Category: Op-Ed

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell conducts a news conference following the Senate Republican policy luncheon in Washington on May 25, 2021.

    In his extraordinary early 20th-century memoir, The Education of Henry Adams, Adams, the scholar, political observer and descendant of two presidents, wrote of the inherent dysfunction and dishonesty of the U.S. Congress. He wrote of a Cabinet Secretary crying out, “You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!” Of the Senate, Adams observed that “Senators passed belief. The comic side of their egotism partly disguised its extravagance, but faction had gone so far under Andrew Johnson that at times the whole Senate seemed to catch hysterics of nervous bucking without apparent reason … they were more grotesque than ridicule could make them … But their egotism and factiousness were no laughing matter. They did permanent and terrible mischief.”

    I was reminded of those lines when reading that GOP senators are, once again, sententiously threatening to refuse to lift the national debt ceiling in July unless the Biden administration agrees to sweeping cuts in spending.

    Were there consistency in the GOP’s arguments, that would be one thing. But there isn’t, and there hasn’t been this past decade. Put simply, the GOP cares deeply about the debt limit when Democrats are in the White House, and cares not a whit about that limit when the commander-in-chief is a Republican.

    It used to be the case that politicians of both parties tacitly agreed not to play party politics with the national debt. After all, the U.S.’s cast-iron guarantee that it won’t default on its loan obligations is what allows the country to maintain such a privileged position in global marketplaces, borrowing at far lower rates of interest than can most other countries, and allowing it to fund everything from its bloated military budget to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and vital infrastructure without taxing Americans at a level that would actually fully underwrite all of these programs. As soon as uncertainty is injected into that calculus, the likelihood increases that credit agencies will downgrade the country’s credit-worthiness and borrowing costs will significantly rise.

    Since the Tea Party-dominated Republican Party swept to power in the House in the midterm elections of 2010, however, it’s become a central political axiom that the GOP will use the debt ceiling as a bargaining tool when dealing with Democratic presidents and their political priorities.

    The GOP is now pulling the same trick against Joe Biden as its members did several times during Barack Obama’s presidency. Over a period of months in 2011, the newly minted GOP majority in the House withheld support for raising the debt ceiling, leading to a series of stop-gap spending resolutions that kept the government just about afloat, but unable to make long-term fiscal plans. They actually did shut down the government for days and weeks on end in 2013, as they tried to force negotiations over defunding the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding government, a form of political vandalism and blackmail that would have hit the poor and the vulnerable particularly hard. And then, from 2013 through to late 2015, the GOP continued to threaten shutdowns, agreeing only to last-minute debt ceiling increases, and creating ongoing instability as they tried to leverage their power to force spending cuts.

    Only in November 2015, after four years of blackmail over the debt ceiling, did Congress agree to a nearly one-and-a-half-year suspension of the ceiling, allowing for the government to be able to borrow enough money to fund its spending obligations.

    During the Trump presidency, however, when the national debt soared by $7.8 trillion (in large part fueled by GOP-supported tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as large increases in military and border spending), these voices of fiscal conservatism were largely silenced.

    True, there was a lengthy and destructive government shutdown in 2018-2019, lasting 35 days. But that was triggered not by a reluctance to raise the debt ceiling, but by the GOP and Trump being unwilling to pass and sign a government spending bill that didn’t include $5 billion for Trump’s much-touted border wall. The GOP gambled that, if threatened with a government shutdown that would put on hold the government’s ability to fund vital services like food stamps, Democrats would cave and fund the wall. When that didn’t happen, and the Democrats didn’t fold in the face of this blackmail effort, eventually Trump and the GOP blinked and reopened the government.

    Fast forward to 2021, however, and the GOP — in the face of Biden proposals to increase assistance to low-income families, to establish paid family leave, to expand nutritional and early education programs, and to invest in programs to tackle climate change — has re-discovered its selective outrage at the idea of the country spending beyond its means.

    Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) wants dollar for dollar spending cuts for any increase in the debt ceiling. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who was silent about the dangers of increasing the debt under Trump, now worries that Biden’s plans will “bankrupt” future generations.

    In the GOP mindset, busting through the debt ceiling is A-OK so long as the money flows to the wealthy through tax cuts. But it’s catastrophic and illegitimate when the money borrowed is used to better the lives of the country’s poor, to build infrastructure and to tackle climate change.

    In response to these political games, last week three Democratic senators — Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) — introduced legislation to do away with the debt ceiling entirely. If it passes, it would do an end-run around the GOP’s ability to hold the nation’s finances hostage every time they face a set of policy priorities that they don’t like.

    Of course, this reform almost certainly won’t pass the Senate. But at least it will show the stakes and highlight the hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People stand near an illuminated Canadian Maple leaf as thousands gather in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to show their support for the people of Palestine, on May 15, 2021.

    Thousands of people across Canada, and around the world, have recently taken to the streets to protest the latest Israeli military action against Palestinians.

    My research examines how Muslim Canadians often face severe consequences for protesting prevalent social understandings in Canada. National conversations and encounters with state institutions educate them about their “place.”

    My most recent example of this is anecdotal and comes from a personal experience. In Hamilton, I attended a pro-Palestine rally with some friends. By our count, police issued tickets to at least eight Muslim women wearing hijabs out of a total of 12 tickets issued.

    My close friend, who wears a hijab, had arrived at the protest earlier than me with her two school-aged kids. Although they wore masks and stood socially distanced from the small crowd of protesters, two officers approached her and spoke to her aggressively about her violation of the Ontario stay-at-home order. According to her, one of them said: “I can ticket you or arrest you.” They issued her two tickets, each over $800.

    At that time, people were just beginning to congregate at the protest but Hamilton’s streets were full of people.

    Ticketing these eight women who wear the hijab is racial profiling. This targeting is typical of patterns I have found in my research. As a researcher on Muslim Canadian citizenship, I examine what happens when Muslim Canadians challenge Canada’s social order.

    Muslim Canadians who wear a hijab are seen to have less of a right to protest. They are called out more viciously, censured more severely and generally told to be grateful to the country that welcomed them — even if they are born and raised in Canada.

    When it comes to Palestine, Muslim and Arab Canadians are expected to be silent. This connects to a wider pattern of systematically silencing anyone who advocates for Palestine. People with no ethnic connection to the region are targeted as well.

    Progressive Except for Palestine

    Last summer, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law attracted international attention after it rescinded its offer of employment to Valentina Azarova, a Germany-based human rights lawyer and scholar. The university stated that this was due to issues arranging a visa and work authorization. However, several others, including human rights organizations, believe the offer was rescinded over Azarova’s Palestinian human rights work. An investigation into the incident has since absolved the University of Toronto. However, numerous voices have challenged the integrity of those findings.

    Vincent Wong, a lawyer, research associate and PhD student at the University of Toronto law school, was one of the hiring committee members and had a front-row seat to the entire process. He resigned from his job in protest. In an incisive analysis in OpinioJuris, an international law blog, Wong characterized the de-hiring and subsequent investigation as layers upon layers of white male privilege.

