and future victories.

All are welcome at this family-friendly event TODAY — Monday September 7 at 3:00pm at Battery Park in Burlington

Learn more

TAX THE RICH: MONTPELIER AND WINOOSKI CANVASSES IN SEPTEMBER: LOOKING AHEAD TO TOWN MEETING DAY 2027 BALLOT QUESTIONS

Working Vermonters are being squeezed while the richest continue to benefit from tax cuts paid for by cuts to healthcare. Medicaid and ACA subsidies are on the chopping block, putting tens of thousands at risk. This is a choice. We can let working people carry the burden, or we can demand that the wealthiest pay their fair share.

We are calling on the Vermont Legislature to pass legislation that raises taxes on the richest 5 percent, taxes wealth proceeds, and invests that revenue into affordable and accessible healthcare for all. Half measures are not enough. Policies that only target the top 1 percent or shift taxes around without raising new revenue will not meet this moment.

Sign up to help us collect signatures on our Tax the Rich ballot petitions (advisory questions for the Town Meeting Day Ballot in Montpelier and Winooski)! 

We’ll be hitting the streets in Montpelier from 10-12 on Saturday September 12 and then in Winooski on Saturday September 19, from 1-3pm launching from 53 Lafountain St.

Sign up

GMDSA-ENDORSED CANDIDATES WIN BIG IN VERMONT THIS SUMMER: HELP GET THEM OVER THE FINISH LINE NOVEMBER THIRD!!!

Congratulations to all of our endorsed candidates!

The Electoral Committee is working on organizing to support our socialists seeking office to grow DSA and give working people a true voice in Montpelier. Stay connected with GMDSA to learn about future opportunities to canvass and phonebank with us before November!

Volunteer for Alexander Bobella’s campaign here. (Franklin County State Senate). Saturday canvass/lit drops starting the 12th — Stay tuned for more details!

Volunteer for Matt Gile’s campaign here. (Winooski)

Volunteer for Adam Franz’s campaign here. (Burlington)

Volunteer for Jeffrey Peterson's campaign events here. (Burlington)

Volunteer for Tanya Vyhovsky's campaign events here. (Chittenden Central State Senate)

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MONTH IN REVIEW

August this year we celebrated victories at the ballot box as all of our Socialists in Office won their Democratic primaries, then celebrated another milestone together at our 3rd annual summer cookout celebrating 300 Member Party!

We marched with workers on the picket line, joined our neighbors in advocating for the release of Pastor Steven Tendo, and kept doing what socialists do every month: organizing our workplaces and communities, building solidarity, and fighting for a Vermont that works for working people.

Another month down. More organizing ahead. Solidarity forever.

WE’RE BUILDING A FAMILY-FRIENDLY GMDSA

Green Mountain Democratic Socialists of America is working towards making our organization more accessible to parents and guardians. This month we were approved to receive a chapter Growth and Development grant from DSA national to help with this effort, among other priorities. You can help us by letting us know if you would benefit from childcare being offered at our general meetings.

Please fill out our Childcare Needs Survey

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MEETINGS AND EVENTS

 Join Green Mountain DSA and the Vermont May Day Strong Coalition for their Labor Day Picnic: A Festival of Resistance on Monday Sept 7 at 3:00pm at Battery Park in Burlington.

 Our Steering Committee meets on the first Monday of every month at 7:30pm on Zoom, including Monday Sept 7. All members are welcome to participate in the meeting discussion, only members of the steering committee can vote.

 Talk about your job and learn about shop-floor organizing from peers at Workers' Circle (co-hosted with the Green Mountain IWW) on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, including Wednesday Sept 9 at 6:00pm at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Av in Burlington).

Saturday Sept 12 at 10:00am in Montpelier, join the Tax the Rich Working Group for the official launch of the TTR advisory question campaign in the City of Montpelier. Canvass will run TBD, with an orientation for new canvassers at the start.

 Our Labor Committee meets on the second Monday of every month at 6:00pmon Zoom, including Monday Sept 14.

 Our Electoral Committee will meet on Wednesday Sept 16. The electoral committee meets at 6:00pm on Zoom. The Electoral Committee will meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month until November.

Saturday Sept 19 in Winooski, join the Tax the Rich Working Group for the official launch of the TTR advisory question campaign in the City of Winooski. Canvass will run TBD, with an orientation for new canvassers at the start.

Our Tax the Rich Working Group will meet on the first and third Sundays monthly, starting Sunday Sept 19 at 6:00pm on Zoom. Join to learn about our next stage of organizing as we enter the upcoming legislative biennium and plan for upcoming canvasses across the state.

 Find out how you can help our Membership Committee improve recruitment and involvement in our chapter on Monday Sept 21. The Membership Committee meets on the 3rd Monday of every month at6:00pm on Zoom.

 GMDSA's branches will come together for our monthly general meeting on Saturday Sept 26 at 11:30 a.m. at Fletcher Free Library (235 College St in Burlington). Newcomers are encouraged to show up at 10:30am for an optional “DSA 101” orientation. Everyone is welcome to join for coffee hour with snacks and discussion at 11:00amprior to the start of the general meeting.

 Our Palestine Solidarity Committee will meet on Monday Sept 28. The Palestine solidarity committee meets on the 4th Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom.

