Producer: Belal
Awad, Leo Erhardt
Videographer:
Ruwaida Amer, Mahmoud Al Mashharawi
Video Editor:
Leo Erhardt
Israel’s
deliberate campaign of starvation in Gaza is exacting a punishing toll on its
people. Just 30 aid trucks entered the Gaza Strip a day in November, according
to Al Jazeera—a far cry what is needed to feed the area’s 2 million people. In
North Gaza Governate, where a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing is underway,
just 12 of 34 permitted aid trucks have arrived since Oct. 6, according to
Oxfam. The Real News reports from Deir al Balah in Gaza’s south, where
overburdened and under-provisioned bakeries struggle to feed thousands.
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
There’s people
who camp overnight at the bakery. I swear—the last time I went, I found they’d
laid out beds at the door. There are people who get there at 5am. I swear
someone told me they arrived at 3am and left at night. For 19 packs of bread.
Some get it and some don’t.
Interviewer:
How many meals
are you eating a day?
Um Yusuf
Dalloul, Gaza City:
There aren’t any
meals! It doesn’t make up a meal, there aren’t any meals at all. There’s
nothing. Right now, currently, there are no meals. There’s no food. People
started hitting each other. The last time I was here, I got trapped in the
middle of a fight.
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
Yes, they’re
slaughtering each other. I swear to God, with sticks. They’re beating people
with sticks. They hit people, last time they knocked over an old man and he
dropped to the floor.
Interviewer:
All this for
bread?
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
For bread. And
the kid refused to pick him up. We told him: “Be respectful he’s old, help him
up,” he said: “No, you help him.” Hitting people with sticks as if they were
cattle. Not humans.
Interviewer:
Are there many
conflicts?
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
Every day, every
day, there are problems at the bakery. Every day. Not a day goes by without
problems. A person before the war used to come and go, used to be strong. I
swear I used to carry a sack of cement to the fourth floor, and go up and down
two or three times. Now, nothing. Even water—from carrying the water so much—we
don’t have any strength left.
Um Yusuf
Dalloul, Gaza City:
I mean can they
find us a solution? So we can just leave. We want to leave. Enough. We are
exhausted. Illnesses. I have chronic illnesses and can’t find medications.
Can’t find medications and can’t even find bread to eat with my medications.
Since morning I’ve been wandering around trying to find bread. We’re suffering.
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
Everyone’s being
diagnosed, everyone’s fatigued. If you go to the Jaa hospital, you can’t walk
for people suffering from fatigue.
Interviewer:
From what?
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
From lack of
food.
Um Yusuf
Dalloul, Gaza City:
Yes, many have
died of hunger. As someone with a chronic illness, if this continues, I could
die. Maybe a week and I’ll die. It’s normal. Because I suffer from a lot of
chronic illnesses. I’m suffering even from talking, because I have high blood
pressure.
Sa’ada Barakat
Rashid Khel:
I went to the
clinic to get checked, I told them I get dizzy and my eyes glaze. They said you
need blood tests, I told them my blood is definitely bad because I’m not
eating. I’ve lost more than half my weight. My son gets bad headaches, and he
went to the clinic and they gave him vitamins. And my youngest daughter,
they’re always telling me: “Her face is yellow, her face is yellow.” They lack
nutrition, vitamins, food, and drink. Even at the clinic, they have no
medications.
Interviewer:
Are you hungry
now?
Ahmed Hassan
Usman Ali Al Arshi:
Yes, honestly, a
lot. I mean, before the war I was—I’ve lost a lot of weight. Before the war, my
weight was almost 41 kilograms. Now, 38 kilograms—around that. Before the war I
used to eat fruits and chicken and vegetables and we had everything. We used to
eat, we weren’t hungry. Now there’s nothing. We’ve started to crave chicken. We
crave everything, we haven’t found stuff to eat. The soup kitchens, we force
ourselves to eat that. There’s nothing to eat. And lentils. Honestly, we used
to hate lentils. Now though, we’ve started to love them.
Interviewer:
From lack of
food?
Ahmed Hassan
Usman Ali Al Arshi:
Yeah.