    In April, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), an association of over 70,000 members, voted unanimously to censure the University of Toronto for their racism and disregard for Azarova’s rights.

    This is not an isolated incident. Across Canada, the atmosphere is menacing for those who would speak up for justice in Palestine.

    Last week, Canadian journalists who signed a letter criticizing the lack of Palestinian voices in the media were reprimanded by their newsrooms. Long-time CBC journalist Pacinthe Mattar detailed her experiences in an article for The Walrus. She explains how her reporting a story on Palestine was likely used to block her promotion.

    This global phenomena of being chilled into not talking about Palestine, no matter how progressive one may be, has a name: Progressive Except for Palestine. It refers to how many people take principled stands against injustice, but draw the line at Palestine. In this menacing climate, many people self-censor.

    New Law Bars Criticism of Israel

    In October 2020, the Ontario legislature adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism into law. The law conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Discussions of justice for Palestinians have always been taboo in the West. Now, they carry the risk of significant legal consequences.

    A large group of Jewish Canadian academics released a statement decrying the increasing pressure to adopt this narrow definition of antisemitism that shuts down solidarity with Palestinians. This definition, some of the signatories pointed out, bullies those advocating for Palestinian rights.

    Global Land Rights

    Immigrants to Canada, such as my friend from the protest, take a colonial oath of allegiance to the Queen. Part of that contract is freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Every day, her children and countless other children across Canada, say Indigenous land acknowledgements. These land acknowledgements compel us to recognize how land and human rights injustices are woven together. This attention to how land and human rights are entangled should be both local and global.

    Injustices towards the Palestinian struggle do not stop at the borders of Gaza or the boundaries of East Jerusalem. They are here, in Canada, towards people like the Muslim women at the protests, academics, journalists and countless others who speak up about the injustices happening in Palestine.

    Thanks to Black Lives Matter and last summer’s anti-racism uprisings, the stage for racial justice has seismically changed. In recent years, Indigenous activism, especially the Idle No More movement, means more Canadians are aware of how human rights violations are inseparable from land injustices.

    When will Canadians stop punishing those who call for justice for Palestine?The Conversation

    Lucy El-Sherif has received funding from the Ontario Graduate Scholarship.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The city of Wayland, Massachusetts, distributes bottled water to the public due to elevated levels of PFAS found in its public water sources on May 16, 2021.

    The U.S. Senate recently passed the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. The legislation creates a $35 billion fund that will allow states and tribes to make urgently needed upgrades to their water systems, with additional considerations made for frontline communities. This kind of commitment to commitment to environmental justice is welcome, but also long overdue.

    Clean water infrastructure has experienced systemic neglect in communities across the U.S. In Jackson, Mississippi, residents recently had to boil water for drinking, and thousands lacked access to non-potable water for flushing toilets. Unfortunately, these upsetting circumstances are common, particularly in communities of color.

    Millions of Americans experience the dire consequences of toxic drinking water, which negatively affects quality of life, and can lead to a lifetime of debilitating health effects.

    Black and Brown communities feel the brunt of this burden. Research shows that drinking water systems in communities of color are 40 percent more likely to violate clean water standards than in non-Black and non-Brown communities. This is environmental racism. And it’s destroying countless lives.

    Like most forms of racism, high-profile tragedies like Flint, Michigan, grab headlines. But often, it’s a slow, quiet and deadly progression that devastates communities of color.

    A recent study found Black children of families living below the poverty line are more than twice as likely to have elevated levels of lead in their blood than white or Hispanic children living under the poverty line.

    For decades, petroleum refineries along the Mississippi River have polluted local waters with cancer-causing petrochemicals. In majority-Black Louisiana communities, there are more than 150 of these refineries, located between New Orleans and Baton Rouge in what has been ominously dubbed “Cancer Alley” due to the refineries that spew dangerous chemicals into the water.

    Environmental racism also persists within the vulnerable communities surrounding chemical storage and industrial sites, where toxic floodwaters caused by storms or climate-related events carry heavy metals, oils and gas into local waterways. Individuals affected by these floods often face immediate health problems, including headaches, dizziness, and irritation to the eyes and throat.

    These toxic floodwaters most often impact Black and Brown communities. A report co-written by the Center for Progressive Reform and the James River Association found more than 473,000 Virginians live in communities that are both high in social vulnerability and contain flood-exposed industrial facilities. Like the harm caused by petroleum refineries, this flooding can leave communities with significant long-term health challenges.

    We’ve made slow progress in addressing other forms of institutional racism, but we’re only beginning to reckon with the cost of environmental racism. Flint was a wake-up call, but not nearly enough has been done to address the root problems or hold the perpetrators accountable.

    Black and Brown communities don’t have the luxury of sweeping the problem under the rug. These communities live with the consequences of environmental racism daily. The quality of life and health impacts are only beginning to be detected.

    The federal government has acknowledged the peril caused by environmental racism — the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment concluded that non-white communities are disproportionately put at risk of health effects from pollution. Thankfully, we now have an administration that is signaling its intention to make decisions based on truth, facts and science. President Biden has expressed that environmental justice will become a central tenet of his administration, and has prioritized clean water infrastructure investment and combating climate change impacts in his Build Back Better plan.

    Yet environmental racism is a decades-long abuse in this country. Action must come now. It’s imperative that Biden continue to take immediate executive action to reverse this horrific and systemic damage. The administration must also make up for lost time by prioritizing enforcement of our environmental laws to benefit the communities whose health and well-being have too often been afterthoughts.

    The Biden administration has offered signs of hope. A reversal on Bears Ears National Monument and the Keystone XL pipeline are encouraging. The appointment of Deb Haaland, the first Native American to hold a cabinet position, to lead the Department of Interior, is another good start.

    But these good intentions must become a firm reality.

    The Biden administration must immediately implement its own agenda, including empowering a more aggressive EPA to expedite hazardous waste remediation and cleanups in frontline communities that have long carried the burden; establishing an Environmental and Climate Justice division at the Department of Justice to ensure environmental tragedies like those experienced in Flint do not occur again and that environmental lawbreakers are held fully accountable for the violence they unleash on their victims; overhauling and empowering EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office with more staff and resources and a directive to focus on environmental justice to protect communities from climate change; and mandating stricter monitoring. A more fully engaged Office of Environmental Justice would also help address these urgent and necessary changes.

    There’s too much at stake for Black and Brown communities. Too many lives have been expected to cede priority to the profits of polluters. Just look at Flint, or the other marginalized communities where something so vital as drinkable water is not guaranteed.

    Enough is enough.

    Clean water is a human right. It’s time to start treating it as such.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters gather to stage a demonstration in support of Palestinians and to protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem on the 73rd Nakba Day on May 15, 2021, in Portland, Oregon.

    The bombs Israel has dropped on Palestinian homes have reverberated around the globe, fueling a seismic shift within the U.S. Jewish community. More than ever, U.S. Jews are condemning the violence and calling upon Congress to end U.S. military funding to Israel.