Our Communications Committee will meet on Monday Sept 28. The communications committee meets on the last Monday of every month at 7:00pmon Zoom.

Add our Google Calendar  - Check out our website  - Follow us on Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and BlueSky

IMPORTANT DATES THIS YEAR

• Labor Day: Monday September 7

• GMDSA September General Meeting: Saturday September 26 in Burlington

• GMDSA October General Meeting: Saturday October 17 in Montpelier

• General Election: Tuesday November 3

• Next GMDSA Convention: Saturday November 14 in Barre (Tentative)

• Next DSA National Convention: August 2027 (Date TBD)

Plus a plan for universal healthcare in Pennsylvania, a stand with nurses in Boston, and two high-profile mayoral endorsements in this month’s edition of “Chapter and Verse.”

The post Curtain Closing on 2026 Primaries appeared first on Democratic Left.

Photos from the vigil and protests following the murder of Corey Ruiz, July 22–Aug. 4, 2026.

If you’re in one of the photos and would like to be removed, you can contact us through the Submissions page.

As someone with a space science background and a long-term interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), I could not avoid the recent film on that topic, Disclosure Day. The film fits within the genre of UFO flicks dating back at least to the classic The Flying Saucer (1950), the first film on the topic. The film’s release also coincides with recent testimonies of government officials claiming that the U.S. government is secretly studying and reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology and the recent study by NASA on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs).

In Disclosure Day, the character Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) goes rogue against his company, the Wardex Corporation, a government contractor that works with extraterrestrial technology and experiments on captured extraterrestrials with the goal of reverse-engineering their technology. Kellner, believing his company is on the wrong track, steals a device called the Archive, which. contains records of extraterrestrial technology dating back to the Roswell incident. Kellner is almost caught, but escapes with his girlfriend, Jane (Eve Hewson).

Meanwhile, in Kansas City,  news meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) has an incident where she speaks in an unknown language. Unbeknownst to her, Margaret is speaking in an extraterrestrial language. After this incident, Margaret is pursued by Wardex agents and eventually encounters Daniel. The two eventually realize that they were both abducted as children by extraterrestrials and given complementary powers. Near the end of the film, they team up with ex-Wardex agents to reveal the truth of the existence of extraterrestrials to the world. 

Disclosure Day fits in with recent films in which the extraterrestrials are portrayed in such a way to make them seem more mysterious. This includes films like Arrival (2016) and Interstellar (2014) where the extraterrestrials are portrayed as mysterious, even godlike, but ultimately benevolent and films where the extraterrestrials are portrayed as malevolent or Lovecraftian, such as the 2016 film adaptation of The Three Body Problem, a science fiction novel by the Chinese author Cixin Liu. In a post-secular world, it could be argued that godlike extraterrestrials, whether benevolent saviors of humanity or Lovecraftian monstrosities, are an example of the current appetite for the re-enchantment of the world.

One of the ways this type of re-enchantment overlaps with politics is a curious left-wing political tradition that sees advanced extraterrestrials as playing a key role in advancing human progress. The Argentinean revolutionary Juan Posadas, founder of Fourth International Posadism, wrote an essay in 1968 arguing that spacefaring extraterrestrials, being more technologically advanced than humans, would also need to be more socially advanced and therefore socialist. Posadas believed that the socialist countries should call upon extraterrestrials to help them in the fight against capitalism. 

Another example of a space religion that significantly influenced left-wing movements is Russian cosmism. Russian cosmism was founded by the Russian Orthodox mystic Nikolai Fyodorov, who was also a mentor to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the father of Soviet and Russian spaceflight. Fyodorov believed that science would one day resurrect the dead and that space colonization would be required to make room for everyone who was to be resurrected. 

Russian cosmism was initially suppressed in the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, it continued to influence the Soviet space program. The initial Soviet headstart in the space race with launching Sputnik 1, the first satellite, into space in 1957 and launching the first human, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, into space in 1961 were both hailed in the Soviet Union as the victory of socialism over capitalism, proof that space exploration was intrinsic to progress.

While Russian or Soviet cosmism did not necessarily involve extraterrestrials, it did form the background of Soviet speculation about life on other planets. This included science fiction authors, such as the Russian revolutionary and scientist Alexander Bagdonov, who wrote Red Star about a Martian civilization that had achieved socialism. It also included scientists, such as the astronomer Nikolai Kardashev, the inventor of the Kardashev scale, which classifies hypothetical civilizations by energy capacity output, and the astronomer Iosif Shklovsky, the pre-eminent SETI research scientist in the Soviet Union and co-author of the book Intelligent Life in the Universe in 1966 with the U.S. astronomer Carl Sagan.

Like their U.S. counterparts, Soviet scientists and science fiction authors interested in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence showed an openness to learning from intelligences other than their own. In the NASA report Anthropology, Archaeology, and Interstellar Communication,  extraterrestrials are referred to as the “ultimate others” in an essay by Ben Finney and Jerry Bentley. This perhaps unintentionally echoes more traditional religious movements that emphasize hospitality and love of “the other.” The late Pope Franics wrote about “the sacred ground of the other” in his apostalic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

An older example of such thinking in religious contexts is the tradition of Marguerite Porete (c. 1258-1310), a medieval mystic and member of the Beguines, an all-female quasi-monastic lay religious order that was part of the larger heretical Brethren of the Free Spirit. The Brethren were known for antinomianism and libertinism, but also a form of radical hospitality and egalitarianism that is described by the situationist author Raoul Vaneigem in the book Movement of the Free Spirit as a precursor to later revolutionary and socialist movements.