Sa’ada Barakat
Rashid Khel:
Most of the time
my kids sleep hungry. Most of the time they sleep hungry. If—if—they manage to
get food from the soup kitchen, they eat it. If not, then there is nothing.
That’s it, there’s no bread, no flour. My daughter is always saying: “Mum, I
want to eat.” What can I do about it? What can I say? If we have lentil soup, I
say: “Go drink the soup,” she says: “It doesn’t fill me up!” I say: “Well, what
can we do?” Just go to sleep.
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
I fear for my
kids, not for myself. That’s what made me leave Gaza City, I’m not scared for
myself; I’m scared for those with me. I mean, when it comes to food and drink
in general, we can’t afford it. Even when we go to the bakery, we can’t afford
a packet of bread. People buy it from the bakery for 3 shekels (0.85 USD), and
sell it for 20 ($5), 25 ($7), or 30 shekels ($8). We can’t afford it.
Um Yusuf
Dalloul, Gaza City:
That’s it. Greed
and selfishness has consumed everyone. There are traders who buy and sell: they
buy it for 3 shekels ($0.85) and sell it for 15 ($3.5). A cucumber for 10
shekels ($2.75)?! Prices are sky high. We’re living in Hell. Life is
unbearable.
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
A bag of flour
has reached 400 ($112) or 500 ($140) shekels. And we can’t get it. I swear
there was a day when I sold a bag of flour for 5 shekels ($1.40). In the
summer, it wouldn’t keep, it would go bad. Now it’s 500 shekels ($140), we
can’t afford it. 500 ($140), 600 ($168), and 700 ($196). Today it reached 800
shekels ($224). Today I asked the price of a bag of flour they told me 800
shekels ($224). Where are we going to get that from? We can’t even get a packet
of bread.
Um Yusuf
Dalloul, Gaza City:
Enough! If they
don’t want us then just kill us. Because we are fed up. Seriously. We’re fed
up. We’re here dying, I swear we’re dying. Our health has gone, our wealth has
gone.
When will this
be solved? The whole world has wars and then they solve them, apart from us?
We’re the forgotten. I swear we’re forgotten. Until when?
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
To the world? I
say: wake up from your sleep. Come out of your coma. Look at the Palestinian
people. Feel compassion for them. That’s what I say. People have run out of
patience. People have run out of space. People have forgotten what meat is.
When you ask about meat, they’ll say: “What’s that?”
Interviewer:
How long has it
been since you ate meat?
Mahmud Zuhair
Hussain Abu Zaideh:
From the day
they closed the crossing. People are suffocated.
Joseph
D. Terwilliger
Democrats
speak of the fight against “Russian disinformation,” while the Republicans
pledge to combat “fake news” about Israel. Whatever you choose to call it,
there is a bipartisan effort to rein in our First Amendment protections, which
former Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to as a “major block” to
the government’s ability to combat misinformation. Speaking at the World
Economic Forum, Kerry went on to lament that the inability to control the
message makes it difficult to govern absent the existence of a truth arbiter, a
role government has increasingly tried to assume through backdoor means.
For
example, the Twitter Files exposed government collusion with social media
platforms to censor stories like the Hunter Biden laptop report before the 2020
election. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford professor Jay
Bhattacharya and other dissenting voices were shadow-banned or censored under
White House pressure.
These
examples highlight the government’s growing reliance on private-sector
cooperation to stifle opposition under the guise of protecting public
discourse. Yet the idea of labeling speech as “misinformation” or its messenger
as a “foreign agent” is not new – it echoes historical attempts to discredit
dissent.
This
tactic has resurfaced with a vengeance with the rediscovery of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), now a favored tool for deplatforming
speakers under the pretext of transparency while stigmatizing dissent as
foreign interference. As you will soon see, FARA is Un-American!
Historically
Un-American roots of FARA
The
infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was created in 1938 to
“investigate alleged disloyalty and rebel activities on the part of private
citizens, public employees and organizations.” Initially focused on Nazi
propaganda, after the war its focus shifted to anyone daring to challenge the
U.S. government. Black nationalists, civil rights leaders, and antiwar
activists were smeared as communist sympathizers, not for posing real risks to
national security but for challenging government policies. While HUAC was
disbanded in 1975 under public pressure, its legacy of smearing its opponents
lives on in one of its most enduring legacies – the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938 (FARA).