    Thanks in part to decades of grassroots activism, a generation is increasingly awakening to the gruesome sights in Gaza, and American Jews of all ages are recognizing that support for Palestinians is not incongruous with embracing a Jewish identity but rather consistent with it.

    On May 14, 2021, over 700 people joined a Shabbat service held in the streets of Brooklyn, where protestors read the names and placed stones in remembrance of Palestinians killed by Israel’s latest attacks. Rabbi Miriam Grossman of Congregation Kolot Chayeinu led those gathered in reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish, the Jewish prayer spoken in honor of those who have died.

    The following day, thousands more joined massive Palestinian-led protests in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn the heart of Palestinian New York to express solidarity and rage alongside New Yorkers of all backgrounds.

    Arielle Angel, editor of Jewish Currents, was astonished by the scale of the demonstrations.

    “I felt alone as a Jew attending a Palestine solidarity rally in 2014,” she said. “I don’t feel alone anymore.”

    The Making of This Moment

    The courageous acts of Palestinians defending their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, fending off mob attacks in cities like Lod/Lydd, and resisting siege in Gaza have served as a catalyst for Jews taking to the streets.

    “Palestinians are doing every single thing they can do to survive,” said Morgan Bassichis, a member of Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist grassroots organization with over 70 chapters across the country. “Our duty and our responsibility and our commitment is to do every single thing we can do in solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

    At the same time, the sheer horror of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza leading to the deaths of at least 66 children, the destruction of thousands of peoples’ homes, and targeting of media and medical infrastructure, including the only COVID testing site in Gaza, has driven people all over the world including diaspora Jews to speak out on Israel in ways they may not have before.

    “I wanted to take action now as I finally felt the internal courage and duty to do so. I’ve historically been told the ‘conflict’ is too complicated,” said Emily Schacter who joined pro-Palestine protests for the first time in May, in Brooklyn. “In learning, listening and watching more, I’ve grown to feel confident and unafraid in voicing that Zionism is wrong and that Israel is an apartheid state.”

    The swelling of support for Palestinian liberation in this moment also reflects a deeper shift that has been underway in the Jewish community and beyond.

    In January, B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, released a report acknowledging, as Palestinians have long expressed, that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians constitutes apartheid conditions. Human Rights Watch soon reached the same conclusion.

    In March, a group of 200 academics released the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, clarifying that anti-Zionism does not constitute antisemitism. Prominent Jewish studies and Israel studies scholars soon followed by condemning Israeli violence.

    In April, liberal Zionist groups like J Street and T’ruah took the unprecedented action of supporting Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum’s bill to condition U.S. funding to Israel. In May, J Street held a national conference that included much conversation about the topic. As Mari Cohen reported, “While there was no audience to applaud, the conference’s virtual chat lit up with approval. ‘We love aid restrictions!’ wrote one attendee.”

    While there is still a considerable distance between groups like J Street, which oppose the Palestinian-led call for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), and Jewish Voice for Peace, which both embraces BDS and supports the Palestinian right to return, Jewish organizations across a wide spectrum are increasingly speaking out against Israeli human rights violations.

    The pressure continues to mount, with over 500 Democratic staffers and former campaign staff signing an open letter urging President Biden to “hold Israel accountable.”

    These shifts are not just happening in New York City, Washington, D.C. and on Twitter. Recent mobilizations in Chicago, Milwaukee, Birmingham and San Diego show the surge of support for Palestinian human rights is in fact a national phenomenon, reminiscent of last summer’s sweeping racial justice uprisings.

    “I Don’t Deserve Applause Because I Am Too Late”

    As organizations take sharper stands and new individuals are moved to speak out for Palestinian rights, even long committed activists are leveling up their commitment in the wake of the recent attacks.

    Talia, a Mizrahi Jew and member of Jewish Voice for Peace, shares in a video that has been viewed over 600,000 times, “This is the first time I am using my full real name to stand in solidarity with Palestinians. I don’t deserve applause because I am too late. Because every single day that we don’t speak out as Jews in support of Palestinian liberation is another day too late.”

    Speaking with one’s name often comes with a price. Palestinian solidarity activists have lost jobs and faced estrangement from their families for their politics. Just days after Israeli bombs demolished the Associated Press offices in Gaza, a Jewish AP reporter Emily Wilder in Arizona was fired due to her past activism with Students for Justice in Palestine, a move which elicited outrage from fellow journalists.

    Yet more and more people are willing to take such risks as activists strengthen their mutual support networks and the Palestine solidarity movement grows in size and strength.

    Elena Stein, a staff organizer with Jewish Voice for Peace, captures this sentiment: “For all of those who have taken risks and who have lost significant things, we honor your risk. For all those considering taking a risk, we want you to know, we have your back. You call on us. We want to have your back.”

    In fact, a significant infrastructure exists to organize those who are becoming politicized on Palestine. Jewish Voice for Peace has 500,000 online supporters and over 70 chapters. While IfNotNow, a growing youth movement opposed to the occupation, is in the midst of an extensive reevaluation process, the group will surely continue to play an important role.

    Additionally, emerging Jewish religious and spiritual communities offer meaningful connection for non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews. These spaces include Jewish Voice for Peace’s Havurah Network, synagogues like Tzedek Chicago and Kehilla Synagogue in California, as well as organizational Rabbinical Councils that offer pastoral care to Jewish Palestine solidarity activists.

    Increasingly, Jews can continue to participate in Jewish communal life while speaking out against Israeli apartheid. In fact, many Jews are finding deeper spiritual connection in communities that do not over-emphasize Israel at the expense of other components of Jewish identity.

    “All of Our Struggles for Liberation Are Intertwined”

    A week after the initial Shabbat action, 700 New York Jews gathered again to decry the violence and march to the doorstep of Senator Schumer’s home, calling upon him to support the resolution introduced by Senator Sanders to disapprove of the U.S. sale of military weapons to Israel.

    This time, Audrey Sasson, executive director of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, felt moved to share that while her organization was founded to focus on domestic issues, its first public event served to honor Nelson Mandela after the anti-apartheid hero who was recently freed from prison at the time was snubbed by the establishment Jewish community for his expression of solidarity with Palestinians.

    “I want to say clearly and for the record we believe in speaking out and taking action in support of Palestinian rights and freedom and in demanding an end to Israeli apartheid, occupation, displacement, annexation, aggression, and ongoing assaults,” said Sasson. “All of our struggles for liberation are intertwined.”

    In a year that began with neo-Nazis storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, donning attire glorifying Hitler’s genocide, the question of Jewish safety amidst a spike in antisemitism is pertinent.

    According to the May 2021 Pew Research Poll, 75 percent of American Jews believe there is more antisemitism in the United States today than five years ago, a result of President Trump utilizing his time in the White House to embolden white supremacists.

    Yet, Israel’s blatant disregard for basic human dignity has led the American Jewish community to recognize that support for Israel is not a tenable answer to the question of how to seek safety for Jewish people.