Porete, in her book The Mirror of Simple Souls, taught that a person needed to go through stages of increasing self-denial and realization of God’s love in order to become truly free to submit to the Holy Spirit. One stage of this was to see God as the ultimate other. In seeing God as the ultimate other, the person would then become more open to the other in general and be able to truly love others. 

The current political scene not just in the United States but around the world is defined by increasing hostility toward the other as well as hostility toward immigrants and refugees across the United States; Europe; and, recently, South Africa and Australia. The underlying issues behind these conflicts are complex and solutions are still unclear. But one thing that is clearly needed is greater openness to embracing and cooperating with the other to create a world that is less unequal and more peaceful, one in which we can solve problems such as the climate crisis and the risk of misaligned artificial intelligence. 

Perhaps an encounter with the ultimate other, whether divine or extraterrestrial and whether good or bad, would enable us to have better encounters with the “others” who live next to us and are not all that different from us in the cosmic scheme.

The post Disclosure Day and the Ultimate Other appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

By Kevin Szczesny

To get clean Porta-johns in our workplace, construction workers at the Marriott site in downtown Detroit marched on the boss. Workers from at least seven unions of the building trades were represented, with zero union staffers or officers present. Many union halls were in support of the action, but the work and the application of leverage were entirely rank-and-file driven.

As an active member of IBEW Local 58 (Electrical Workers), I often hear from sympathetic organizers who “can’t imagine how hard it must be” organizing in a largely conservative and obstinate workforce. Our campaign is a contribution to the death of that narrative, and an answer to the universal follow-up question about how these shop floor conversations go in detail.

Day One on the job, as I met my 50 or so fellow electricians, I was immediately overwhelmed with warnings that the bathrooms were going to be unsanitary. I knew before the end of my shift that the issue was widely felt, and every electrician already had the same idea: we wanted the cleaning schedule changed from twice a week to three times a week. I had a long conversation with the steward about what efforts were already in progress to correct the issue.

The first instinct of a construction worker is to “drag” (quit), drive over to the union hall, and pick up a new job. As expected, there was a steady trickle of drags and conditions on site had not improved. OSHA had been called and walked the job soon after my arrival, only to say that the number of bathrooms was up to their standard.

The electrical contractor had been notified, but because the bathrooms were for all of the trades to use, our bosses didn’t feel it was their responsibility to pay for additional cleaning. The local IBEW contract only gestures vaguely to “sanitary facilities,” and protects us explicitly should we leave site to find a “sanitary” facility. This clause was exercised regularly, but no one could say for sure whether the boss was even aware we were leaving.

Over time, smaller issues would pop up and get resolved quickly with small actions. Sweeping compound to control toxic dust, unprecedented changes in break time, trades doing the work of other trades out of convenience: these were things that were easily managed by the steward with one or two voices in support. I got involved with a couple pushes and so was asked to fill in for the steward while he was out for a few days.

When I walked the job to make sure everyone had my number, more than half the conversations touched on the bathrooms. I then introduced myself to the stewards from the other trades, who all encountered the same comments from their members. The idea was formed to take the issue above our bosses and straight to the general contractor (who hires out each trade and is responsible for the job site at large).

A letter was written titled “Unacceptable Bathroom Conditions,” which opened politely and assumed the boss was ignorant of the problem. The letter referenced the impact on our work and a widespread feeling that we were not being treated with respect by the contractor. We suggested that the person responsible for scheduling use our bathrooms for a week, to better assess the need for more cleanings and a wash station. We gave one week for a response.

Every worker who was presented with the letter signed immediately, but reactions were mixed. Most people felt like they would just laugh at our demand, but were interested in the idea of swarming the bosses’ trailer at lunch and forcing them to read it in front of us.We fielded many suggestions, from delivering the letter and going home to tipping over Porta-johns on the way to the boss, and we told our coworkers that if our response date came and went without change, we would be coming back around “to have a different conversation.” This demand had to be made collectively and clearly first so that any future action would be naturally tied to the lack of clean facilities, and we had to start our escalation low enough that further demonstrations would be felt.

Many of our one-on-one talks were focused on assuring the workers that we would circle back for an escalation if the letter went ignored. “This is only the beginning”, “they probably will ignore this or lie, but we need to show that we’re all on the same page first,” “dragging only leaves behind the people who can’t quit with shitty conditions,” etc. We warned of possible counter-strategies from the boss and stressed the importance of demonstrating solidarity, especially across the trades, above all else. We also left out the officers at the hall and our reps on purpose, though we did inform them. We had a lot of conversations about the power in the hands of the rank-and-file. “Every member is a steward” has become sort of a slogan for us.

In the end we had 105 signatures and roughly 35 folks across four trades who gave up their lunch break to deliver the letter. The contractor read that letter, was brought outside to look at us, and immediately conceded to our terms.

Maybe they didn’t know how bad the bathrooms were, maybe they didn’t know how widely and deeply felt the issue was on site, or maybe they figured it was fine to ignore. All we know for sure is, when a seemingly small fraction of us came together with the backing of three times as many signatures, it didn’t matter if we had the hall behind us. We are the union, the working people who don’t walk away from a job which doesn’t satisfy us, and our demands have been met.

