Norman Solomon

Huffman Remains Evasive While Palestinian Civilians Die

By Norman Solomon / Marin Independent Journal — December 30, 2023

Reading social media posts and press releases from Rep. Jared Huffman, of San Rafael, is illuminating.

The House member repeatedly and quite properly condemned the horrific killings of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7 by Hamas. He repeatedly and quite properly condemned antisemitism. What he has not done is devote anywhere near the same amount of emphasis to condemning the horrific killings of Palestinian civilians in Gaza that have continued since that day.

This is particularly striking since Huffman has routinely joined with others in Congress to vote for supplying many billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and ammunition to the Israeli military. It has persisted in killing Palestinian civilians — estimates say at least 19,000 of them since early October. The wherewithal is largely courtesy of appropriations from Huffman and his congressional colleagues.

A pattern of civilian carnage was soon obvious. By mid-November, five weeks into Israel’s massive bombing of Gaza, the World Health Organization’s director-general told the United Nations that the Israeli military was killing Palestinian children at an average rate of about six per hour. That amounts to about 1,000 kids each week.

One wonders whether members of Congress, now providing such easy rhetoric in public statements to justify huge and ongoing military support to Israel, would be so comfortable with those appropriations if they had to dig their own dead children out of rubble.

As a Jewish American, I know about antisemitism. I grew up with the frightening stories of storm troopers and concentration camps, where some of my relatives perished. I know full well that antisemitism is a real problem. None of that justifies continuing to vote in the House of Representatives for massive military aid to Israel — aid that has been and is being used to slaughter civilians as innocent as ones you would see at a shopping mall in Corte Madera, San Rafael or Novato.

By mid-October, there was an opportunity for members of Congress to take a clear stand for a cease-fire. Eighteen Democrats in the House signed on as co-sponsors of the cease-fire resolution (House Resolution 786). But Huffman chose not to be among them and he is still not a cosponsor.

Instead, Huffman has basically supported President Joe Biden’s policies toward the conflict. On Nov. 19, Huffman posted on social media that a cease-fire would require “Hamas releases all hostages, disarms & relinquishes control of Gaza” — in effect, first unconditional surrender. While a letter to Biden that Huffman signed two days later urged “immediate cessation of hostilities against targets with a civilian presence to facilitate the timely evacuation and protection of children and babies,” it notably did not call for a cease-fire.

In the White House and on Capitol Hill, ethnocentric and racial biases have combined with geopolitical priorities and political expediency to enable U.S. government support of ongoing atrocities by the Israeli military. Huffman is a participant in this dynamic.

Congressman Huffman would better represent the decency of people in this congressional district by actually supporting a single standard of human rights.

Unfortunately, proclaiming opposition to antisemitism sometimes serves as a smokescreen for egregious and lethal double standards.

In early December, Huffman distanced himself — a bit — from the ridiculous and manipulative conflation of the Israeli government with the religion of Judaism, writing in a tweet that “anti-Zionism is often antisemitism, but not always.” Since many Jews are anti-Zionist, that should hardly be a revelation.

Yet, last month, Huffman touted his “long-standing opposition to BDS” — the effort to boycott, divest and sanction Israel — and he flatly called it a form of “antisemitism.” Such labeling evades the fact that authoritative human rights groups — including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli organization B’Tselem — have declared that Israel is an apartheid state.

It sounds as if Huffman is claiming that such nonviolent measures as boycotting Israel are antisemitic. That’s absurd. Much as it would have been absurd to call such nonviolent measures that were aimed at South Africa’s apartheid government “anti-White.”

Someday, hopefully, a member of Congress representing Marin will have the minimal courage to apply a single standard of human rights to foreign policy.

Author Norman Solomon is national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. A former candidate for Congress, Solomon lost a primary election to Rep. Jared Huffman in 2012.

Democrats should steer clear of Liz Cheney

By Norman Solomon / The Hill

The publication of Liz Cheney’s new book “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning” has thrust her back into the national spotlight. Friendly interviews with liberal TV icons like Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert helped the book reach the top of bestseller lists. Such enthusiasm for the former GOP representative in Democratic and liberal circles is understandable — but it’s also a hazardous dynamic if Democrats want to retain the White House for another four years. 