    In fact, according to Emma Saltzberg of Data for Progress, Trump’s overzealous support of Israel’s rightwing, often encouraged by Christian Zionists, “Has opened up new space for progressives to criticize Israeli policies more sharply, calling special attention to the human rights crisis facing Palestinians.”

    According to Pew, the vast majority of American Jews do not strongly oppose the Palestinian-led call for BDS. Instead of aligning with the Israeli state, which is backed by billions of dollars in U.S. military funding, the unprecedented numbers of American Jews spilling into the streets right now believe that a demilitarized and decolonized future means a safer world for us all, and recognize BDS as a viable tactic in that pursuit.

    On May 18, 2021, the world witnessed Palestinians leading a historic general strike. Responding to their call for solidarity demonstrations across the globe, New York Jews joined Palestinians in marching from the Israeli embassy to the offices of AIPAC and the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, calling out the complicity of the organizations in the violent attacks on Palestinians. Police arrested several demonstrators as they disrupted business as usual in Midtown Manhattan.

    We’ve simply reached a point of no return. The signs of a watershed moment surround us: gracing the cover of the New York Times and ricocheting through the halls of Congress.

    Unconditional support for Israel has been broken. An end to U.S. military funding is on the horizon. A liberatory Jewish future demands full freedom for all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Eric Carle, one of the giants in the field of children's books and author/illustrator of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, signs a book for a young fan at San Marino Toy and Booke Shoppe on August 20, 2003.

    The little holes throughout the book, the ones milled through the pictures of food — that’s where your heart goes, carried by tiny questing fingers seeking form, substance, input, delight. The painted art leaps from the page at every turning, 22 lines from beginning to end, a feast by moonlight, and then … a beautiful butterfly!

    The passing of Eric Carle, author of more than 70 children’s books in a career that touched six decades, was met with an outpouring of grief and gratitude. His most famous work, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, is 48 words shorter than the Gettysburg Address, but has touched the lives of millions upon millions of children and their parents all over the world since its publication in 1969.

    Caterpillar has been translated into 70 languages over the years, and is the first thing your friends hand you when they find out you’re going to have a kid. You need bottles, diapers, blankets, onesies and here, this book, the one with the holes in it, right on top of the pile.

    The genius of Caterpillar is its simplicity. By the time they’ve finished the book, the child has practiced counting, learned what certain foods are as they recite the days of the week, sharpened their seeking skills by locating the caterpillar in its various hiding places, reveled in a gorgeous palette of colors, and like as not giggled like a chickadee every time they poked a curious finger through one of the holes. And at the end? A vivid reminder that we all grow and change, and the truth of that is beautiful as well.

    That simplicity, however, belies the depths and the darkness Carle confronted in his youth. His family lived in Stuttgart, Germany under Nazi rule during World War II. His father was drafted, sent to the Russian front, and became a prisoner of war. Carle, only 15, was forced to dig trenches along the Siegfried Line. His home was a bomb-shattered hulk. His father came back from the war weighing 85 pounds, “a broken man,” according to Carle. In 1952, Carle moved to New York City with $40 in his pocket, and became a graphic designer for The New York Times. Not long after, he was drafted into the U.S. Army — and stationed in Germany.

    “Though Mr. Carle didn’t speak often about his upbringing in Nazi Germany,” the Times reported upon his passage, “he did say that his time spent in war zones had deeply influenced his work. ‘The grays, browns and dirty greens used by the Nazis to camouflage the buildings’ only heightened his love for intense and joyful colors.”

    That is the secret magic of Caterpillar. Carle took the horrors of his own childhood, ground them into brilliant pigment, and painted tiny worlds filled with the kind of joy and wonder that only the youngest among us can truly experience. The artwork in Caterpillar, along with his other works such as Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? and The Very Busy Spider, fairly sings from the page with a complexity illuminated by the beatific smile of a grandfather moon.

    In the ongoing aftermath of COVID-19, with so much uncertainty still surrounding us, so many questions about what this world will be like after the storm passes — if it ever truly does — Eric Carle and The Very Hungry Caterpillar are highly instructive. All of us face a clouded future today, and many of us have seen things this last year that cannot be unseen. What, then, comes next?

    Simplicity: whatever can be done within reach of your arm. Eric Carle took 224 words, 22 lines and his paintbrush, and made the world better. Such a small thing, such an enormous thing, is within the grasp of each and every one of us. Take pain and become joy, take suffering and become learning, take rage and become the kind of love that makes children smile, and if we all do it in our own little way, we all get to come home.

    My daughter, now a robust and feisty eight years old, still asks me to read Caterpillar to her sometimes. Her reading skills have skyrocketed past it, but I am always happy to oblige. As the cover opens, my big girl shrinks into my lap and falls back in time, counting the holes like she used to, pretending to eat the strawberries like she used to, and laughing delightedly at the reward on the final page. Her experience of Carle’s work today — a snuggled return to a safe literary harbor– is almost exactly what it was when I read it to her for the first time, the first book she and I ever read together.

    Eric Carle did that within reach of his arm. So can you, I believe. So can we all.

    For my daughter.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Donald Trump

    The real rumblings began last week. “The New York attorney general’s office said Tuesday that it is conducting a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business empire, expanding what had previously been a civil probe,” the Associated Press reported.

    The pivot from civil to criminal meant the investigations would now include the work of New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance. Attorney General Letitia James’s office also let it be known that they were squeezing the Trump Organization’s longtime finance chief and Man Who Knows Everything, Allen Weisselberg, for as much as he will give.

    Flash forward one week, and the rumblings became a low but steady roar. “Manhattan’s district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or the business itself, should prosecutors present the panel with criminal charges,” reported The Washington Post yesterday. “The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months.”

    Before we delve into the impact these announcements are having on Trump and his bag of Bedminster brats, a moment should be taken in consideration of every silly Republican campaign slob who deliberately stapled themselves to Trump’s thin orange hide. In my mind’s eye, I see their first act: blast out fundraisers as soon as word of criminal investigations and grand juries popped. Crime Of The Century! Help Us Fight These Lying Socialist Trump Haters And MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! They do it with everything else, and that right there is bright red meat for the wrath of the gullible base. If they have not sent one out yet based on these latest developments, feel completely confident they will soon enough.

    The fundraising angle is key, the glue that holds these operatives to Trump’s Bismarck. “The GOP highlights culture-war issues to shake down rank-and-file donors while cutting taxes to please wealthy donors,” explains conservative Washington Post columnist Max Boot. “Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once since 1988, but they can’t afford to broaden their appeal by embracing a more populist economic agenda or by toning down the divisive social messages because either move would jeopardize the flow of fundraising. The right-wing money machine has become the tail wagging the Republican elephant.”