Passed
on the recommendation of HUAC, FARA required anyone spreading “foreign
propaganda” (or expressing ideas perceived as allied with foreign interests) to
register as a “foreign agent.” FARA didn’t ban speech outright – that would
violate the First Amendment. Instead, it stigmatized and marginalized
dissenters, creating a chilling effect on free expression under the guise of
transparency and patriotism.
Fast
forward to today. After decades of dormancy, FARA prosecutions have been
skyrocketing in recent years, with a clear focus on those who challenge US
foreign policy or question official government narratives. In the past seven
years alone, there have been 21 prosecutions under FARA – three times as many
as in the previous five decades combined. The resurgence in prosecutions
reflects a broader trend of leveraging existing laws to address new
geopolitical concerns, as fears of foreign influence have risen in the digital
age. As whistleblowers, journalists, and activists face mounting scrutiny, FARA
prosecutions have become a tool for stifling opposition to US foreign (and
domestic) policy.
If
you are reading this on antiwar.com, don’t kid yourself – you’re exactly the
kind of person FARA is aimed at silencing. It’s not about protecting democracy.
It’s about protecting the US government from scrutiny by branding dissent as
foreign influence. It’s McCarthyism 2.0 – different era, same censorship. Will
we stand by and let this persist, or will we fight back against this creeping
authoritarianism?
Modern
FARA: Silencing critics, not foreign Influence
While
FARA was initially intended as a tool to fight the pernicious influence of Nazi
(and later Communist) propaganda, it was modified significantly in 1966 to
shift its focus to lobbying activities tied to foreign entities. This was in
response to intense lobbying by domestic representatives of foreign interests,
specifically related to sugar import quotas. Constitutional guarantees of
freedom of speech and assembly and the right to petition the government
prevented the direct prohibition of such activities. Instead, the government
expanded FARA’s scope to include registration of lobbyists, effectively
repurposing it as a tool to attenuate broader foreign influence.
As
currently written, the act requires any person who acts in any capacity “at the
order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal” to
register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice. FARA’s broad
definition of “foreign principal” – including not only foreign governments but
also foreign organizations, companies, and even individuals – has created a
legal minefield ripe for politically motivated prosecutions.
Proponents
of FARA argue that it enhances transparency, making foreign influence more
visible. Yet, in practice, this so-called transparency stigmatizes those
required to register with the scarlet letter of “foreign agent.” This misuse of
transparency not only silences criticism but also diminishes the public’s trust
in institutions that are meant to serve and represent them. When public trust
in these institutions erodes, their ability to function as legitimate
representatives of democratic values is fundamentally undermined. Being labeled
a ‘foreign agent’ not only stigmatizes individuals but also deters others from
engaging in meaningful dialogue, silencing voices critical of government
policy. What does it say about democratic ideals when a nation silences its
critics with labels rather than engaging with their ideas?
This
dynamic betrays FARA’s purported aim of protecting democracy and freedom. By
labeling dissenting voices as foreign threats, the government exploits
xenophobia under the guise of national security, suppressing free and open
discussion of “uncomfortable” truths, “dangerous” ideas, and alternative
narratives. The chilling effect extends beyond its immediate targets by
perpetuating the dangerous precedent established by HUAC (labeling legitimate
criticism as “Un-American”) and eroding the foundation of a healthy democracy.
Though HUAC was disbanded, its discredited tactics live on in FARA, repurposed
to stigmatize alternative viewpoints and shield government actions from
scrutiny. FARA’s misuse today echoes a disturbing historical pattern where laws
claiming to protect democracy have been weaponized to stifle critics.
Sacrificing
liberty on the altar of national security
The
seeds of FARA’s misuse were sown during the Cold War, when the US honed its
ability to manipulate narratives under the guise of promoting freedom and
democracy. The US quickly became the world’s champion in what is now referred
to as “information warfare.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio
Free Asia and other shortwave radio stations funded by the CIA broadcast
American propaganda into “vulnerable” media environments. Publicly framed as
“promoting democratic values,” these endeavors were privately described as
America’s “most successful covert action project,” designed to mobilize the
opposition in Eastern Europe and the USSR.