Kevin is a trade unionist and has been a member of the IBEW for two years and DSA member for five.

Organizing from the Bottom: IBEW’s Fight for Sanitary Facilities was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

There is a simple action DSA can take to dramatically change the relationship between the United States and the genocidal regime in Israel.

Start talking about their nukes. Openly, aggressively. Denounce Israel as a rogue nuclear state.

Since Israel began developing its nuclear program in the 1950s, its nuclear capabilities have remained the subject of longstanding secrecy and diplomatic silence. The U.S. government has refused to acknowledge Israeli weapons for a variety of reasons; a big one is that a Presidential determination would trigger the stiff sanctions in Sec. 102(B) of the Arms Export Control Act.

By acknowledging and denouncing Israel’s nuclear arsenal, DSA can force political recognition of these weapons and inspire action, such as imposing sanctions on Israel. Furthermore, the non-recognition of Israeli nuclear weapons creates a political asymmetry in which Iranians become the “bad” guys for wanting to deter Israeli nuclear aggression. If Iran wanted to acquire such weapons, it would not be doing so in a vacuum as though a bunch of mavericks had suddenly introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East for the first time. Israel already possesses them and is obsessed with destroying the Iranian state. In other words, the public logic of the aggression against Iran, which was launched with the atomically thin justification of denying Iran nuclear weapons, depends upon the continued non-recognition of Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

The imperialist line is even more absurd given that at least until the February 2026 U.S. assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran had a fatwa (a religious ruling) against building such weapons. Moreover, what is known of Israel’s nuclear policy is that it is alone in the world in continuing to contemplate weapons use against its non-nuclear neighbors explicitly.

Yet, this is not the half of it. Israel’s nuclear arsenal helps explain several otherwise puzzling aspects of the U.S.-Israel “special relationship.”

Why does the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv exercise such extraordinary influence over U.S. policy? Why do countries around the world, despite widespread disgust at Israeli and American genocide and aggression, have been unwilling or unable to forcefully intervene? Why do the weaker nations of the world allow international law to be discarded so casually? What would be needed to stop Israel for good?

The Israeli nuclear arsenal is a key under-discussed factor. The U.S. socialist movement, including our elected leaders, is not anywhere near where we need to be in terms of formal influence over public policy around these issues, yet this shouldn’t mean total silence. We have a bully pulpit from which to speak, and we must engage all levers of power to stop the genocidal Israeli grab for lebensraum.

U.S. support for Israel cannot simply be explained by some timeless affinity with Jewish people, given the history of U.S. antisemitism. There are sticky factors that are tying American imperialism to this specific colonial outpost, and a big one is the bomb.

Nuclear containment with flowers

The American state consists of both a rational part and an ideological part. There must be something that is firmly convincing the rational actors to let the ideologues have their way. Israel is a tiny nuclear state with a huge victim complex that is highly militarily vulnerable should its subsidies be cut off. It is unique in that it is the only nuclear state that is not formally acknowledged. A formal admission by the U.S. that Israel is nuclear-armed would trigger domestic sanctions and begin major reorientations in the region. Of all the countries that have acquired nukes after the 1967 Non-Proliferation Treaty cutoff (the DPRK, India, Israel, and Pakistan), Pakistan and the DPRK are subject to sanctions. India was subject to stricter sanctions, but craftily cut a deal with the U.S. in 2008, and more of those sanctions are being removed. Israel alone has avoided sanctions entirely. Apartheid South Africa, a nuclear collaborator with Israel, also attempted this trick, but when the Afrikaner regime finally collapsed, they dismantled their small stockpile of nuclear weapons to avoid letting them fall into the hands of Black Africans.

Notwithstanding the occasional slip-up, U.S. politicians do not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear status, and Israeli politicians are usually (but not always) oblique about it. This suppresses most official discussion of nuclear policy around Israel, though academics and journalists will sometimes speak up on the margins. Congresspeople do not discuss the issue publicly since it goes against the U.S.’s unofficial but rigid nuclear policy position of strategic ambiguity regarding Israel’s weapons program. It is a strange game where everyone knows the truth but does not speak it out loud, leaving Israel’s status suspended in the air.

It is thought that Israel has boosted fission nuclear weapons and potentially untested thermonuclear and neutron bomb designs based on research data from its collaborations with France and South Africa. Modern boosted fission weapons are an order of magnitude more powerful than the two comparatively simple and morally shocking 15-20 kiloton city killers that America detonated in Japan. To give a sense of proportion, while American nuclear arsenals have had bombs up to 25 megatons in the 1960s, our modern strategy focuses on a greater number of lower-yield weapons in the hundred kiloton range. For the most part, this strategy is more efficient at destroying a given area than a larger bomb of equivalent strength (though the big ones are still useful when used with inaccurate missiles).