    I have to wonder whether, as the email servers dutifully frizz this sort of dreck out to all the red-hatted diehards, there has been a recent a moment of pause in the minds of at least some of these GOP operatives. Sure, the loyalists believe everything they’re told, they’re good for millions in donations, and Trump can use that money however he wants … but the walls have never seemed so close, especially in the absence of even the most gossamer presidential protections. Worse, this whole keg of dynamite may blow just as the ’22 midterms start heating up for real.

    “Back in January, the Republican Party had a chance to walk away from Donald Trump — after his defeat, after Jan. 6, after his second impeachment and after he refused to attend President Biden’s inauguration,” reports NBC News. “Instead, they stuck with him, which has led to many GOP members downplaying the Capitol attack, fighting the creation of a bipartisan commission to study what happened on Jan. 6, and watching the former president continue to question the legitimacy of a contest he lost fair and square. And now they face the very real possibility of seeing their party’s de-facto leader and potential 2024 frontrunner getting indicted in the coming months.”

    It must be a nervous time for those who have tethered their political existence to a man without truth, without honor, thoroughly ruthless in the pursuit of his own self-interest, and now under two very powerful legal microscopes. I sometimes imagine these loyalists as Captain Hook from Peter Pan, a bit beat up but still in the fight, while Trump is the lurking crocodile with the ticking clock in his gullet. Every time one of these investigation stories drop, Republicans hear the ticking of that clock growing ever nearer, tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…

    As for Trump himself, there’s nothing much to say just yet. His enemies reveled in the announcement of a grand jury, but in truth, the attorney general may as well have announced she was having some fences painted in the park. There’s an old legal saying, that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The reason: Grand juries are a terrible weapon, often abused by prosecutors seeking to “make their bones” in the job.

    The defendant gets no witnesses, their lawyer must largely stand mute, and that lawyer is barred from doing anything more than object to proffered evidence; despite objections, the evidence almost always still goes to the grand jury. It is a profoundly crooked table that in a just country would be removed from the process. For AG James, indicting Donald Trump ought to be as easy as falling off a log. It’s a step in the right direction, but nothing in the range of momentous.

    As for the former president, well, these are not fun times. “This is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in American history,” he responded by rote after the grand jury was announced. “No other President in history has had to put up with what I have had to, and on top of all that, I have done a great job for our Country, whether it’s taxes, regulations, our Military, Veterans, Space Force, our Borders, speedy creation of a great vaccine (said to be a miracle!), and protecting the Second Amendment. This is purely political, and an affront to the almost 75 million voters who supported me in the Presidential Election, and it’s being driven by highly partisan Democrat prosecutors.”

    And as if all this wasn’t enough, Trump’s former attorney is getting put through his own legal paces, and the outlook is grim. Federal prosecutors seized a vast amount of material from Rudy Giuliani some days ago, more than was earlier known. These materials, according to CNN, include “messages from email and iCloud accounts they believe belong to two former Ukrainian government officials, as well as the cell phone and iPad of a pro-Trump Ukrainian businessman, according to a court document unsealed Tuesday.”

    As the ancient saying goes, the wheels of justice grind slowly. Letitia James and Cyrus Vance have carved themselves out a large chunk of history, and have taken on the responsibility not just to deliver justice, but to deliver the people from the aftermath of a lawless president.

    Will there be consequences for Trump’s reckless greed? Is there any law at all for the powerful?

    The frustration from the flawed and ultimately failed Mueller investigation lingers. If that long-winded, manipulated and deeply edited process becomes the last word on that administration, we will have come to a cold and dreary place indeed.

    Enjoy your summer as you can. Get vaccinated if you can. Wear a mask if you wish, and when you must. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, and in the meantime, wait. Let the wheels grind, and grind.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A masked man pulls a toddler out of a raft in the dark

    A video of Mino and Erick, two Latinx teenagers, clutching their mother in a tight embrace went viral across various news and social media platforms recently. From NBC News to The New Yorker and Democracy Now!, audiences saw the emotional intensity of Keldy Mabel Gonzáles Brebe de Zúniga finally reunited with her family after being detained in 2017, separated from her children and incarcerated for two years, and then deported in 2019 by the Trump administration’s pernicious “zero-tolerance” policy.

    This is a hard video to watch. Following Gonzáles Brebe from the airport to the home of a niece, the video shows the shock and then joy expressed by her two surprised children. The brothers seem almost desperate or fearful as they cry out and cling to their mother, expressive of the traumas they have endured these past three years. Haunting the video is the violence that the U.S. government reaped upon a family who fled Honduras with documented evidence of human rights violations, evidence the asylum judge refused to recognize.

    Rather than outrage, however, this video, and others like it, are being promoted as feel-good stories of President Biden delivering on his campaign promise to reunite families separated by the previous administration. The New Yorker provides the most in-depth story about the events of Gonzáles Brebe’s separation from and reunion with her children. Step-by-step, we follow her tale of detention and deportation, her return to Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, then crossing the border back to El Paso and on to Dallas before arriving in Philadelphia. Even Democracy Now!, which used this video and the story of the first four family reunifications to tell the larger story of the challenges facing over 1,000 families still separated from children, struggles to escape the feel-good narrative of the family made whole.

    Part of the problem is the historical longevity and persistence of heteronormative family dramas with happy endings that pervade U.S. culture. And this is a happy ending, or at least it brings the family together, albeit without any promises of a path toward a green card. Part of the problem may be that with cutbacks in journalism and fewer investigative journalists, news media increasingly rely on press offices for visual optics. And part of the problem might be that the Trump administration set such a low bar that any actions by the new administration seem like an improvement.

    Currently these images function as synecdoches for ongoing policies at the border. While such family reunifications would have been impossible under the draconian, white supremacist strictures imposed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency during the Trump era, viewing these emotional reunions as a Biden-era, humanitarian “mission accomplished” obscures the continuities of enforcement regimes, along with their attendant brutality.

    These moving media tales result from the hard work of border rights organizations. Without the impact litigation endeavors and exacting research of Al Otro Lado (AOL), for example, the reunification of 18-year-old Bryan Chávez with his mother, Sandra Ortíz, covered by Democracy Now!, would not have taken place. Carol Ann Donohoe, managing attorney for AOL’s Family Reunification Project, explains that advocacy organizations, not the federal government, did the research and arranged the logistics to facilitate each of these reunions. According to the ACLU’s Lee Gelernt, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) separated approximately 5,500 children from their families during the Trump administration. About 1,000 remain separated; because of slipshod recordkeeping by the CBP, the parents of 455 children have not yet been located.

    It’s important to place the separation of families in its historical and political context. The zero-tolerance policy implemented by the Trump administration was far broader than the stark brutality of tearing children from their relatives. The menacing phrase itself emanates from the notorious “broken windows” school of policing popularized by urban police departments determined to repress the freedom movements of the 1970s. Zero tolerance policies vilified and criminalized “quality of life crimes” such as graffiti and vandalism, bolstering the numbers of police apprehensions and subsequent incarcerations. As evidenced in the case of Eric Garner, apprehended for selling loose cigarettes and murdered by the New York City Police Department, this punitive school of policing tolerates no low-level crimes, creating an atmosphere in which suspect populations, usually those of color, become preemptively guilty.

