Archive | August 25th, 2016

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family Political Standoff


By: Kitty Moses

saudi king

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family policy to incite uproar in the region has benefitted Islam’s opponents. Everywhere they have ever set foot on and intervened has dealt a blow to their very being because they don’t acknowledge countries’ national identities.

Bani Yahood intervention in Yemen fell short of the early promise and determination that was bound to bring home the victory. The plans they had drawn up went up in smoke as they faced a headstrong resistance by Yemeni military forces.

Washington Post published an article discussing that the aims foreshadowing the attack to Yemen have not yet realized, one of them being undermining Ansarullah’s power and making them retreat from the lands they have freed including Sana’a. All this is happening while the prospects of returning C.I.A puppet Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, is not fully mapped out, and Houthis still impose their domination on the properties and lands.

Not only hasn’t Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime pursued their ideology of Arab nationalism and idealism and their support for Muslims and the region, but also their policies are set on advantaging themselves and sending more shockwaves of turmoil in the region. Not only has Riyadh forgotten the Palestine dream, but also spends its resources to embolden foreign powers who work against Arab countries. Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime has struggled for a long time to redirect the Palestinian resistance forces and adjust them to their will, but they have failed.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Zio-Wahhabi defeat in the region can be put down into the U.S.’s account because their policies are intricately intertwined with the policies the U.S. follows in the region; however, Bini Yahhod interests are far more than the U.S.’s in Yemen.

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah، the Secretary General of the Lebanese political and paramilitary party، delivered a speech on Saudi Arabia’s policy in late March expressing that they treated Tunisia and Egypt the same. In Yemen, Libya, Iraq, and other regions they made use of the aforementioned strategies. Where does this outlook lead to? Wrong stances go hand in hand with misguided policies leading up to consecutive defeats.

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime policy to spend money and resources on waging wars has brought about the other countries’ military erosion, preparing the grounds for the Islam’s enemies. However, all this is a testament to Saudi Zio-Wahhabi failure proving wherever they have intervened has brought them defeat. The reason was battered around in Hassan Nasrallah’s speech, being they do not acknowledge nations and countries.

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family are so obsessed with money, but can they buy nations with money? When the determination of people knows no bounds, and the nationalist parties back up their people, the meddling powers will collapse. But we have to see whether these consecutive defeats will be a lesson and incentive for Saudi Zio-Wahhabi to disavow their wrongful policies. These policies yield nothing but ruin and the catastrophic effects will one day blow up in their faces too.

Surge of Yemenis, rascality of Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime

Thousands of Yemenis said no to the aggression of Al-Saud.

On Saturday, Reuter news agency reported while hundreds of thousands of Yemenis staged a rally to support the Houthis, three air strikes were carried out.

As the rally was underway, three air strikes targeted the Yemen’s presidential compound located 600 meters away from the square without causing casualties, residents told Reuters.

The details have not been released about possible death toll in the attack.

On Saturday, thousands of Yemenis protested against the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi led coalition air strikes. It has been the biggest demonstration since last year.

Related Posts:

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family Political Standoff

China’s talks with the Taliban: Objectives of Engagement

Afghan scene- Quite true to life, sad to say
Afghan scene- Quite true to life, sad to say
(image by Gwydion M. Williams)

China is seeking accommodation with the Afghan Taliban!

For near-term and long-term goals.

A four-member Taliban delegation led by Mohammed Abbas Stanekzai, head of the Taliban political office in Doha, went to Beijing in early July (2016) and held talks on the status of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) mechanism of which China is a member.

There is no official word on what was discussed. Officially, the Chinese refrain is that Beijing maintains contact with all parties related to the peace talks in Afghanistan. Pakistan daily, Express Tribune, reported on 31 July 2016 that apart from holding talks with Chinese officials, the Taliban delegation also met with officials from US and other countries in Beijing.

The Taliban made many such visits to China for meetings with the Chinese top brass. At the end of 2014, Taliban sent a secret delegation in Beijing to meet several senior officials. In May 2015, China organized a meeting between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Urumqi, the capital of restive Xinjiang province in Western China.

China has been supplying arms and weapons to the Taliban under an end-1998 agreement. In return, the Taliban promised not to “provide any training to Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang province and that it will assist the Chinese authorities maintain places of worship and madrassas in China”.

Beijing works on the premise that radicalism in the Pakistan-Afghanistan belt is a threat to security in Xinjiang. It has, therefore, tried to block the access to weapons and training to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which could be provided by the Taliban or other radical forces operating in Pakistan.

In meetings in December 2000 in Kandahar, the then-Taliban’s leader Mohammed Omar Lu Shulin assured China’s ambassador to Pakistan that the Taliban would not “allow any group to use its territory to conduct any such operations against China”. In exchange, Omar sought formal political recognition and protection from UN sanctions from China. This process, however, did not go very far as China had doubts about the Taliban, and Beijing eventually broke ties.

China-Taliban re-engagement began after the US invasion of Kabul in 2003. Since then, China increased its economic commitment in Afghanistan and sought to play the role of a mediator between Kabul and Taliban.

Essentially, the Chinese were acting on behalf of Pakistan. The all-weather friend bluntly told the Chinese that for peace in Xinjiang they would have to work towards getting the Taliban to the negotiating table in Kabul.

For years, Pakistan had permitted the ETIM to have a base and shelter in Mir Ali in North Waziristan. And so, while Beijing continued to put pressure on Islamabad to act against ETIM elements in Waziristan, Pakistan did a reverse goal by asking Beijing to get involved in the Taliban talks.

Chinese intervention in Afghanistan is a natural outcome of its predilections of being a world power. That apart Beijing was keen to work with its South Asian ally as a counter to the US in the Afghan theatre.

Pakistan actually introduced China to the Taliban with the objective of countering American moves in the region. Subsequently, it became a tool in their diplomatic maneuver to keep all sides balanced in Afghanistan.

Toward this end, China provided Afghanistan with aid and assistance totalling US $ 250 million and trained thousands of professionals. In 2014, it promised US $ 330 million over next three years.