In order for a research program to develop reliable weapon designs, it is crucial to obtain accurate explosive test data. Despite U.S. denials, it is likely that Israel collected test data in partnership with South Africa; a part of a test sequence was observed in the 1979 VELA satellite incident when a break in the cloud cover revealed a tell-tale double flash over the Southern Indian Ocean. Seymour Hersh wrote there were three tests, and the one that was caught by VELA was a low-yield nuclear artillery shell according to multiple unnamed Israeli government sources in his 1991 book “The Samson Option.” (Hersh, p. 271)

Said French nuclear physicist Francis Perrin, who participated in discussions about building the reactor, “We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed at the Americans….  Not to launch it against America but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation, we will require you to help us. Otherwise we will use our bombs.'” (Hersh, p. 40). There is an unfortunate realist logic to Israel’s nuclear policy. Since the country is so small, it cannot absorb a ground invasion force the way Russia, for example, has been able to historically. Therefore, since it is nuclear-armed, Israel has implied it will use its nuclear weapons in a first strike against non-nuclear states should it fear for the life of the state.

A nuclear attack in the region would slaughter innocent people in the hundreds of thousands, millions, or tens of millions in a horrific manner. Additionally, Israel is located in an energy-rich region with critical shipping lanes. Such an attack would likely target economic targets like oil fields across the Middle East, obliterate them, and contaminate them with radioactive fallout. Shipping lanes would be disrupted, with ports destroyed or even tight geographic features like the Suez Canal could be damaged. Firestorms started by nuclear explosions could smoke into the stratosphere, which would linger for some time. The reduced sunlight would degrade agricultural output over a wide area (an effect termed “nuclear autumn”), creating famines that could be even more deadly than direct war damage.

This is the kind of power the Tel Aviv Reich wields. It helps explain why the international community has barely lifted a finger to help the Palestinian people in the midst of a genocide where one 2025 projection estimates 680,000 Palestinians may have already perished from all causes. In addition to all the direct sticks and carrots American diplomats have undoubtedly deployed behind closed doors, they can also appeal to reason: You wouldn’t want them to go nuclear, would you?

Such a situation as outlined above would be much worse for the economy than the current self-induced crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one might think that American planners would attempt to mitigate the risk of nuclear war—and mitigate it they do. You can see this in their harsh and unrelenting treatment of Iran, where they constantly talk about preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. While I don’t believe this is their only motivating factor, nor that their treatment is justifiable on a moral or legal basis, it is true that they routinely set back Iranian nuclear chemistry capabilities with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Iran bears American aggression because they do not possess a nuclear weapon. During the Korean War, North Korea had about 20% of its population wiped out in the 1950s by American aggression and was constantly antagonized until they acquired a nuclear deterrent and now appear to be safe. By contrast, Libya surrendered its nuclear program, and its leader Gaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet after America secured the safety of a militant insurgency from the air. Three different countries contradicting American interests, three different nuclear statuses, three different outcomes. Iran has nuclear potential and is resisting; Libya surrendered and was defeated; the DPRK succeeded and is secure. That doesn’t mean acquiring a nuclear weapon is some unalloyed good. It defers one immediate state-wide risk for a potentially wide-area or world-wide one that gets bigger with each country that acquires them.

Israel offers a mirror perspective to examine. They already possess nuclear weapons. If America treated Israel like we do Iran, such as by routinely assassinating their citizens and invading their airspace, Israel would probably perform a nuclear strike, so that approach is ruled out. If Iran treated Israel like America treats Iran, that too could trigger a nuclear launch. Hence, Iran is very careful about calibrating its actions and signaling its position in the escalation ladder when it does act.

It’s not in America’s interest for Israel to wage nuclear war in a highly sensitive region. So how does America “contain” Israel? With flowers instead of swords, in what is frequently termed a “bear hug.”

America provides a conventional security guarantee to avoid existential Israeli anxiety that stems from their extensive history of criminality and territorial vulnerability. The word “anxiety”  is important because Israeli anxieties may become detached from reality, but America’s military commitment must scale with them lest they launch the nukes. After Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, the settler-colony’s paranoia has become all-consuming, attacking everyone and everything around it viciously and without conscience. The Israeli public’s blood lust gives Nazi Germany a run for its money—in 2024, 73% of the citizenry, amidst a horrific slaughter of children, thought that the job the military was doing was “about right” or “not far enough.” With Israel’s international reputation in tatters, and with Israel’s domestic politics stabilized by expansionary war, they are attempting to complete and solidify their conquests with all possible haste, hoping that all will be forgiven, or at least tolerated, in the gleaming light of victory. American military commitments have paced Israel’s expansionist aggression and genocidal revenge.

In 1956, when the Dimona research facility was still in its early phases, Bertrand Goldschmidt, who was present at a meeting of the  French Atomic Energy Commission, shared,: “…They [the Israeli delegation] said that when the Americans will realize we have  a nuclear capacity, they will give us the guarantee of survival. All this was decided before the  Suez Affair.” (p. 39) To put it crudely, Israel has America by the balls, and America is smiling.

Lest you think this is an exaggeration, in the chapter “Nuclear Blackmail” of “The Samson Option,” during the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel was losing badly, and their military was threatening to collapse for lack of supplies. Henry Kissinger was considering letting Egypt bleed Israel a bit and then have the two sides settle for peace on more balanced terms. Instead, the Israelis raised a nuclear alert and forced him into an immediate conventional arms resupply.