During her last term as Wyoming’s representative in the House, Cheney was an admirable truthteller as she excoriated Donald Trump with key facts and deft rhetoric. Her attacks on Trump as a dire threat to American democracy rang true. But the Democratic establishment’s embrace of Cheney could actually end up damaging the Biden campaign by reducing the turnout of voters who believe in the Democratic Party’s core precepts.

The current problem was foreshadowed in early January 2022, when Liz Cheney’s father Dick Cheney visited the House floor to mark the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. While showing up to support his daughter’s brave anti-Trump stand, the former vice president was met with profuse accolades from top Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to ignore past differences, shaking the elder Cheney’s hand and later telling reporters, “We were very honored by his being there.”

But many Democrats don’t want to see their leadership embracing prominent Republicans just because they speak out against Trump. When Liz Cheney was a member of Congress, she voted in line with President Trump 93 percent of the time. On matters like abortion rights, environmental protection, racial justice, civil liberties and national security, the younger Cheney has consistently fought for positions that the vast majority of Democrats see as inimical to the best interests of the country.

It’s one thing to strive for a united front — which will be necessary — to defeat Trump if he is the GOP nominee. But if Democratic leaders are seen as aligning themselves with Cheney, her record of voting against virtually everything that the Democratic base believes in could add to the alienation that’s already felt by millions of young people who voted for Biden in 2020 but now see him as an unprincipled compromiser undeserving of their vote next year.

[To continue reading, on The Hill website, click here.]

The Madness of Militarism

By Norman Solomon / The Massachusetts Review

     Editor’s note: On November 15, 2023, Norman Solomon delivered the Second Annual Ellsberg Lecture at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, a lecture series hosted by University’s Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy. The text below is based on a transcript of his remarks, excerpted and edited for publication. In 2019, Ellsberg made UMass the home for his papers; with the help of an anonymous donor, this treasure trove of some 500 boxes of material became part of the Robert S. Cox Special Collections and University Archives Research Center.

One day in 1995, I called Daniel Ellsberg and suggested that he run for president. His response was instantaneous. He said, “I'd rather be in prison.” He then explained, “I can't imagine how awful it would be to keep talking about things I don't know much about.” That doesn't seem to stop many candidates for president, but for Dan, it was a no-go.

I've thought about that conversation many times. And it's often made me return to an essential question. What exactly did Dan Ellsberg know? From inside the U.S. war machine, he knew what almost no one who had reached his level was willing to talk about publicly. What he knew, and most importantly, what he was willing to share with the public was that the leaders of the so-called Defense Department, the State Department, and the people in the Oval Office, not only could lie, they did so frequently, without regard for truth and without regard for human life. That realization—and the willingness to share that truth—is as current and crucial at the end of 2023 as it was in 1971, when the Pentagon Papers were released.

A couple of years ago, when I recorded an interview with Dan Ellsberg, this is how he put it,

That there is deception, that early in the game the public is evidently misled by it in a way that encourages them to accept and support war is the reality. How much of a role does the media actually play in this—in deceiving the public? And how difficult is it to deceive the public? As an insider, one becomes aware: it's not difficult to deceive them. First of all, you're often telling them what they would like to believe—that we're better than other people, that we are superior in our morality and in our perceptions of the world.

In The Doomsday Machine, a book as important as any I've ever read, Dan starts with an epigraph from Friedrich Nietzsche: “Madness in individuals is something rare. But in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule.”

I often think of that quote in tandem with what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described as “the madness of militarism,” something that is as real in our day as when he uttered those words in 1967. Dr. King spoke about what he called the “demonic, destructive suction tube” that drew tremendous quantities of resources away from this country—from human well-being, from health care, education, housing, infant care, elderly care, you name it. Walk around Massachusetts or California or any other state, and you won't be far from the deficits—the result, in large measure, of that “demonic, destructive suction tube.”

A quick survey. Has anyone here—in your neighborhood, in your community, in your travels in the United States, in the last year or two—ever seen a flag of the nation of Ukraine? Please raise your hand. Ukrainian flag, anybody? Wow, almost the whole room. Almost everybody here has seen this display of solidarity with the humanity of the Ukrainian people, who are suffering a horrific invasion—warfare imposed on them by another country. A truly appropriate display of solidarity and compassion.