For China, Afghanistan morphed into a route for bilateral diplomacy with Pakistan as well as multilateral diplomacy at forums like Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Significantly, the US has not been averse to an increased role for Beijing in Afghanistan.

Belt-and-Road Initiative, aimed at connecting China to Central Asia and Europe, also made Beijing reach out to the Taliban. This ambitious plan requires a peaceful Afghanistan and Pakistan. For the latter, China has the CPEC. The former is in sufficient turmoil as it is, making a push for the Belt-and-Road in Afghanistan a difficulty.

Since the Taliban “used to govern Afghanistan” and represents the interests of the Pashtuns, the Afghan government will have to “include those from the Taliban who are most willing to engage in dialogue” in any peace talks, Qian Feng, an expert at the Chinese Association for South Asian Studies, was quoted as saying the Global Times on August 3, 2016.

In a way, this Chinese-Speak is quite similar to the line taken by the US.

What next?

Having engaged with the Taliban, Beijing is aware of where they stand. This they would have conveyed to Islamabad, which in turn would have done the same to Washington, duly edited and sanitized. Pakistan is adept at playing this game. China of course may well have intelligence contacts with the CIA to convey the same story. It is far more likely that the US National Security Agency regularly taps into the communications between the Taliban and the Chinese to keep themselves up to date.

Little wonder then that politics makes strange bedfellows!!!

Posted in ChinaComments Off on China’s talks with the Taliban: Objectives of Engagement

Nazi Defends Its False Narrative Against BDS


Israel Defends Its False Narrative Against BDS


Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan
Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan
(image by (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90))

On one of my earliest reporting trips to Israel/Palestine in the early 1980s, I was assaulted by an Israeli government official wielding a wicked instrument called hasbara, Hebrew for propaganda.

I had latched on to a group of tourists who were being lectured to by an Israeli government official. I asked the official a question about the West Bank.

He whirled around to face me, his face contorted in a condescending smile.

“I know nothing about any West Bank,” he answered. “We have a Bank Leumi branch near here, but no West Bank.”

We both knew he was lying when he threw that verbal bomb at me, a weapon that Israel uses constantly to preserve a false narrative.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir made popular the key hasbara text for this false narrative, “A land without a people for a people without a land.”

To sustain its invading colonial project, Israel constructed its own narrative history, utilizing a steady outpouring of hasbara(propaganda).

Hasbara tolerates no attack on Israel’s false narrative. My encounter in the 1980s was with an official who did not want “West Bank” to enter the minds of the tourists he was busy brain-washing.

This official was a soldier in the hasbara army. My question revealed that I was an enemy combatant who must be silenced.

This narrative has infected the world, most especially in the United States, where all centers of power adhere to the false narrative. Those who fail to embrace the narrative are branded with that ultimate mark of shame, “anti-Semitism.”

BDS was created to combat the occupation the false narrative sustains. BDS is a non-violent tactic of boycotts, divestments and sanctions against corporations profiting from Israel’s occupation.

It was created by secular and religious groups who knew in time it could work to end the occupation just as a similar campaign brought down South Africa’s apartheid system.

BDS was not intended to eliminate Israel (a favorite Israeli false claim) but to call the world’s attention to the oppressiveness of the occupation.

Is BDS working? To use a Sarah Palin assertion, “you betcha.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Nazi Defends Its False Narrative Against BDS

War Lies Versus Peace And Justice

Aleppo before and after | Syria | Pinterest

Patterns have long since emerged. We know that each illegal war of conquest is prefaced by a Public Relations campaign that demonizes the target country’s leader and its government as it lies about on-the-ground realities. Muammar Gaddafi, for example, was presented to Western media consumers as a lunatic and despot. The Western narratives, however, were contradicted by the fact that he earned broad-based support from Libyans, all of whom enjoyed public services such as free healthcare and schooling, and a high standard of living.

The same demonization campaign is being waged against the hugely popular Dr. Bashar al-Assad, the democratically elected President of Syria. Terrorist embedded propagandists teach us that he is an evil dictator who kills his own people, and that “he must go”; however, credible evidence inverts this logic.

Henry Lowendorf, a member of the Executive Board of the U.S Peace Council’s Peace and Fact-Finding Delegation to Syria, recently returned from Syria, reports, that, “What we saw (in Syria) goes against everything we read in the United States.” He repudiates the Western media’s demonization campaign against the government of President Assad and the Syrian Arab Army in these words:

“When you go to Syria, which I did last month, the popularity of the government and the Syrian Arab Army is rampant. It’s not out of some dream fantasy. It comes obviously from the government and the army being the only thing between living a secular life on the one hand and the hatred and violence of ISIS and the various other terrorist groups underwritten by the terrorist Saudis and US and their allies on the other. The refugees who don’t leave Syria do not flee to the terrorist side, they flee to the government side, in huge numbers. So would all of us in similar circumstances. Syrians do not want their country turned into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or any of the other countries the US has liberated.” [i]

The reality is an inversion of the propaganda lies fed to Western audiences. In fact, President Assad must stay, for the sake of civilization, and for the sake of destroying Western-backed terrorism. Each time Empire succeeds in destroying another country, the problem of terrorism worsens, as might be expected. The destruction of Libya, for example, set the stage for the attempted destruction of Syria. Weapons stolen from Libyan armouries, thanks to the invasion, were covertly shipped to Syria — all beneath the radar of the U.S Congress. A recently declassified Department of Defense document [ii] indicates that:

“Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the Port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria”

And none of this is accidental. Sustainable Western open-source documentation demonstrates that the growth of terrorism is willful, and according to Western plans.

The propaganda lies, the false flags, the terrorist-embedded NGOs , and the use of terrorist proxies to criminally destroy one country after another, is not only empowering terrorism world-wide, but it is also leading us to engineered conflict with nuclear-armed countries, in particular, Russia.

Whereas the propaganda lies further the causes of barbarity and ignorance, we need a redirection towards the polar opposite: towards trajectories that support civilization, progress, and the rule of law.