In a second incident, during the first Gulf War, Hersh describes how in response to Iraqi truck-mounted Scud missiles that were rumored to be loaded with chemical weapons, Israel raised a nuclear alert that lasted for weeks and visibly pointed its nuclear launchers at Iraq. In response, America offered money, patriot missile batteries, and marked Scud launchers as priority targets. It turned out the Scuds were conventionally armed. (Hersh, p. 318)

The attitude of John McCone, CIA Director in 1961, was reported by Walt Elder, an executive  assistant to the CIA, as, “He thought an Israeli bomb would lead to escalation and then you  could just cross off oil from the Middle East for years.” (Hersh, p. 106)

In February 1968, just before Israel had completed its first bomb, according to Schlomo  Aronson, Henry Kissinger said to a group of Israeli scholars that the United States would not  “lift a finger” to help in case of a Soviet missile attack—right after Israeli intelligence learned that four Israeli cities had been added to Soviet nuclear targeting lists. (Hersh, p. 177)

There is also a historical coincidence that occludes the nuclear aspect in some discussions of the America-Israeli relationship. Around the time Israel acquired its first nuclear weapons, the country also fought and won the Six-Day War. This was the moment Israel proved itself to America and the Zionist lobby started to become included in major decisions. Anti-semitism went from highly prevalent to a no-no. Due to this timing, aggressive containment of Israel’s nukes was never on the table (though there was substantial but ineffective pressure for  IAEA inspections of the Negev Nuclear Research Facility).

Thus, containment with flowers was born. All the incentives align—and while American planners inside think-tanks and the military may not have particularly wanted Israel to get a nuke (though they pointedly looked the other way according to Hersh), American Zionist businesspeople with close ties to the U.S. government helped finance Israel’s acquisition of nuclear technology from France. France agreed to sell Israel a nuclear reactor in exchange for help retaining French Algeria as well as due to mutual nuclear collaboration with scientists when France was building its own weapon.

While sending conventional arms to Israel helps forestall imminent use, it is something of a band-aid. Israel is still a tiny state that is unable to absorb land invasions. This causes considerable existential anxiety. If Israel were territorially bigger, this anxiety would be reduced  (and it would have more natural resources, making it more self-sustaining). Thus, there is at least one rational basis for at least some U.S. planners to support the “Greater Israel” project to take over the Middle East even though there is no possible legal or moral justification for this concept.

Another dismal aspect to consider is that based on the disclosures by Mordecai Vanunu, Israel likely has advanced “clean” neutron weapons that have vastly reduced fallout compared to standard designs. (Hersh, p. 199-200) This has serious implications because it increases their willingness to use nuclear weapons in proximity to nearby population centers – such as Gaza.

One shouldn’t assume that just because our government supports Israel and doesn’t publicly mention their nuclear capability doesn’t mean the military doesn’t make certain considerations for it. Despite my longstanding serious grievances with the U.S. military, I don’t think they would like other countries to be freelancing nuclear war. Therefore, the deployment of naval vessels and bases around Israel possibly has a dual purpose. If Israel plays along, we use those assets to protect their territory and reduce their existential dread. If they launch nuclear missiles, those assets can be used to try to shut down their remaining launch capability, and in certain lucky cases, perhaps shoot down an impulsive limited launch, particularly if there was forewarning. If that shut-down capability is used, the “special relationship” would be over, so if there are such plans, they would only be used as a last resort. Even if they are in place, I’m not confident that the realists would win the argument over the ideologues. According to Hersh, Israel has missiles, bomber aircraft, long-range nuclear artillery shells, suitcase nukes, and nuclear landmines—it is not possible to stop them if they are really determined to use their capability.

containing nuclear apartheid

How can the Israeli war machine and settler-colonial project be stopped? There are some unfortunate facts. The first is that no state will intervene militarily in Israel’s territory in a way that seriously scares them for fear of inciting a nuclear strike. Conventional missile attacks have a much more limited capacity to ignite that kind of fear—air power alone is generally insufficient to overthrow a government. Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen have launched missiles and rockets, but no military has dared to cross the border to assist the internal Palestinian Resistance since the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, when resistance fighters streamed out of Gaza. The focus has been instead on containing and punishing Israeli aggression in very measured ways.

The safest strategy is to aid in causing the nuclear-armed apartheid state to collapse internally via economic sanctions. However, so long as nothing is done about the nukes, they can continue to get away with applying the Dahyia doctrine of total destruction wherever they attack. The unfortunate truth is that it would take decades for a tough sanctions regime to start to make a dent in their nuclear capability.

One should not expect the apartheid regime to fall quietly. When the victory comes, it is plausible that, as in the South African case, the Israeli government would destroy their own nukes rather than hand them over to Palestinians as part of shared democratic governance. We can expect the revolutionaries to have to make hard and swift decisions to attempt to avoid the worst. In the United States, we will need to do our part to support the new Palestinian government.

Speak the Truth about Israeli Nuclear Weapons

Iran historically did not want a nuclear weapon, but given the current unprovoked assault on Iran and the reality of Israeli nuclear weapons, and with their biggest opponent, Ayatollah Khamenei, assassinated, they would be foolish not to consider acquiring a deterrent. In response to this situation of its own making, the U.S. is considering providing civil nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, so if Iran were to acquire a deterrent, Saudi Arabia might not be too many years behind them. This is a nightmare of nuclear proliferation that could cause other countries at odds with these powers to become interested in their own capability. The risks to the region and the world would keep increasing.