Framing
itself as a champion of free expression, the US vigorously criticized Soviet
efforts to jam these broadcasts, ostensibly because “the West believes that
global peace can be achieved only through open and informed discussion,” with
the US delegate to the United Nations General Assembly even remarking that
“anybody who asked for foreign propaganda directed at the United States to be
jammed would certainly meet with a hostile reception.”
Today,
the US mirrors the very tactics it once decried. In 2017, it forced Russia’s RT
and Sputnik to register as foreign agents under FARA, invoking the same
narrative control it condemned during the Cold War. By 2022, RT and Sputnik were deplatformed by
major social media outlets, including Meta, YouTube, and Twitter, and were
likewise removed from major television providers in the US. The European Union
went even further, outright banning RT and Sputnik in 2022, claiming this was
necessary because they posed “a major threat to liberal democracies, which rely
on free and open information.” This glaring double standard is hard to ignore.
The same tactics Western powers condemned during the Cold War are now used to
shield their own citizens from “foreign ideas.”
In
2024, RFE/RL went so far as to complain that despite the official ban on RT and
Sputnik, its correspondents were still able to easily access them both from
locations throughout the EU, opining that “The ease of access [to RT/Sputnik]
is a clear blow to unprecedented Western efforts to punish Russia for the
invasion and to combat its carefully tracked trail of disinformation to try to
justify or spin the conflict.” What’s good for the goose seems not to be so
good for the gander after all…
Western
countries are now routinely calling plays straight out of the authoritarian
playbook, demanding that RT (Russia), CGTV (China), and Al Jazeera (Qatar)
register under FARA and endure the stigmatization and deplatforming associated
with the “foreign agent” label. The FBI
even seized the English language domain of Iran’s international TV station,
Press TV.
Meanwhile,
broadcasters such as BBC (UK), CBC (Canada), Deutsche Welle (Germany), NHK
(Japan), and KBS (South Korea) remain exempt from such onerous requirements,
even though they are state-funded and disseminate content promoting their
governments’ perspectives to American audiences.
FARA’s
inconsistent enforcement reveals its transformation from a transparency measure
into a tool for silencing dissent and controlling narratives. If protecting
democracy from foreign influence were truly the goal, the law would be applied
uniformly, regardless of whether the entity originates from an ally or
represents a “foreign malign influence.” Instead, FARA exploits xenophobia and
stigmatizes minority voices as foreign threats, chilling free expression and
deterring open dialogue.
The
marketplace of ideas only works when the government does not put its finger on
the scale, directing citizens away from “bad ideas.” The whole point of the
Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from the government imposing its
narrative, while FARA is now being used for precisely that purpose. These
double standards have not gone unnoticed by authoritarian regimes, which have
adapted and weaponized similar tactics, referencing FARA to justify their own
repressive measures. In the digital age, these Cold War tactics have been
repurposed, with platforms like YouTube, X and Meta acting as gatekeepers to
information, amplifying FARA’s chilling effect on dissent.
When
authoritarians steal our playbook
In
2012, the Russian Federation passed its own Foreign Agent Law, with Russian
officials “taking certain provisions of
the American law [FARA] as a basis.” The
US, which claims FARA is a transparency measure, responded by condemning
Russia’s version as a tool of repression.
When RFE/RL and Voice of America were required to label their content as
originating from a “foreign agent,” RFE/RL successfully sued Russia in the
European Court of Human Rights, arguing that such labeling “violates the rights
to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”
When
RT was forced by the US to register as a foreign agent, US officials insisted
it “does not inhibit freedom of
expression [and] does not restrict the content of information disseminated,” a
glaring inconsistency that reveals the true intent behind FARA’s resurgence –
narrative control, not transparency.