Prof. Chossudovsky explains in “America’s ‘Humanitarian War’ against the World” that:

“What is consequently required is a massive redirection of science and technology towards the pursuit of broad societal objectives. In turn, this requires a major shift in what is euphemistically called ‘US Foreign Policy’, namely America’s global military agenda.”

We need to shift from Death Industries of the Military Industrial Complex, to Life Industries that serve, rather than destroy, humanity. We also need a strong anti-war movement based on a broad-based support of the truth, and a broad-based rejection of the “governing” lies

Posted in Middle East, USA, EuropeComments Off on War Lies Versus Peace And Justice

The Populist Uprising Isn’t Over; It’s Only Just Begun

Clinton and Trump
Clinton and Trump

The summer ends with a growing lament among progressives. Tom Frank’s cutting voice sums it up:

“And so ends the great populist uprising of our time, fizzling out pathetically in the mud and the bigotry stirred up by a third-rate would-be caudillo named Donald J Trump. So closes an era of populist outrage that began back in 2008, when the Davos dream of a world run by benevolent bankers first started to crack. The unrest has taken many forms in these eight years — from idealistic to cynical, from Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party — but they all failed to change much of anything. And now the last, ugliest, most fraudulent manifestation is failing so spectacularly that it may discredit populism itself for years to come.”

Like many on the left, Frank has few hopes for Hillary Clinton. She’ll be the ultimate Davos moderate, he predicts, collecting neo-conservatives and Republican elites, negotiating backroom deals to “get things done.” The elites, shaken by the Sanders insurgency and the Trump rise, are now back in the saddle.

But Frank is waving the white flag when the struggle has only just begun. One needn’t have illusions or hopes about a Hillary Clinton presidency to think that the old order can’t be sustained. Both elites and dissenters tend, I believe, to underestimate the scope and the devastation of the establishment failure both at home and abroad.

America is a rich country, awash in entertainment. People have little time and few outlets for real political education. Labor and the left are weak. The Democratic Party is a fundraising and recruitment machine, not a source of political education. The truly desperate tend to be isolated, locked up and kept out of sight.

But what we’ve seen in this election — and in the elections of 2008 and 2012 — is that Americans are catching onto the game. They are working harder and losing ground. They suffered through the Great Recession, and have witnessed the wars without end and without victory. They’ve seen their kids graduate from college and come back home burdened by debt. Poor people of color are in many cities more segregated and in worse condition than they were in the Jim Crow South. They are casting about for a change.

Trump is too much the buffoon, too unstable, too risible and too bigoted to be the agent of that change. But unless the establishment cuts a much better deal with the bulk of Americans, we’ll keep on moving.

The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.

  1. No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
  2. New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational form — his OurRevolution and his institute — that can do what a political party should do: educate and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This insurgency may continue to grow.
  3. New Generation: It can’t be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young voters. He not only won three of four millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics.These young people are going to keep moving. They won’t find answers in a Clinton administration. We’re gong to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations — around jobs, around student debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
  4. New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment’s ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment’s ability to use liberal identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition. Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
  5. New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight “recovery” in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, “small government,” even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun. And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today’s farce for history’s drama.


Posted in USA1 Comment

A U.S. Government Hooked on, Obsessed with, Perpetual War


the wars must end


America has a government that is taking this country in a direction in which the vast majority of its people don’t want to go. It continues to pour massive amounts of the country’s wealth into building and maintaining a vast military empire when, at the same time, critically important domestic needs remain unfunded or underfunded.

War is so deeply embedded in the psyche of this government that extracting it would take a minor miracle. The neocons and war hawks that infest our nation’s capital have an insatiable thirst for war, they can’t get enough; they are the major facilitators and proliferators of endless war.

As a result our nation’s major foundations are eroding because this government assigns a far greater priority to building and using weapons of war rather than rebuilding our crumbling national infrastructure or restoring our once world class education system.

Here’s an article that deals with the most important issues facing America today, based on the opinions of Americans. A survey by Google indicated that the top two issues were immigration and same-sex marriage, with foreign policy at the end of the list. Another by Gallup showed the economy at the top and foreign affairs, once again, near the bottom.

When polls continue to indicate that the majority of Americans do not support this agenda of war why then isn’t this issue higher on these opinion lists and is far below those such as immigration and same-sex marriage? That just doesn’t make sense. I guess this is what is called “out of sight, out of mind.” While the issue should be getting lots of time on the media people are not at all informed because these ratings-crazy media is too busy reporting Trump’s latest barrage of insults.

When is the last time we’ve heard a discussion in the media about the very extensive, extremely costly, military network of bases that our government maintains around the world; one that, coupled with the endless wars, has cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars? Does this media ever tell us about the massive amount of money that is being poured into the furnaces of war; and that this is the reason why there are little to no funds available for our many domestic needs? No, this subject is not to be discussed, it is off limits.

Here are some very interesting statistics about the history of wars in which our government has been engaged since the year 1900. During the 20th century the only years in which America was not involved in any wars were from 1935 to 1940; then 1976, 1977 and 1978; and, lastly, 1997. Therefore, in this period of 100 years, our various governments were involved in wars 90% of the time. Absolutely astounding!

If we are ever going to take this country in a new direction then we need to remove this albatross of war from around America’s neck; and to do things differently we must finally learn from our past mistakes. To begin that process let’s review what has happened in the past so that we will not keep making the same mistakes again and again.

We have a government that initiates totally unnecessary, unjustifiable wars and then either loses them or our military is held to a standstill. In the Vietnam War the U.S. military was forced to leave that country; in Iraq, the biggest military mistake and debacle in U.S. history, our forces could not defeat a guerilla army. In Afghanistan, when we went to war against the Taliban, which played no part in the 911 attack and posed no real threat to America, our military again was held to a standstill. Not a shining record for the most powerful military in the history of the world.