There could be some positives if Iran obtained nuclear capability. For example, they could extend their nuclear umbrella to Lebanon and Gaza, much as the U.S. does for NATO allies; this would do much for curbing Israeli excesses and would give the Palestinian resistance much-needed relief from the constant onslaught of the occupation forces.

An Iranian deterrent would secure the safety of Iran from invasion, provide the Palestinians with a lifeline, and contain the Greater Israel project. It might even open the door to the fall of apartheid Israel. However, these positives would come at the risk of a two-sided nuclear war in the Middle East with all that entails—including the risk of entangling other nuclear powers.

The root cause of this situation is Israel’s behavior, the fact of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and the actions of the United States. This can all be avoided if Israel were to denuclearize, which will only be possible if the United States insists on it.

What is our contribution? DSA can immediately help by talking about Israeli nukes officially and pointing out the difference in how Israel and Iran are treated on this issue. This will impede American aggression against Iran and give Iran a political lifeline.

I suspect that some DSA congresspeople have been reluctant to speak on this issue because of the nuclear gag. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has for years maintained a very controversial position of supporting defensive weapons such as interceptor missiles for the Israeli military but not offensive weapons like guns, tanks, bombs, etc. These defensive weapons, of course, allow the Israeli military to commit crimes without taking a hit back. Recently, in concert with the Israeli government signaling they’re okay with it, she has adopted the finely threaded position that defensive weapons are good, but Israel has to pay for them. It is hard to know what someone is truly thinking, but one very charitable explanation for AOC’s bizarre position is a credible fear of Israel starting a nuclear war.

U.S. government officials have been reticent to talk about Israeli nukes for the entire duration of the program, even within the confines of the intelligence agencies. On March 26, 2026, Rep. Ilhan Omar was interviewed on the subject of Israeli nukes:

“We’re able to talk about what kind of nukes we have. We have always been able to talk about the nukes that exist with our allies. The fact that we can’t have a discussion on Israel’s nukes, whether they have it or whether they tried to acquire it, and how much they have… it tells you that the level of fear that exists in Washington when it comes to questioning anything Israel and its army is doing.”

On May 5th, she and thirty of her colleagues, led by Rep. Joaquin Castro, presented a letter to Sec. of State Marco Rubio demanding clarity on Israel’s nuclear capability in stark terms, yet still hedged their language in terms of possibilities rather than a frank acknowledgement.

She came close, but Ms. Omar and her colleagues stopped short of recognizing a reality that has been evident for decades. She did not break the taboo.

Nonetheless, there is momentum on this issue. Breaking the taboo will have impacts on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will rearrange nuclear policy in the Middle East. It will refocus attention on the real reason for the aggression against Iran: ensuring Israel retains nuclear supremacy over its neighbors.

My fellow comrades in the DSA, it is important that we continue to raise the banner of Palestine every chance we get and build pressure to disarm Israel. It is clear that this is a central challenge of our time. We must be able to push boundaries. We must defend the humanity of Palestinians and support the fall of the apartheid state as quickly as possible.

We must talk about denuclearizing Israel.

reference

Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. 1. ed., 2. print, Random House, 1991. ISBN 0-394-57006-5

In remarks on the House floor, U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib contrasted the goals of democratic socialists with Republican policies that immiserate Americans.

The post Tlaib responds to House Resolution Condemning Socialism appeared first on Democratic Left.

Hey, comrade! The latest edition of the Pinellas DSA newsletter is here!

August was another exciting month of base building and growth for our chapter. In fact, we concluded the month with an exciting milestone: we’ve now officially had more than 100 new and prospective members of Pinellas DSA attend an orientation this year!

Of course, that’s just one of the highlights we’ve got to talk about. Read on to learn more about what we’ve been keeping busy with!

August Highlights

As I’m sure you’re aware, our Dump Duke campaign has been steadily gaining traction for well over a year now. But, our members decided this month to launch two additional campaigns for our chapter to undertake — the DeFlock St. Pete initiative and the No On 3 campaign. We’ll provide more details about each of these new campaigns below.

Looking beyond The Bay — unfortunately, despite knocking over 41,000 doors and making over 750,000 calls the campaign to elect our comrade Oliver Larkin to congress down in Broward County was unable to overcome the nearly $3 million raised by Zionist reactionary and self-styled “DeSantis Democrat” Jared Moskowitz. But, the big story on election night was the incredible upset pulled off by Jacksonville DSA member Angie Nixon to win the Democratic nomination for the US Senate! Angie’s campaign caught the pollsters off guard, winning a commanding victory against Alex Vindman. We’ll be following Angie’s campaign closely over the next two months!

CAMPAIGN LAUNCH: DeFlock St. Pete

More than 100 community members came out to the Barack Obama Library in St. Pete on the morning of Saturday, August 15, for the initial interest meeting for the new DeFlock St. Pete initiative.

If you’re not familiar, Flock cameras are AI-enabled surveillance devices capable of tracking the movements of vehicles and people across an entire community. This private company, made possible with investment from Peter Thiel and other authoritarian elites, is creating vast collections of data about where you go and when you go there, all with no democratic input from the public. And, they’re just one of the vendors attempting to expand the surveillance state into our communities.