Now, the other half of my survey. Please raise your hand if you've seen displayed—in your neighborhood, in your walk of life, in your community, or in your travels across the United States—a flag of the country of Yemen. I’m not seeing a single hand. And I can't raise my hand either. Every day when I go shopping or go to work in my little office, I see the flags of Ukraine. I don't see any Yemeni flags.

You may remember the fist bump when, in the middle of 2022, President Biden met with the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. That was a gesture of solidarity, between our country, which has sold billions of dollars worth of weapons and provided intelligence, and Saudi Arabia, as it slaughters civilians in Yemen.

The media watch group FAIR did a study of MSNBC, the liberal network (not Fox). It found almost no coverage whatsoever of the slaughter going on in Yemen. During the Trump administration, there was 5,000% more coverage of the Russiagate narrative than of what was happening in Yemen.

Ever since 2015, the U.S. government has been supporting the killing from the air and the massacres by Saudi Arabia of people in Yemen. We might think the lack of coverage is odd, given that the United States government is directly involved. And yet, despite our involvement, the U.S. media is hardly paying any attention to it at all. Remember, after the invasion of Ukraine, there was huge coverage—empathetic coverage, appropriate coverage—of the suffering on the ground in Ukraine. That was apparently a different tier of grief, one that's officially sanctified and encouraged. In Yemen, when children were dying en masse, when the largest cholera epidemic in modern history was taking place (courtesy of the Saudi regime, with the support of the United States), it wasn’t newsworthy.

President Biden: Learn the Names of Children You’ve Helped Israel to Murder

By Norman Solomon

To: President Joe Biden

You’ve often spoken of how much you care about children and how terrible it is when they’re murdered. “Too many schools, too many everyday places have become killing fields,” you said at the White House last spring on the one-year anniversary of the school shooting in Uvalde. At the time of that tragedy in Texas, you had quickly gone on live television, speaking gravely.

“There are parents who will never see their child again,” you said, adding: “To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away. . . . It’s a feeling shared by the siblings, and the grandparents, and their family members, and the community that’s left behind.”

And you asked plaintively: “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen? Where in God’s name is our backbone to have the courage to deal with it and stand up to the lobbies?”

This year you’ve asked similar questions many times, as in the aftermath of shootings at a grade school in Nashville, Michigan State University and the University of Nevada.

The massacre in Uvalde took the lives of 19 children. For nearly three months, the ongoing massacre in Gaza has taken the lives of that many children every few hours.

In mid-November, after five weeks of Israel’s bombing of Gaza, the director-general of the World Health Organization reported that children were being killed at an average rate of six per hour, adding that “nowhere and no one is safe.” Palestinian civilians of all ages continue to undergo slaughter, with the death toll surpassing 20,000.

You have continued to voice support for Israel’s military assault on Gaza and its residents. After 10 weeks of the carnage, when you got around to expressing a bit of concern about Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing,” you were meanwhile still doing everything you could to greenlight and fast track massive U.S. shipments of weapons and ammunition to Israel so that the indiscriminate bombing could continue.

Even your belated and inadequate words on Dec. 12 about “indiscriminate bombing” apparently caused you to have second thoughts. The next day, Voice of America reported that “the White House appears to be walking back” your comment about “indiscriminate bombing.”

Most important, of course, are not words but deeds. As commander-in-chief, since early October you have approved large-scale shipments to Israel of 2,000-pound bombs -- described by the New York Times as “one of the most destructive munitions in Western military arsenals,” a weapon that “unleashes a blast wave and metal fragments thousands of feet in every direction.”

In a Dec. 21 video report based on analysis of “aerial imagery and artificial intelligence” -- headlined “Visual Evidence Shows Israel Dropped 2,000-Pound Bombs Where It Ordered Gaza’s Civilians to Move for Safety” -- the Times indicated that “Israel used these munitions in the area it designated safe for civilians at least 200 times.” Those 2,000-pound bombs have been “a pervasive threat to civilians seeking safety across south Gaza.”

Since the war in Gaza began 11 weeks ago, the Times reported, “the U.S. has sent more than 5,000 2,000-pound bombs” to Israel. And after a long phone conversation with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu on Dec. 23, you told the press: “I did not ask for a ceasefire.”