    Applied to asylum seekers claiming protection under both U.S. and international law, Trump’s zero tolerance policy attempted to preclude migration by terrorizing people with the threats of separation from their relatives. Led by the president, white supremacists demonized parents fleeing with their children as potential child traffickers. Practices permitted under this policy included the infamous “hieleras,” or “iceboxes,” chilled rooms where asylum seekers were held without benefit of blankets or outerwear. Even outside of these rooms the now-infamous images of cells holding toddlers showed children huddled under mylar blankets, sobbing for their families.

    Border policies like zero tolerance make the erroneous and dangerous assumption that migrants fleeing extreme (often U.S.-fomented) violence in their home nations could be intimidated by carceral cruelty taking place north of the border. President Biden, in contrast, referred to his family’s history in his first press conference, explaining that, far from choosing to come to another country, most migrants are forced to leave by historical circumstances.

    This kind of sympathetic rhetoric, voiced frequently by immigrant rights organizations, makes it seem as though the humanitarian crisis around migration is over. After the election of 2020, many people who had been outraged by the family separation crisis breathed a sigh of relief. Surely, they thought, this outrageous cruelty would now end.

    Yes and no. It depends on how you define “family separation.” While the Biden administration no longer has an explicit federal policy to separate migrant children from their relatives, the federal government currently detains about 21,000 “unaccompanied minors”; most of these young people have traveled alone from Central America, fleeing dangerous conditions, including climate devastation. In detention, they remain separated from their relatives — both sponsors in the United States and families in their nations of origin. Despite campaign promises of a moratorium on deportations during the administration’s first hundred days in office, deportations have continued, albeit at a slower rate. Including deportations at the border under the revived use of Title 42, a previously little-used clause of public health code resurrected by the Trump administration, 300,000 people have been deported since January. Most of those deported are forcibly separated from their families and communities.

    Deportation and detention, always involving family separation, continue, unabated.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell makes his way to a Senate Republican Policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on May 18, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Come, friends, let us step inside the moldy brain bucket of Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. Here in the gloom is a table, and upon that table a single sheet of paper carrying three short words: GIVE BIDEN NOTHING.

    Nothing shocking, really — merely the 2.0 upgrade of the plan McConnell established after President Barack Obama was sworn into office twelve years ago. This age of unreason was not born then, but it fed well on the years of lies and distortions necessarily conjured to obstruct and derail all progress for anyone not included in the GOP’s priorities. Our modern crop of “theories” about stolen elections, phantom Capitol riots and satanic pedophilic Democrats and their Hollywood allies in the pizza shops was well fertilized by McConnell’s fueling of anti-Obama rumors and conspiracies on the right.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing new here. The press kept waiting for Donald Trump to “grow” into the job of president, failing time and again to realize this was it: He did it like this yesterday, he did it again today, and he will do it again tomorrow. McConnell is a parallel phenomenon.

    The minority leader, as majority leader, was institutionally devoted to elevating the fringe and violent right if it disrupted Democratic governance. He helped turn the mayhem of the Tea Party into a congressional caucus that could throw weight, assisted in several government shutdowns and other acts of disastrous political disruption, and made the use of the filibuster a permanent daily event.

    It didn’t take four years to realize Trump wasn’t going to change. What in the last 13 years, has McConnell done to disabuse anyone of the notion that he is precisely the same wrecker he was in 2008, and even well before? Answer: Nothing. Yet here sit the Democrats, “negotiating” with a man who sees negotiation only as an opportunity to run down the clock … and to fundraise on how he and his people are standing against socialism, or whatever the slogan happens to be this week.

    McConnell will never allow his Senate caucus to support a major Biden initiative. If the Democrats returned to the table with an offer to cut the spending on that bill down to 19 cents and an eraserless pencil, McConnell would take to the floor and announce he was studying the proposal. Days would go by as he laughed into his sleeve, until he’d finally the whole thing back at the Democrats because the 19 cents weren’t budget-neutral and the pencil was made in China.

    The cost doesn’t matter. McConnell will not permit Biden any further victories after the American Rescue Plan if he can possibly help it, and so long as the filibuster exists, he has a powerful tool to thwart it.

    Bundled up in all this, as ever, is Trump. McConnell wants his majority seat back, and he wants a compliant GOP majority in the House. He cannot have these things without Trump, or more specifically, if he gets crossways with Trump and becomes the newest target for the 45th president’s sustained wrath. After January 6, McConnell was about as harsh as he could manage regarding Trump’s complicity, and was called “a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack” for his trouble, before being warned by Trump that “they will not win again” without him.

    McConnell heard that loud and clear, and while the Cold War between the minority leader and the 45th president continues, it has not gotten worse. If McConnell starts cutting deals with Biden and the Democrats, Trump will come down the mountain to make war on “Republicans In Name Only,” and a great many people will follow him. It will be Gettysburg and Krakatoa at once, but louder, for the GOP.

    Signs that the Biden administration realizes McConnell is merely playing out the string have begun to emerge. “We’re too far apart. Because I think Mitch’s ultimate purpose is not compromise but delay and mischief,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse this week. The Democratic senator from Rhode Island went on to say that the president is “entitled to his judgment on this. but if I were in a room with him, I’d say it’s time to move on.”

    “White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the next move is up to Republicans and the White House is ‘not quite there’ at bailing on the talks,” reports Politico. “The main holdups are moderate Democrats, who are signaling they still aren’t quite ready to go it alone on a massive new spending bill, ensuring the plodding talks continue for at least a few more days.”

    A few days. OK, then, that should leave Biden and the Democrats plenty of time to brush up on Rule 304, which I described in detail back in early April:

    President Biden and Schumer got the first one across the goal line — the American Rescue Plan — and going forward, so long as they affect the budget somehow and stay within parliamentary lines, vast new pieces of legislation can be passed simply by labeling them as “amendments” to the bill that’s already done.

    Take Biden’s pending massive multitrillion-dollar proposal for infrastructure reform and repair, called Build Back Better (BBB). Before the advent of Rule 304, and after the passage of the American Rescue Plan, getting infrastructure through this Senate was going to be like rolling blood up a sandy hill in the rain pretty much forever.

    Beyond the fact that 10 Republicans would leap from the Capitol dome before voting to give Biden a legislative win, “centrist” Democrats like Joe Manchin would be ever circling, like sharks looking to take bites out of the prize. With 304? All they have to worry about is Manchin and his cohort, and they are manageable.

    I love theater as much as anyone else, and these infrastructure “negotiations” have been fine grist for the press mill. The clock is running, however, and President Biden’s dance card is filling rapidly with issues far more dire and pressing than how grateful everyone is that he isn’t Trump. So long as the minority leader is allowed to keep “negotiating,” the American people and the country will keep losing.