We maintain that these devices are tools of racial and class violence. And, the people of St. Pete clearly agree — turnout for our campaign launch event was overwhelming. In fact, we had at least two dozen community members who unfortunately were turned away due to capacity issues. But, that immense response just goes to show that resistance to AI-enabled surveillance devices in our community is a winning issue that our members were right to begin organizing around.

The DeFlock St. Pete campaign is going to be voted on for endorsement by the chapter at our next General Body Meeting. If endorsed, we will ramp up the campaign under the purview of our Socialists in Office Working Group. If you want to learn more about this new campaign, check the Discord and be sure to mark the next Socialists in Office Working Group meeting on your calendar on September 30!

Click here to learn more about the DeFlock St. Pete campaign

CAMPAIGN LAUNCH: No On 3

Property taxes are a vital source of revenue for local governments in Florida. The taxes paid by property owners fund emergency services, libraries, transportation, flood infrastructure, schools, and many more of the services we all rely on every day, and represent the only form of progressive taxation in Florida. But, the far-right state government are insistent on trying to eliminate this vital lifeline for our communities by pushing Amendment 3, which will dramatically increase the homestead exemption, thereby cutting billions of dollars annually in tax revenue to our local governments.

In response, we announced the launch of our No on 3 campaign at a kickoff event Thursday night at the Clearwater East Community Library in Clearwater. The campaign is an effort to educate Floridians about Amendment 3, and raise awareness of its potential consequences for local governments, public services, and communities across Florida.

This initiative will be focused on educating the public and driving turnout to ensure that Floridians collectively say “No on 3!” this November.

Click here to learn more about the No on 3 campaign

Upcoming Events

We have more than a dozen political events, working group meetings, and social outings scheduled in September. You can always view our full calendar of upcoming events, along with the most up-to-date times and locations, on our website: pinellasdsa.org/home.

PDSA September General Body Meeting

Sunday, September 6 from 2:00–4:00pm. Barack Obama Main Library (3745 9th Ave N. in St. Pete) or on Zoom. RSVP here for updates or to attend via Zoom.

Health Justice Working Group Meeting

Monday, September 7 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only! See the Discord for the Zoom link.

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, September 8 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only meeting; here is the Zoom link.

Canvass at The Portland Apartments

Thursday, September 10 from 6:00–7:30pm at The Portland Apartments (300 8th St N. in St. Pete). Inform tenants of the power of collective action and to encourage them to attend a tenants meeting where they can tackle issues facing the property together.

“No On 3” Canvass — North County

Saturday, September 12 from 10:00am — 1:00pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

Dump Duke Canvass

Saturday, September 12 from 10:30am — 1:30pm. Meet at Wildwood Park (tentatively).

PDSA Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, September 13 from 7:00–8:30pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

DSA Political Program Meeting

Monday, September 14 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meet in the Hybrid Room to discuss Workers Deserve More and develop the chapter’s political program.

Canvassing at The Morgan Apartments

Tuesday, September 15 from 6:00–7:30pm. Canvassing at the Morgan to keep tenants informed on the campaign to prevent another slumlord by pressuring the City of St. Pete to purchase the Morgan and turn it into city-owned public housing. Meet in front of the Family Pak & Ship (2822 54th Ave S. in St. Pete).

“No On 3” Phone Bank

Wednesday, September 16 from 6:00–8:00pm. Check Discord for more details.

Housing Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, September 22 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Joint meeting of the Pinellas DSA Housing Working Group and St Pete Tenants Union to decide action on tackling the exploitative capitalist housing system. Zoom link.

Interest Meeting & New Member Orientation

Saturday, September 26 from 2:30–4:00pm at Barbara S. Ponce Public Library (7770 52nd St N. in Pinellas Park). RSVP here.

“No On 3” Canvass — North County

Sunday, September 27 from 10:00am — 1:00pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

North County Meeting

Sunday, September 27 from 1:00–2:30pm. Location TBD; check Discord for more details.

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Monday, September 28 from 6:30–8:00pm.Zoom only meeting; check Discord for more details.

“No On 3” Phone Bank

Tuesday, September 29 from 6:00–8:00pm. Check Discord for more details.

Socialists in Office Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, September 30 from 6:30–8:00pm. Meeting location will be available in Discord.

2nd Annual Tri-Chapter Social

Saturday, October 3 from 12:00–5:00pm at John Chesnut Sr. Park (2200 East Lake Rd S. in Palm Harbor). Meet comrades from Tampa DSA and Pasco-Hernando DSA for a potluck in the park! RSVP here.

PDSA October General Body Meeting

TENTATIVE: Sunday, October 4 from 2:00–4:00pm. Allendale UMC (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete) or on Zoom. RSVP here for updates or to attend via Zoom.

NOTE: All dates and times are subject to change, so check the website regularly for updates!

If you would like to create an event on the Pinellas DSA calendar, please contact the Steering Committee no later than two weeks prior to the requested event date. You can always check the Pinellas DSA website for our full chapter calendar and email us with any questions at dsa.pinellas@gmail.com.

We hope to see you at some upcoming events!

Follow us on social media:

Instagram: @pinellasdsa
Twitter: @pinellasdsa
Bluesky: @pinellasdsa.bsky.social
Facebook: facebook.com/pinellasdsa
YouTube: @pinellasdsa