Russia
is not the only country that has adopted legislation inspired by FARA in recent
years. In 2023, Hungary passed a sovereignty protection law aimed at monitoring
foreign-funded groups and individuals engaging in political activity. The US State Department criticized this law
for providing “draconian tools that can be used to intimidate and punish those
with views not shared by the ruling party,” and deemed it “inconsistent with our shared values of
democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” Similarly, Georgia passed
its own law concerning “Transparency of Foreign Influence” in 2024, creating a
registry of organizations accused of “pursuing the interests of a foreign
power.” The White House claimed this law “runs counter to the democratic values
and would move Georgia further away from the values of the European Union and
also NATO.”
The
hypocrisy here is staggering. When
foreign governments implement laws like FARA, the US condemns them as
undemocratic. Yet FARA itself has been
used domestically to intimidate and silence government critics, as in the 1951
prosecution of the “Peace Information Center” (PIC). This entirely domestic organization, led by
civil rights leader W.E.B. Dubois, one of the co-founders of the NAACP, was
targeted for distributing the Stockholm Appeal, a global petition for a ban on
nuclear weapons that originated in Europe.
The government’s theory was that the Stockholm Appeal was a Soviet
propaganda trick, making the PIC a de facto Soviet agent. Although they were
not ultimately convicted, the reputational damage caused by this application of
“lawfare” ultimately led to the closing of the PIC.
The
AIPAC Exception
While
the PIC was smeared and dismantled for distributing the Stockholm Appeal, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly lobbies for policies
aligned with Israeli government interests. In March 2024, Israeli foreign
minister Israel Katz wrote on X that he had met with AIPAC’s leaders and asked
them to “work with the [US] administration and Congress to take dramatic steps
against the decision by the Prosecutor of the ICC to demand arrest warrants for
PM Netanyahu and the Defense Minister.”
This
blatant demonstration that AIPAC’s lobbying activities are being directed by
the Israeli government clearly meets FARA’s definition of a foreign agent. Yet,
because its agenda aligns with official US policy, it has thus far avoided the
“scarlet letter” of FARA registration.
While organizations advocating for marginalized perspectives face legal
action, those aligned with US foreign policy goals – regardless of foreign
affiliation – are exempt, exposing the law’s true purpose: narrative control,
not transparency.
Authoritarian
regimes often defend laws like FARA by asserting that social stability and
national security are more important than individual liberties. The US tradition, in contrast, has been to
err on the side of personal freedom and human rights. Yet FARA, like its Russian, Georgian and
Hungarian analogs, treats “the people” as if they were incapable of critical
thinking and discerning truth from propaganda. Only the all-knowing government
can be trusted to decide which ideas are acceptable. Such infantilization of
the public undermines democratic principles.
Conclusion
A
healthy democracy relies on its citizens’ ability to evaluate diverse and
contradictory ideas freely and critically without government interference or
fear of retaliation. Rather than stigmatizing lawful engagement with foreign
ideas (which we need more of), empowering citizens to engage critically
strengthens the democratic process and counters authoritarian tendencies.
While
it is certainly true that some foreign influences can be dangerous, the most
significant threats to our democracy come from within – corporate lobbying,
misinformation, and government overreach. Fixating on foreign influence only
distracts from these pressing internal challenges.
The
double standard of requiring Russian-linked media to register with FARA while
leaving AIPAC untouched is a way for Washington to tip the scale of debate in
the US.
Unchecked
authority thrives on fear, using laws like FARA to stifle dissent. Registration
requirements, surveillance, and censorship can escalate quickly, silencing
critics and ensnaring ordinary citizens. If these trends persist, what kind of
democracy will remain for future generations?
By
invoking vague threats under the guise of national security, FARA fosters a
culture of fear and self-censorship. Bans on platforms like TikTok reflect the
same troubling trend, silencing dissent while shielding official narratives. These tactics don’t safeguard democracy—they
destroy its foundations.
We
need laws that respect the First Amendment, not scarlet letters for dissenters.
Demand transparency and accountability. Reject authoritarian tactics
masquerading as patriotism. Advocate for laws that protect free expression, not
those that punish dissent. FARA isn’t protecting democracy – it’s dismantling
it. Let’s call it what it is: un-American, undemocratic, and absolute bullsh*t!
No comments:
Post a Comment