With your ongoing help, Israel is continuing to murder children and other civilians in Gaza just as methodically as the gunman murdered children at the elementary school in Uvalde. And you have continued to provide weaponry for the murders just as surely as the gun shop in Uvalde sold firearms and ammunition to the man who went on to kill at the elementary school.

But that is an unfair comparison -- unfair to the Uvalde gun-shop owner, who did not know the intended use of the weapons and ammo. But you know what the billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and bombs gifted by the U.S. government are being used for.

When three 9-year-old students were among those shot to death at a school in Nashville last March, you spoke about them the next day. “A family’s worst nightmare has occurred,” you said. “Those children should all be with us still,” you said. And you said: “We know the names of the victims.”

But you don’t know the names of the children you’ve helped to murder in Gaza. And there are so many.

     Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including "War Made Easy." His latest book, "War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine," was published in 2023 by The New Press.

Unilateral Sanity Could Save the World

By Norman Solomon / TomDispatch

Top American officials in the “national security” establishment are notably good at smooth rhetoric and convenient silences. Their scant regard for truth or human life has changed remarkably little since 1971 when Daniel Ellsberg risked decades in prison to leak the Pentagon Papers to the world. During the years between then and his death six months ago, he was a tireless writer, speaker, and activist.

Most people remember him, of course, as the whistleblower who exposed voluminous official lies about the Vietnam War by providing 7,000 top-secret pages of classified documents to the New York Times and other newspapers. But throughout his adult life, he was transfixed above all by the imperative of preventing nuclear war.

One day in 1995, I called Dan and suggested he run for president. His reply was instant: “I’d rather be in prison.” He explained that, unlike typical candidates, he couldn’t stand to offer opinions on subjects he really knew little or nothing about.

However, for more than five decades, Ellsberg didn’t hesitate to publicly address what he really did know all too much about — the patterns of government secrecy and lies that sustained America’s wars in one country after another, along with the chronic deceptions and delusions at the core of the nuclear arms race. He had personally seen such patterns of deceit at work in the upper reaches of the warfare state. As he told me, “That there is deception — that the public is evidently misled by it early in the game… in a way that encourages them to accept a war and support a war — is the reality.”

And how difficult was it to deceive the public? “I would say, as a former insider, one becomes aware: it’s not difficult to deceive them. First of all, you’re often telling them what they would like to believe — that we’re better than other people, we are superior in our morality and our perceptions of the world.”

Dan had absorbed a vast array of classified information during his years working near the top of the U.S. war machine. He knew countless key facts about foreign policy and war-making that had been hidden from the public. Most importantly, he understood how mendacity could lead to massive human catastrophes and how routinely the key figures in the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Oval Office openly lied.

His release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 — revealing crucial history about the Vietnam War while it was still underway — exposed how incessant deception got wars started and kept them going. He had seen up close just how easy it was for officials like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to suppress doubts about American war-making and push ahead with policies that would, in the end, lead to the deaths of several million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. And Dan was haunted by the possibility that someday such deception might lead to a nuclear holocaust that could extinguish almost all human life on this planet.

Conformist Media Outlets Hide Realities of Power. Noam Chomsky Has Exposed Them.

By Norman Solomon

One of the rare times that Noam Chomsky’s name has been mentioned on a big national NPR program came two months ago. On “Weekend Edition” in mid-October, a week into Israel’s murderous assault on civilians in Gaza, a correspondent reported while visiting a bookstore owned by a Palestinian in Jerusalem: “I’m seeing a lot of books by Noam Chomsky.”

Across the globe, people suffering from illegitimate power and violence have a lot of books by Noam Chomsky. A recent interviewer aptly introduced him this way: “One of the world’s most-cited scholars and a public intellectual regarded by millions of people as a national and international treasure, Chomsky has published more than 150 books in linguistics, political and social thought, political economy, media studies, U.S foreign policy and world affairs.”

Ever since his meticulous writing and strong activism against the U.S. war on Southeast Asia in the 1960s and ’70s, Chomsky has been exposing Orwellian and often-deadly maneuvers by the most powerful government on Earth. Along the way, he has been tireless, humanistic and uncompromising.

For many decades, the core of corporate greed and militarism has remained basically the same. So has the core of Chomsky’s message.