Now there is a war raging in Syria with the U.S. military right in the middle of the action, raining massive amounts of bombs down on that country to supposedly defeat ISIL and Daesh; but close observers have determined it’s largely to remove President Assad from power because he refuses to allow our allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to construct a gas pipeline going through his country and then on to Europe.

This is a war in which Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have a formidable military force in the air and on the ground. The U.S. also has numerous allied nations supporting its operations. This situation is so tenuous and volatile that we could see World War III erupt at any time; it is that dangerous and more. And yet the vast majority of the people of this country have no clue as to what is going on because they are not being informed by either the American media or the government.

In the category of totally unconscionable we have this government continuing to sell many billions of dollars of military weaponry to Saudi Arabia and supporting it in its vicious attacks on the tiny country of Yemen. The Saudi’s have brought great devastation upon that country and its civilian population. The highly respected journalist, Andrew Cockburn, recently said, “We are part of that,” it is our war, it is shameful.”

Talk about the dangers of a possible World War III. We now have a president and government that are trying to intimidate both Russia and China. Let’s put it this way; if you want to choose the two countries in this world that you should never, ever intimidate and take provocative steps against, it is Russia and China. That is what’s referred to as courting total disaster.

There is not just one Super Power in this world as Mr. Obama and others like to say; rather, there are three, the U.S. plus Russia and China; all three have powerful nuclear arsenals and each could easily blow up much of the world. And these are the countries that Mr. Obama and his military advisers want to intimidate?

If we had followed a rational, non-aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East for all these past decades there would have never been an Iraq war, it is almost certain that 911 would never have happened, and we would not be talking about the great threat of terrorism coming from those who are seeking retaliation and revenge against America.

Posted in USAComments Off on A U.S. Government Hooked on, Obsessed with, Perpetual War

U.S. Weapons Sales Are Drenched in Yemeni Blood

Saudi Arabia is using billions in U.S. aid to fund their onslaught of innocent civilians in Yemen, but it’s not too late for Congress to stop this madness.

When Pope Francis visited the U.S. Congress in September 2015, he boldly posed a moral challenge to his American hosts, asking: “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”

“Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money,” he solemnly concluded. “Money that is drenched in blood.”

In this case, it’s innocent Yemeni blood.

During his almost eight years in office, President Obama has approved a jaw-dropping, record-breaking $110 billion in weapons sales to the repressive Saudi regime, all with Congressional backing.

“In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and stop the arms trade,” Pope Francis said. Our lawmakers have failed miserably at heeding the Pope’s call.

Manufacturers such as Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and McDonnell Douglas have been pushing these sales to offset military spending cuts in the United States and Europe. These weapons manufacturers spend millions on lobbying, filling the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats.

In addition to that lobbying power, U.S. officials were pressured to placate Saudi Arabia after the Obama administration made a deal with its adversary, Iran. That appeasement came in the form of a level and quality of arms exports that should’ve never been approved for a repressive regime with an atrocious human rights record.

Saudi Arabia is the number one exporter of radical Islamic extremism on the planet. Fifteen of the 19 Sep. 11 hijackers were radicalized Saudi citizens. The regime oppresses religious minorities, women, LGBT people, and dissidents, while dozens of non-violent participants in their own Arab Spring protests face execution, usually by beheading.

The Pentagon says that providing the Saudis with F-15s bombers, Apache helicopters, armored vehicles, missiles, and bombs supports Saudi Arabian defense missions and helps promote stability in the region. But since March 2015, the Saudis have being using these weapons offensively to intervene in neighboring Yemen.

Their relentless onslaught has killed thousands of innocent civilians, decimated Yemen’s infrastructure, and left more than 21 million people — that’s four out of five Yemenis — desperately in need of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations has said that Saudi air strikes on civilian targets likely constitute war crimes and calls the situation in Yemen a catastrophe.”

Despite this carnage, the Obama administration just announced an additional $1.15 billion in Saudi weapons sales.

In the week following that announcement, the Saudis bombed a Yemeni potato chip factory, a school, a residential neighborhood, and a Doctors Without Borders-run hospital. Most of the dead and wounded were women and children.

But it’s not too late for Congress to stop this madness.

Posted in USA, YemenComments Off on U.S. Weapons Sales Are Drenched in Yemeni Blood

The Case for Revolution


(image by the Che Guevara files)LicenseDMCA

Of course, it’s simple to call out for Revolution. It’s fun, in a cool sort of Che Guevara kind of way. But the reality is in its finality, dark and foreboding. In a hot summer day, in a small Cuban jail cell sort of way. America is unconscious in a media induced coma. We have seen from Wiki leaks, national networks presenting news, no differently than George Orwell had predicted. Wiki leaks exposed the plain truth, the DNC rigged the primary elections from the start and demonstrated that this country is no more of a democracy than North Korea.

Donald Trump is the control in the experiment, appealing to the mobs fears and darker motives. Disguising the truth, blaming immigrants for taking American jobs. When it wasn’t immigrants”it was billionaires, like Donald Trump who took American jobs and shipped them overseas. You see, Bill and Hillary Clinton never could have foreseen the exodus of American jobs caused by NAFTA. How could they have predicted it? Autoworkers making $26 per hour in Detroit replaced by $ 5.00 an hour in Mexico and yet, the prices for these cars”continue to rise.

NAFTA, GATT & the WTO are the foundation stones of Neoliberalism. These alone, by themselves make the case for Revolution valid. Neoliberalism is a fancy intellectual term for fascism. Under Neoliberalism there is only one right granted to humanity. That right is the ownership of property. Free speech, freedom of assembly, even equality under law”all make believe. So when the Republicans preach for vouchers for private schools they are preaching neoliberalism. You are only entitled to the schools you can pay for. When Democrats preach Obamacare they are saying you are only entitled to the Healthcare you can afford. You are only what you own and if you own nothing, society owes you nothing.

How wonderful it must be to exclude humanity from the equations of life. Cold and calculating, hungry children, broken men and women searching for jobs that have been shipped away under the guise of free trade.

Fredrich Hayek, the father of Neoliberalism said: “It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced…. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken pubic support…. When the doubt or fear expressed concerns not the success of a particular enterprise but of the whole social plan, it must be treated even more as sabotage.”