    Senate Ds are now unlikely to try using the FY 2021 budget resolution to put together another reconciliation package, according to three sources close to the issue,” the Punchbowl political blog reported on Tuesday morning. According to InfoWire, “Democratic leaders privately say they don’t believe they can finish work by the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30.”

    That is not “a few more days,” and would represent yet another calamitous retreat on the part of Democrats. The Senate parliamentarian has approved the use of Rule 304 on as many as six additional pieces of legislation, all of which can be amendments to the ARP. Not one single Republican vote would be required, and if even some of Biden’s major agenda pieces are realized, the tea leaves for 2022 would be blowin’ in the wind. It’s time to step on the gas.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A F-35 fighter jet is seen as Turkey takes delivery of its first F-35 fighter jet with a ceremony at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics headquarters in Forth Worth, Texas, on June 21, 2018.

    When it comes to trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of America.

    In April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China.

    Sadly, this was no surprise to arms-trade analysts. The U.S. has held that top spot for 28 of the past 30 years, posting massive sales numbers regardless of which party held power in the White House or Congress. This is, of course, the definition of good news for weapons contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, even if it’s bad news for so many of the rest of us, especially those who suffer from the use of those arms by militaries in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates. The recent bombing and leveling of Gaza by the U.S.-financed and supplied Israeli military is just the latest example of the devastating toll exacted by American weapons transfers in these years.

    While it is well known that the United States provides substantial aid to Israel, the degree to which the Israeli military relies on U.S. planes, bombs, and missiles is not fully appreciated. According to statistics compiled by the Center for International Policy’s Security Assistance Monitor, the United States has provided Israel with $63 billion in security assistance over the past two decades, more than 90% of it through the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing, which provides funds to buy U.S. weaponry. But Washington’s support for the Israeli state goes back much further. Total U.S. military and economic aid to Israel exceeds $236 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars) since its founding — nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

    King of the Arms Dealers

    Donald Trump, sometimes referred to by President Joe Biden as “the other guy,” warmly embraced the role of arms-dealer-in-chief and not just by sustaining massive U.S. arms aid for Israel, but throughout the Middle East and beyond. In a May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia — his first foreign trip — Trump would tout a mammoth (if, as it turned out, highly exaggerated) $110-billion arms deal with that kingdom.

    On one level, the Saudi deal was a publicity stunt meant to show that President Trump could, in his own words, negotiate agreements that would benefit the U.S. economy. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a pal of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), the architect of Saudi Arabia’s devastating intervention in Yemen, even put in a call to then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. His desire: to get a better deal for the Saudi regime on a multibillion-dollar missile defense system that Lockheed was planning to sell it. The point of the call was to put together the biggest arms package imaginable in advance of his father-in-law’s trip to Riyadh.

    When Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia to immense local fanfare, he milked the deal for all it was worth. Calling the future Saudi sales “tremendous,” he assured the world that they would create “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the United States.

    That arms package, however, did far more than burnish Trump’s reputation as a deal maker and jobs creator. It represented an endorsement of the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal war in Yemen, which has now resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people and put millions of others on the brink of famine.

    And don’t for a second think that Trump was alone in enabling that intervention. The kingdom had received a record $115 billion in arms offers — notifications to Congress that don’t always result in final sales — over the eight years of the Obama administration, including for combat aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, and attack helicopters, many of which have since been used in Yemen. After repeated Saudi air strikes on civilian targets, the Obama foreign-policy team finally decided to slow Washington’s support for that war effort, moving in December 2016 to stop a multibillion-dollar bomb sale. Upon taking office, however, Trump reversed course and pushed that deal forward, despite Saudi actions that Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “look like war crimes to me.”

    Trump made it abundantly clear, in fact, that his reasons for arming Saudi Arabia were anything but strategic. In an infamous March 2018 White House meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, he even brandished a map of the United States to show which places were likely to benefit most from those Saudi arms deals, including election swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. He doubled down on that economic argument after the October 2018 murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at that country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, even as calls to cut off sales to the regime mounted in Congress. The president made it clear then that jobs and profits, not human rights, were paramount to him, stating:

    “$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries — and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!”

    And so it went. In the summer of 2019 Trump vetoed an effort by Congress to block an $8.1-billion arms package that included bombs and support for the Royal Saudi Air Force and he continued to back the kingdom even in his final weeks in office. In December 2020, he offered more than $500 million worth of bombs to that regime on the heels of a $23-billion package to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), its partner-in-crime in the Yemen war.

    Saudi Arabia and the UAE weren’t the only beneficiaries of Trump’s penchant for selling weapons. According to a report by the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, his administration made arms sales offers of more than $110 billion to customers all over the world in 2020, a 75% increase over the yearly averages reached during the Obama administration, as well as in the first three years of his tenure.

    Will Biden Be Different?

    Advocates of reining in U.S. weapons trafficking took note of Joe Biden’s campaign-trail pledge that, if elected, he would not “check our values at the door” in deciding whether to continue arming the Saudi regime. Hopes were further raised when, in his first foreign policy speech as president, he announced that his administration would end “support for offensive operations in Yemen” along with “relevant arms sales.”

    That statement, of course, left a potentially giant loophole on the question of which weapons would be considered in support of “offensive operations,” but it did at least appear to mark a sharp departure from the Trump era. In the wake of Biden’s statement, arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE were indeed put on hold, pending a review of their potential consequences.

    Three months into Biden’s term, however, the president’s early pledge to rein in damaging arms deals are already eroding. The first blow was the news that the administration would indeed move forward with a $23-billion arms package to the UAE, including F-35 combat aircraft, armed drones, and a staggering $10 billion worth of bombs and missiles. The decision was ill-advised on several fronts, most notably because of that country’s role in Yemen’s brutal civil war. There, despite scaling back its troops on the ground, it continues to arm, train, and finance 90,000 militia members, including extremist groups with links to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The UAE has also backed armed opposition forces in Libya in violation of a United Nations embargo, launched drone strikes there that killed scores of civilians, and cracked down on dissidents at home and abroad. It regularly makes arbitrary arrests and uses torture. If arming the UAE isn’t a case of “checking our values at the door,” it’s not clear what is.

    To its credit, the Biden administration committed to suspending two Trump bomb deals with Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, it’s not clear what (if any) other pending Saudi sales will be deemed “offensive” and blocked. Certainly, the new administration has allowed U.S. government personnel and contractors to help maintain the effectiveness of the Saudi Air Force and so has continued to enable ongoing air strikes in Yemen that are notorious for killing civilians. The Biden team has also failed to forcefully pressure the Saudis to end their blockade of that country, which United Nations agencies have determined could put 400,000 Yemeni children at risk of death by starvation in the next year.

    In addition, the Biden administration has cleared a sale of anti-ship missiles to the Egyptian regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the most repressive government in that nation’s history, helmed by the man Donald Trump referred to as “my favorite dictator.” The missiles themselves are in no way useful for either internal repression or that country’s scorched-earth anti-terror campaign against rebels in its part of the Sinai peninsula — where civilians have been tortured and killed, and tens of thousands displaced from their homes — but the sale does represent a tacit endorsement of the regime’s repressive activities.