In 1982, while visiting Philadelphia, he appeared as a guest on “Fresh Air” -- back then only a local program on WHYY Radio. Host Terry Gross asked: “Your radical thoughts in linguistics completely changed the field. Your radical thoughts in politics hasn’t completely changed America. Has it been interesting for you to watch how your contribution to politics and linguistics has or hasn’t affected things?”

“I see them very differently,” Chomsky replied. “For one thing, in my view, linguistics is -- well, it’s basically a branch of sciences, it’s hard intellectual work. Political analysis is not, quite frankly. I think it’s easily within the range of an ordinary person who doesn’t have any particular training and is simply willing to use common sense to pay attention to the available documentary record and to use a little diligence in searching beyond what’s on the surface.”

Chomsky continued: “There’s an elaborate pretense that this is an area that must be left to experts. But that’s simply one way of protecting power from scrutiny. So, my own interest in political analysis and writing and so on is simply to bring information to people who I think can use it for the purposes of changing the world.”

His anti-elitism has endured, and so has enmity from some elites. One response is to block access to mainstream media. “Fresh Air” is a case in point. A search of the program’s full archive shows that after it went national on NPR in the mid-1980s, “Fresh Air” never interviewed Chomsky again. The program’s local interview with him back in 1982 was the first and last.

With few exceptions, in major U.S. media -- notably unlike major media in most of the rest of the world -- Chomsky has been persona non grata.

A key reason is Chomsky’s implacable opposition to the many wars of aggression that the U.S. government has launched or supported. And a particularly unacceptable deviation from approved views has been his illuminating condemnations of Israel’s historic and ongoing suppression of Palestinian rights. For several decades, as a result, vast quantities of hostility and distortion have been directed at him.

Here's a sample: In the mid-1990s, the longtime host of NPR’s “All Things Considered” program, Robert Siegel -- operating within a lofty “public radio” bubble -- wrote a letter to the industry newspaper Current declaring that Chomsky “evidently enjoys a small, avid, and largely academic audience who seem to be persuaded that the tangible world of politics is all the result of delusion, false consciousness and media manipulation.”

Chomsky, who turned 95 last week, has been spotlighting the inherent and expansively violent cruelties of Zionism for a very long time. His landmark 1983 book “Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians” dispelled many readers’ illusions about the goals and consequences of U.S. support for Israel.

In 1986, journalist David Barsamian launched “Alternative Radio” -- a national one-hour program that got underway by bringing Chomsky’s voice to listeners around the United States and far beyond. In the nearly 40 years since then, the weekly show has aired several hundred speeches and interviews with Chomsky (whose website also overflows with a cornucopia of vital information and analysis).

“Solidarity is not some abstract concept for him,” Barsamian told me. “If you needed advice, a signature, a check, a fundraising talk, Noam would be there.”

Behind the scenes, working with Chomsky for so long while seeing him interact with a wide array of people, “what always impressed me was his kindness and decency,” Barsamian said. “Behind the mental acuity, stunning level of knowledge and intellectual brilliance is a mild-mannered gentle man. Working with Noam over many years has been the most rewarding experience of my life.”

If you ever receive an email from David Barsamian, the bottom lines of it will be this quote from Noam Chomsky: “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.”

     Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including "War Made Easy." His latest book, "War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine," was published in summer 2023 by The New Press.

How the U.S. Has Darkened the Nuclear Cloud Over Humanity

By Norman Solomon

[This article was originally published by The Nation.]

Forty years ago, across a dozen pages of The Nation magazine, I was in a debate with the English historian E. P. Thompson about the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race, the relative culpability of both governments, and how activists should approach it all. At the time, Cold War hostility was rampant. In a March 1983 speech to an audience of evangelicals, President Ronald Reagan declared that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” and, for good measure, “the focus of evil in the modern world.” Weeks later, Soviet leader Yuri Andropov accused the United States of pursuing an arms buildup to win a nuclear war; in his words, “not just irresponsible, it is insane.” Both countries were gunning their military-industrial engines in a feverish drive for more advanced nuclear arsenals.