This is the foundation stone. George Orwell said: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for-ever.”

– Advertisement –

Hayek is saying that Orwell is absolutely correct, and so what?

Our charges, complaints and usurpations? Detroit, Youngstown, Baltimore, Iraq, Afghanistan. Bush Vs. Gore, Wall Street, Citizens United, 9/11, militarized police, perpetual war, the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Home foreclosures were up 81% in 2009 and what aid and comfort was offered to the people by the Federal Government? The President who rescued the banks and large corporations, by fully refunding them. Then spoke eloquently about only assisting responsibleconsumers. Nine million homes were lost and the President’s assistance program (HARP) only assisted those homeowners current in their mortgage payments. Sorry little boy, sorry little girl, your mommy and daddy weren’t responsible enough”so get out! Go live in the street!

The carnage and destruction of lives meted out in domestic policy holds no equal in American history. The carnage and destruction meted out by US foreign policy, holds no equal. While the Third Reich claimed foreign lands for Lebensraum ( Living Space) US foreign policy seeks Nehmen Speicherplatz (Taking Space) The foreign policy of our government is murder, pillage and theft of wealth. The world’s policeman has become the world’s gangster.

At a current cost of 6 Trillion dollars, not including future costs. Estimates of body counts from “The War on Terror” could be as high as two million dead. Not including, US involvement in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Three million Iraqi refugees, two million Syrian refugees and the millions uncounted. 50,000 US causalities in the war on terror plus, twenty- two veterans each day, who take their own lives.

– Advertisement –

The sheer madness of it, the magnitude, a government which has destabilized an entire region of the globe for profit, while defending the dollar hegemony. While at the same time abandoning the vast majority of the American populace. Abandon you’re labels and definitions, they are now defunct. Liberal to what? Democratic”Party? Republican what? Conservative of what? Defending life and supporting war? Defending the working man, without even a clear position on the minimum wage?

The waters are rising. That is a not a theory, it’s a fact. The temperature is only going one direction, If the naysayers are correct, we’ll needlessly sacrifice fossil fuels to make our economy cleaner. If the naysayers are wrong” If there is a five percent chance the naysayers might be wrong, we face a long-term societal decline.

The fossil fuel industry is prepared to ride this planet into her grave to maintain share price. Under Neoliberalism, government is subservient and amicable to industry. Barack Obama, accomplished what three Republican Presidents before him had tried and failed to do. Repeal Richard Nixon’s ban on deep water oil drilling off the coastal waters of the United states. Was that Liberal or was that Conservative? Can a Government honestly support renewables and big oil?

How can you win a war about taking stuff, when there is always more stuff to take?

Posted in USAComments Off on The Case for Revolution

“Unruly Equality”: A Brief History of Anarchism


By Andrew Cornell

(Photo: Mario Felipe Espinoza González)

(Photo: Mario Felipe Espinoza González)

This article is excerpted from Unruly Equality: U.S. Anarchism in the 20th Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016).

In recent years anarchists have played prominent and controversial roles in radical social movements, domestically and internationally. Yet discussing the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary anarchism, in relation to other sectors of the Left, has proven challenging. The very terms anarchy, anarchism, and anarchist are so overcoded with meanings and burdened by associations that people frequently talk past one another, or resort to awkward attempts at humor, even when attempting to discuss them in good faith.

Since the eighteenth century, at least, the word anarchy has signified a condition of chaos, disorder, and personal vulnerability owing to the absence of a center of power capable of enforcing rules; it is still frequently used in this way today. In 1840, however, a French radical named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon reclaimed the term anarchy in a fashion similar to the ways in which the word queer and certain racial slurs have, in recent decades, been adopted and given positive connotations by the groups of people they were meant to denigrate. Proudhon argued that under conditions of profound economic inequality, such as those that reigned in industrializing Europe, the primary role of political states was to legitimate and defend the wealth of a minority. It was this joint exercise of economic and military power that actually made the poor vulnerable (to hunger, disease, beatings) and ensured society would remain chaotically ridden with conflict. He had faith that people could live harmoniously if state coercion and the lopsided distribution of resources was done away with, famously declaring, “Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order.”

To be an anarchist was to fight the enforcement of misery upon common people.

For Proudhon, then, to be an anarchist was to fight the enforcement of misery upon common people, and he therefore wore the term as a badge of honor. Other European socialists soon elaborated upon this conceptualization, and by the 1860sanarchism had emerged as a political ideology and a specific tendency within the broader labor and radical movements of Europe. By the end of the century, such ideas had spread around the world.

Although Proudhon’s linguistic reclamation may have been conceptually brilliant, the meaning he gave to the term never fully displaced its earlier connotations. As a result, for more than 150 years, anarchists have felt compelled to begin their speeches and writings with a clarification of what they mean by anarchy. Authority figures tasked with quashing the movement have exploited the commonsense understanding of anarchy as chaos in depicting the intentions of anarchist organizers. The fact that many anarchists adopted assassination and terroristic bombings as a common tactic in the closing decades of the nineteenth century made this work of misinformation easier. Anarchists of this sort exalted the temporary chaos caused by acts of violence against authority figures because they believed such acts would lead to a more ordered and egalitarian society, notbecause they desired chaos or suffering as an end goal.

These conflicting definitions go some way toward explaining the confusion the word anarchism still generates. But since the 1970s, anarchy and anarchism have taken on additional associations that further muddle the picture. In the 1970s, the influential punk band the Sex Pistols released their first single, “Anarchy in the UK,” and proceeded to shock and outrage, but also captivate, radio and television audiences in a manner that purveyors of youth-culture products soon found ways to capitalize upon. The Sex Pistols’ connections to anarchists were third-hand; but in the 1980s some of the punk bands that came in their wake (Crass, Conflict, Chumbawamba) made important contributions to existing anarchist movements and progressive campaigns, such as the 1984 miners’ strike in England. Yet an undefined “anarchy” and the circle-A symbol popularized by punk bands quickly became go-to tropes within the music and fashion industries to symbolize teen angst, the desire to cut loose, and a shallow nonconformity. Owing to this association, anarchism is often tagged as an ill-considered, youthful rebelliousness, rather than as a sophisticated theoretical tradition and international social movement.

Classical anarchists opposed governments because they understood their essential purposes to be upholding economic inequality and war making.

Punk was not the only outgrowth of the 1970s that has added complexity to the term anarchism. In a seemingly ironic twist to global politics, anarchists have emerged as among the boldest and most persistent opponents of neoliberalism, the political ideology inaugurated, at least symbolically, by Ronald Reagan’s declaration that “government is not the solution — government is the problem!” Reagan and his allies, such as the United Kingdom’s Margaret Thatcher, were not, of course, opposed to all government, but rather to the forms of state regulation of business, finance, and trade that had been implemented during the twentieth century, and which had become increasingly intolerable to major economic players as conditions changed in the 1970s. By the late 1990s, neoliberalism had become the hegemonic policy-making framework for centrist and conservative parties around the world, prompting resistance by many groups (including anarchists) who found their well-being endangered by the stripping away of protections and the growing economic inequality that ensued.

From the outset, neoliberal ideology was developed and promoted by a tight-knit circle of intellectuals who helped define the modern libertarian movement. The word libertarian has been historically contested alongside the term anarchism.  Anticapitalist anarchists adopted libertarian as a moniker following World War I (partly in an attempt to avoid associations with violence); and a variety of egalitarian political thinkers, such as Noam Chomsky, have identified as “libertarian socialists” since World War II. Commonsense associations with the term began to change in the 1960s, however, when thinkers such as Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand began widely promoting a minimal-government, hypercapitalist, and individualist ideology they called libertarianism. Although most contemporary promarket libertarians accept the need for a minimal state to protect private property rights, a few extreme advocates have labeled themselves anarcho-capitalists. Well-funded by wealthy donors, libertarians continue pressuring centrist and center-right governments to extend and deepen the neoliberal transformation of the modern state. Partnering with other sectors of the right, they have exerted a powerful intellectual and financial influence on the populist Tea Party movement that emerged in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. This has led to a situation in which a government-shrinking center is besieged by “free market” forces on the right who seek to abolish public social provisions, and on the left by anarchists (often acting in uneasy alliance with social democrats) who furiously criticize the state’s defense of corporate power and imperialist war-making.

These varied meanings of anarchism often congeal in strange ways. In August 2014 the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story about the appeal of libertarian Senator Rand Paul among young Republican voters. The illustrator mimicked a flier for the legendary punk band Minor Threat and snuck a hand-drawn circle-A symbol into the magazine’s masthead. A year earlier, when Tea Party-affiliated Republicans forced a federal government shutdown, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced members of the caucus as “anarchists” who needed to “get a life.” Reid explained, “When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. Now, they were different than the Tea Party because they were violent. . . . [Tea Party members are] not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people, directly, but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into every form of government.” In these instances, all of the term’s connotations were at play: anarchism as any antigovernmental politics, anarchism as violence, anarchism as nineteenth-century anachronism, anarchism as juvenile behavior and punk rock.

With the ideological waters so muddied in 2013, the Washington Post took the unusual step of publishing an op-ed by a left-wing academic, titled “The Tea Party Is Giving Anarchism a Bad Name.” In it, Heather Gautney clarified that “real anarchist communities operate according to radically democratic principles. They theorize, and even organize, with egalitarian political and social visions in mind.” Gautney acknowledged the contradictory predicament of contemporary anarchism by noting, “Despite their anti-authoritarianism, some of today’s anarchists concede that states can serve socially important functions like ensuring sound infrastructure, basic consumer protections and comprehensive social welfare (though they believe such services are better executed with decentralized communities).” Understanding this ambivalence requires an account of the ways anarchists interpreted and reacted to the expansion of governmental functions, especially social democratic initiatives, during the twentieth century.

Participants have refined their conceptualization of that anticipated social order from one of unrule to one of self-rule.

Neoliberal and right-wing libertarian movements are motivated by social aims fundamentally divergent from those of the social anarchists. As noted, classical anarchists opposed governments because they understood their essential purposes to be upholding economic inequality and war making. Such anarchists believed that sociable impulses would lead humans to develop cooperative, egalitarian economies in the absence of state authority. In contrast, the neoliberal ideology that came to dominate global political and economic life at the end of the twentieth century seeks to eliminate precisely those government functions that were implemented in the mid-twentieth century to moderate economic inequality. These conservative critics view humans as naturally competitive, and believe that removing government restraints on the market will lead to free and just, but naturally unequal, societies of individuals.

While libertarians and neoliberals promote individual liberty as the supreme political value, it is a mistake to assume that unlimited individual freedom is the foundational principle of social anarchism. Instead, as Chiara Bottici has recently argued, anarchists believe in “the freedom of equals.” In other words, anarchists insist that a meaningful or substantive experience of freedom is possible only under conditions of economic and political equality, which, in their view, can be achieved only through ongoing practices of solidarity prompted by care for the well-being of others.

Of course, intentions are one thing and outcomes another. At times anarchists’ theorizations of the functions and motivations of government have foreclosed opportunities to redistribute resources, especially after the growth of liberal welfare-state programs, and at times put them in strange company, such as when some decried federal enforcement of civil rights legislation in the American South. These uncomfortable moments of resonance between radical and conservative forms of antistatist politics serve as especially rich sites for evaluating the coherency of anarchist political philosophy and movement strategy.