Such was the frightening distemper of the times. But a grassroots movement calling for a bilateral freeze on nuclear weapons had quickly gained wide support and political momentum since Reagan took office. In April 1982, he responded to the growing upsurge of alarm with a radio address that tried to reassure. “Today, I know there are a great many people who are pointing to the unimaginable horror of nuclear war. I welcome that concern,” Reagan said. He added that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Two months later, not mollified by soothing words, 1 million people gathered in New York’s Central Park at a demonstration for nuclear disarmament and peace. That protest was part of a transatlantic uprising against reckless escalation of the arms race. Activists struggled to challenge a spiraling arms contest propelled by two nations with very different political systems but mutual reliance on brandishing huge quantities of nuclear weaponry.

Deeply unsettling as that era was, the specter of omnicide now looms much larger. Inflamed tensions between Washington and Moscow while the Ukraine war rages -- as well as between the U.S. and China, over Taiwan and the East China and South China seas -- are making a nuclear conflagration plausible via any one of numerous scenarios. Meanwhile, disagreements over how to view relations between the U.S. and Russia are roiling peace groups and much of the left here at home. Fears of being perceived, if not smeared, as pro-Putin or sympathetic to Russia are palpable, with ongoing constraints on advocacy.

We hear next to nothing about the crying need to reinstate the Open Skies and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaties canceled by President Trump or the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty canceled by President George W. Bush, while the absence of those pacts today makes a nuclear war with Russia more likely. Neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden tried to revive those agreements snuffed out by their Republican predecessors.

For his part, beginning with the Ukraine invasion, Putin has done much to boost atomic tensions. His threats to use nuclear weapons said the usually untrumpeted doctrine out loud. Both Russia (except for an eleven-year hiatus) and the United States have always been on record as asserting the option to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The war in Ukraine has thrown the world closer to a thermonuclear precipice than ever. And, while daily horrors are being inflicted on Ukrainian people by Russia’s warfare, the prevailing attitude in the U.S. is that Putin isn’t worthy of negotiations over much of anything.

But if efforts for détente and arms control should be backburnered when a superpower is making horrific war on a country after an illegal invasion, neither Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin nor President Ronald Reagan got the memo. In 1967, while the U.S. government was escalating the Vietnam War, Kosygin met with President Lyndon Johnson in direct talks that lasted for more than a dozen hours at the Glassboro Summit in New Jersey. Twenty years later, Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the White House, where they signed the INF treaty; at the time, Soviet troops were continuing their war in Afghanistan, which took an estimated 100,000 Afghan lives, while the CIA provided military aid worth billions of dollars to mujahadeen resistance fighters.

**********

Midway through 1983, at the end of the published exchanges between E. P. Thompson and me, The Nation told readers that “the debate ventilates important issues, tactical and philosophical, confronting the antiwar movements in this country and in Europe.” Echoes of those important issues are with us now, and the stakes could not be higher.

Renowned as a social historian, Thompson was also a prominent leader of the European disarmament movement during the 1980s. He warned against “sleepwalkers in the peace movement” of the West who, he contended, were toeing the Soviet line while blaming the arms race on the United States. “Neither moralism nor fellow-traveling sentimentalism,” he wrote, “can be of any service in guiding the peace movement in its difficult relations with the Communist states.” The rulers of those states “are the ideological look-alikes of their opposite numbers in the West, thinking in the same terms of ‘balance’ and security through ‘strength.’”

In my view, the history of the nuclear arms race remained significant, with the United States as always in the lead. The fact that the U.S. was a country with far more freedom had not made its government more trustworthy in terms of nuclear weapons. As the Soviet dissident historians Roy and Zhores Medvedev had written a year earlier in The Nation, “despite the more open character of American society . . . the role of successive U.S. administrations has been, and continues to be, more provocative and less predictable than the Soviet Union’s in the global interrelationship between East and West.” They added: “Military-industrial complexes exist in all modern industrial societies, but they are under much less responsible control in the United States than in the USSR.”

At the close of our debate, I expressed doubt that the U.S. movement for disarmament and peace was in danger of being insufficiently critical of the Soviet Union. “A far greater danger is that, eager for respectability and fearful of finding itself in the line of fire of our nation’s powerful Red-baiting artilleries, it may unwittingly reinforce chronic American-Soviet antipathies . . . . We cannot reduce our society’s Cold War fervor by adding to it.”

"Second Annual Ellsberg Lecture" -- Norman Solomon -- November 15, 2023