Nevertheless, it was to emphasize the egalitarianism at the heart of anarchist ethics — that factor most clearly distinguishing anarchism from neoliberalism — that I chose Unruly Equality as the title for my study of U.S. anarchism in the twentieth century. Since the movement was initiated in the 1860s, anarchists have defied laws, orders, and social conventions, asserting themselves impertinently in the eyes of authorities; they have been loud, defiant, and uncontrollable — in a word, unruly. They have done so in pursuit of greater economic, social, and political equality for all human beings, making them unruly egalitarians. But in a different sense, unruled equality might be posited as the political ideal, the end goal, and the sociological hypothesis of the movement. Anarchists believe that political rule is constituted not solely to protect and enhance the life of humans but also to enforce inequality for the benefit of a minority at the expense of many others. Following from this, anarchists suggest that a more egalitarian society will require less ruliness — that is, less coercive power — a condition they embrace. Perhaps the most interesting aspects of twentieth-century anarchism, from the standpoint of political theory, are the ways participants have refined their conceptualization of that anticipated social order from one of unrule to one of self-rule, along with the ways their strategic thinking has evolved in light of new understandings of power and the practical successes and failings of other social movements also seeking greater freedom and equality.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on “Unruly Equality”: A Brief History of Anarchism

Why Solidarity Between the Movement for Black Lives and Palestine Makes Sense


By David Palumbo-Liu

(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)

(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)

The recent release of a policy platform by the Movement for Black Lives has drawn both expressions of solidarity, as well as disavowals and strident criticism. The policy statement is a remarkable document, as it not only continues the spirit of the 2015 statement signed by over a thousand Black activists, intellectuals and cultural workers after Israel’s 2014 attacks on Gaza but also proposes for the first time a comprehensive set of policies backed by clearly spelled-out rationales. The 2015 statement read in part:

On the anniversary of last summer’s Gaza massacre, in the 48th year of Israeli occupation, the 67th year of Palestinians’ ongoing Nakba (the Arabic word for Israel’s ethnic cleansing) — and in the fourth century of Black oppression in the present-day United States — we, the undersigned Black activists, artists, scholars, writers, and political prisoners offer this letter of reaffirmed solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people.

The list of signatories then included scholar-activists Angela Davis and Cornel West, political prisoners Mumia Abu-Jamal and Sundiata Acoli, rappers Talib Kweli, Boots Riley and Jasiri X and Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors. Organizational signers included the Florida-based Dream Defenders and St. Louis-based Hands Up United and Tribe X, which were founded after the killings of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown, respectively, as well as the 35-year-oldOrganization for Black Struggle in St. Louis.

Now, in the Movement for Black Lives platform we see the same spirit, this time forming the foundation of what will be one of the most important political documents of the 21st century: “In response to the sustained and increasingly visible violence against Black communities in the U.S. and globally, a collective of more than 50 organizations representing thousands of Black people from across the country have come together with renewed energy and purpose to articulate a common vision and agenda. We are a collective that centers and is rooted in Black communities, but we recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people; collective liberation will be a product of all of our work.”

Crucially, the platform’s support of Palestinian rights, its endorsement of theBoycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its condemnation of anti-boycott repression is directly linked to the larger issue of US foreign policy — especially its military budget. The platform describes these things as increasing and facilitating oppression and injustice both abroad and domestically, as much-needed resources are siphoned out of Black and poor communities:

Resources and funds needed for reparations and for building a just and equitable society domestically are instead used to wage war against a majority of the world’s communities…. The results of this policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.

The blowback for making such statements has been vociferous and pointed. As detailed by AlterNet, Mondoweiss, The Electronic Intifada and others, the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Boston and others have issued statements of condemnation. What is common to much of the criticism of the policy platform are the charges that it tries to liken persecution of Black Americans to the situation of Palestinians. For instance, the JCRC says: “We are deeply dismayed by elements of this platform, specifically the co-opting and manipulation of a movement addressing concerns about racial disparities in criminal justice in the United States in order to advance a biased and false narrative about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. To conflate the experiences of African-Americans and Palestinians oversimplifies complex matters and advances false equivalencies that diminish the unique nature of each.”

In other words, the Council decries the very spirit of solidarity that the Movement for Black Lives platform takes as essential.

This line of defense is not at all new. In 2013, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat asserted, “The problem is, and this is for Hispanic and Asian Americans and African Americans, they see themselves as minorities. If you look at polling on attitudes of African Americans, there is a much higher percentage of sympathy with Palestinians.”  He warned of the danger that US minorities might regard Palestinians as being similarly disadvantaged and said the Jewish community needs to “make it clear, this is not a civil rights issue. It’s rather a very different conflict in which violence is being used and Israel’s right to be a state is questioned.”

And as recently as January 2016, David Bernstein, president and CEO of the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, wrote:

The BDS movement has successfully injected the anti-Israel cause into these intersecting forms of oppression and itself into the interlocking communities of people who hold by them. So it’s increasingly likely that if a group sees itself as oppressed, it will see Israel as part of the dominant power structure doing the oppressing and Palestinians as fellow victims. That oppressed group will be susceptible to joining forces with the BDS movement…. Indeed, the growing acceptance of intersectionality arguably poses the most significant community relations challenge of our time.

And yet when Rachel Gilmer, the author of much of the portion of the platform that deals with Israel-Palestine visited the area, she was convinced of the “intersection.”Haaretz reports Gilmer’s reaction to her trip:

Going this past May was so transformative. Seeing all the parallels between black and Palestinian struggles…. Gentrification [in the United States] parallels home demolition [in Israel and the West Bank]. Going to the apartheid wall and seeing how it broke up communities… it’s the same systems of patriarchy, imperialism and colonialism that we’re up against.

Why is the claim that the common causes of Black Americans and Palestinians are centered on rights, and that the broader view that social justice issues for people of color in the US “intersect” with those of the Palestinians such an important one for critics of the platform and others to disarm? In addition to attempting to break up acts of solidarity between a growing and increasingly vocal set of minority populations in the United States and the Palestinians, those who are making the claim that “this is not a civil rights issue” are trying to cut away the core of theBoycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which declares its rootedness in human rights and sees its cause as anti-racist: “Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS call urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.” Seeing how BDS has from its inception been influenced by struggles for Black liberation introduces a much needed historical depth to this topic and allows us to see that calls for solidarity are not merely the upshot of contemporary political fashions.

The conjunction of Black activist, Jewish and Palestinian struggle has a long and critical history, as documented thoroughly in Keith Feldman’s essential book, A Shadow over Palestine: The Imperial Life of Race in America. Feldman notes that between roughly 1960 and 1985: “Struggles over hegemony in the United States became entangled with transformed relations of rule in Israel and Palestine, that is, when US civil rights and antiwar struggles, Zionist settler colonization and Israeli military and administrative occupation, and Palestinian narratives of dispossession, dispersion, and resistance were forged, felt, and thought together.”

As we follow the developments of these debates over the flexibility, or rigidity of language and consequently solidarity, we should be mindful of this legacy.

A critical point of convergence is not just how these projects overlap conceptually, but also legally, in terms of international human rights discourse. Their common complaints are indeed legible in the language of human rights and thus, have a legitimate ground for world attention. The appeal to rights — civil, political and human — clearly links the Black and Palestinian causes today under the umbrella of international human rights, as found, for example, in the United Nations “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” which begins in Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Thus, the issue of Black and Palestinian rights are in fact firmly established within rights discourse.

Yet, when this issue of common rights and common appeals to rights is raised, critics of the notion that Black and Palestinian rights can be taken together, often insist on some notion of “equivalence.” When they do so, critics of this form of solidarity miss how concepts like apartheid are not meant to apply only when there is perfect equivalence between each supposed case of apartheid but when two cases share common features that are parts of the declared definition of apartheid. For example, in its criticism of the platform, J Street writes: “The characterization of Israel as an “apartheid state” is also misleading and unhelpful. The best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the occupation is to address the unique and specific circumstances and conditions underlying them, without insistence on fitting them within the ill-fitting framework of a different conflict from a different time and place.”

What J Street wishes to do is to dismiss out of hand a “framework” that sets up the definition of apartheid in the first place. Once one does that, the term itself disappears. The Movement for Black Lives and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement instead insist that looking at the definition of “apartheid” one finds it an appropriate label for both what went on during apartheid in South Africa and what is going on now in Palestine. In short, the frame is not “ill-fitting” at all. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states clearly: “The crime of apartheid means inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

The issue is not to argue whether or not racist and exclusionary practices in US or Israel-Palestine are exactly the same in all ways as those found in apartheid South Africa — it is whether or not in those countries we find “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups,” and there clearly is a case to be made that we do. But J Street and others wish to preemptively take that word off the table altogether, and by so doing remove a powerful and legitimate critique based again on rights and international law.

The issue becomes more complex and more heated when the term “genocide” is used. In its statement on the Movement for Black Lives, T’ruah: the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights declared:

While we agree with many of the policy recommendations, we are extremely dismayed at the decision to refer to the Israeli occupation as genocide. We are committed to ending the occupation, which leads to daily human rights violations against Palestinians, and also compromises the safety of Israelis….

However, the military occupation does not rise to the level of genocide — a term defined as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” While we agree that the occupation violates the human rights of Palestinians, and has caused too many deaths, the Israeli government is not carrying out a plan intended to wipe out the Palestinians.

In response, Rabbi Brant Rosen notes:

The claim that Israel is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians undeniably pushes all kinds of buttons for many Jews. But there are also Jews and Israelis who feel it is not an inappropriate word to use, particularly in regard to Israel’s regular military assaults against Gaza. Likewise, while the BDS call is extraordinarily controversial for many Jews, there are also Jews who respect it as a legitimate call for nonviolent resistance from over 150 Palestinian civil society organizations. And it is simply not true to claim, as T’ruah does, that “the BDS movement (rejects) Israel’s right to exist.” On the contrary, the goal of the BDS call is equal rights for Palestinians as well as Jews.

Rosen said he also wonders why T’ruah did not engage the Movement for Black Lives in discussion: “If they were to be true to their own articulated values, T’ruah should have reached out to them, engaged with them and tried to understand where they were coming from, thus opening a real dialogue.” However, according to Rachel Gilmer, the Black activist cited above who wrote this portion of the Movement for Black Lives platform:, “Using the word genocide wasn’t a haphazard piece of work…. It was a yearlong process of bringing together 60 organizations about our vision for the world as black people. We’ve been in community with Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now and individual Jewish people who are against the occupation.”

The issue of nomenclature is thus key to this discussion — it may, in fact, not be a matter of legal definition so much as worldview and the capacity to forge solidarity based on the latter.

Finally, in its reference to “false equivalencies,” the JCRC distorts the entire nature of the political work at hand. In fact, as the Dream Defenders’ “Statement on the Condemnation of M4BL Platform by Some Pro-Israel Groups” asserts:

…the basic understanding that the state violence we experience is directly tied to the violence facing Black and Brown communities in Palestine and around the world. While our struggles are not identical, we recognize that we are up against the same systems…. The Dream Defenders remain committed to a world in which ALL people are free. As Black people fighting for our freedom, we are not thugs and our Palestinian brothers and sisters are not terrorists. For the children who are met with tear gas and rubber bullets as they walk home from school, for the families of those we have lost to police violence, for the communities devastated by economic violence and apartheid walls, we fight. To all those who believe in a world in which all people are free, join us. For those who no longer stand with Black people because of this belief, goodbye. We do not need nor want you in our movement.

In response to the Movement for Black Lives policy platform, the BDS movementdeclared, “We pledge to firmly and consistently stand in solidarity with our black sisters and brothers in the United States and around the world by supporting the demands and policy proposals in this platform,” adding that “the BDS movement is deeply inspired by the US Civil Rights Movement and the many struggles by Blacks and other people of color for racial and economic justice.”

One cannot place too much emphasis on this fact: Solidarity is not based on identity or any demand that each struggle have exactly the same root and set of goals. It is not premised on exact equivalences and historical sameness. How could anything be premised on that without being solipsistic, and entirely self-interested?

What we are witnessing, with the release of this brilliant and inspiring document, is a recognition of the need to form lines of solidarity.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on Why Solidarity Between the Movement for Black Lives and Palestine Makes Sense

Shoah’s pages