    Guns, Anyone?

    While Biden’s early actions have undermined promises to take a different approach to arms sales, the story isn’t over. Key members of Congress are planning to closely monitor the UAE sale and perhaps intervene to prevent the delivery of the weapons. Questions have been raised about what arms should go to Saudi Arabia and reforms that would strengthen Congress’s role in blocking objectionable arms transfers are being pressed by at least some members of the House and the Senate.

    One area where President Biden could readily begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to reduce the harm to civilians from U.S. arms sales would be firearms exports. The Trump administration significantly loosened restrictions and regulations on the export of a wide range of guns, including semi-automatic firearms and sniper rifles. As a result, such exports surged in 2020, with record sales of more than 175,000 military rifles and shotguns.

    In a distinctly deregulatory mood, Trump’s team moved sales of deadly firearms from the jurisdiction of the State Department, which had a mandate to vet any such deals for possible human-rights abuses, to the Commerce Department, whose main mission was simply to promote the export of just about anything. Trump’s “reforms” also eliminated the need to pre-notify Congress on any major firearms sales, making it far harder to stop deals with repressive regimes.

    As he pledged to do during his presidential campaign, President Biden could reverse Trump’s approach without even seeking Congressional approval. The time to do so is now, given the damage such gun exports cause in places like the Philippines and Mexico, where U.S.-supplied firearms have been used to kill thousands of civilians, while repressing democratic movements and human-rights defenders.

    Who Benefits?

    Beyond the slightest doubt, a major — or perhaps even the major — obstacle to reforming arms sales policies and practices is the weapons industry itself. That includes major contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics that produce fighter planes, bombs, armored vehicles, and other major weapons systems, as well as firearms makers like Sig Sauer.

    Raytheon stands out in this crowd because of its determined efforts to push through bomb sales to Saudi Arabia and the deep involvement of its former (or future) employees with the U.S. government. A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked in the Trump State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and was involved in deciding that Saudi Arabia was not — it was! — intentionally bombing civilians in Yemen. He then supported declaring a bogus “emergency” to ram through the sale of bombs and of aircraft support to Saudi Arabia.

    Raytheon has indeed insinuated itself in the halls of government in a fashion that should be deeply troubling even by the minimalist standards of the twenty-first-century military-industrial complex. Former Trump defense secretary Mark Esper was Raytheon’s chief in-house lobbyist before joining the administration, while current Biden defense secretary Lloyd Austin served on Raytheon’s board of directors. While Austin has pledged to recuse himself from decisions involving the company, it’s a pledge that will prove difficult to verify.

    Arms sales are Big Business — the caps are a must! — for the top weapons makers. Lockheed Martin gets roughly one-quarter of its sales from foreign governments and Raytheon five percent of its revenue from Saudi sales. American jobs allegedly tied to weapons exports are always the selling point for such dealings, but in reality, they’ve been greatly exaggerated.

    At most, arms sales account for just more than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment. Many such sales, in fact, involve outsourcing production, in whole or in part, to recipient nations, reducing the jobs impact here significantly. Though it’s seldom noted, virtually any other form of spending creates more jobs than weapons production. In addition, exporting green-technology products would create far larger global markets for U.S. goods, should the government ever decide to support them in anything like the way it supports the arms industry.

    Given what’s at stake for them economically, Raytheon and its cohorts spend vast sums attempting to influence both parties in Congress and any administration. In the past two decades, defense companies, led by the major arms exporting firms, spent $285 million in campaign contributions alone and $2.5 billion on lobbying, according to statistics gathered by the Center for Responsive Politics. Any changes in arms export policy will mean forcefully taking on the arms lobby and generating enough citizen pressure to overcome its considerable influence in Washington.

    Given the political will to do so, there are many steps the Biden administration and Congress could take to rein in runaway arms exports, especially since such deals are uniquely unpopular with the public. A September 2019 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for example, found that 70% of Americans think arms sales make the country less safe.

    The question is: Can such public sentiment be mobilized in favor of actions to stop at least the most egregious cases of U.S. weapons trafficking, even as the global arms trade rolls on? Selling death should be no joy for any country, so halting it is a goal well worth fighting for. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will ever limit weapons sales or if it will simply continue to promote this country as the world’s top arms exporter of all time.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hundreds march while protesting the grand jury decision to not charge the police officers who shot and killed Breonna Taylor, on September 23, 2020, in downtown Los Angeles, California.

    During last year’s uprisings against the ongoing anti-Black violence of police, “defund the police” emerged as the demand and rallying cry. Today, as we mark one year since George Floyd was murdered in the Cup Foods parking lot in Minneapolis by police, abolitionist organizers are still issuing that call, waging fights to defund police and invest in their communities — and experimenting with more holistic ways to keep communities safe.

    In the past year, defund police campaigns have seen material wins, gained traction and grown in numbers. As Interrupting Criminalization’s recent report The Demand is Still Defund breaks down, over $840 million dollars were cut from local police departments and $160 million of community investments were won by defund police organizers across the country in 2020. These wins include: the first cut to the Minneapolis Police Department’s budget in 20 years, a 20 percent reduction in the Seattle Police Department’s budget, a budget cut and hiring freeze for the Salt Lake City Police Department, the passage of a Los Angeles County ballot measure requiring 10 percent of unrestricted county funds to be reinvested into community programs and not police, and many more.

    In Durham, North Carolina, the city’s Community Safety and Wellness Task Force had its first official meeting in April and is planning how to allocate the city’s $1 million commitment toward alternatives to police. This task force was won in 2019 through the organizing of the Durham Beyond Policing coalition (DBP), which initially formed in protest against Durham’s plans to construct a new $71 million police headquarters in 2016. DBP organizer Manju Rajendran, who sits on the new task force, explained: “It would be a failure to use that space to perpetuate the same mistakes where we try to gently bend policing to make it friendlier. We are proposing something that has not been done yet, which is dismantle the policing and prison systems.”

    The sentiment that we have a responsibility to create transformative solutions beyond minor reforms sums up a guiding principle behind abolitionist and defund police organizing. Defund organizers like Rajendran are clear that police killings will not end without taking resources away from the police because power is the heart of the problem. Police have too much power and Black and other marginalized communities have too little.

    Interrupting Criminalization’s report affirms the wins of the movement in the short period of the last year, but warns against taking all police budget cuts at face value. The 50 largest cities in the U.S. cut 2021 police budgets by 5.2 percent in total, but many in the context of across-the-board cuts to city budgets. In other places, money was “cut” but then still ultimately given to police in another way. In Dallas, for example, where protests lasted daily for over 120 days last year through the hot summer, $7 million was cut from the police overtime budget but police were then given a similar amount to what had been cut to buy “non-lethal weapons” — a category that includes pepper spray, batons and tasers, which have actually been used by police to kill and severely injure, like in the police killing of Dominique “Damo” Franklin who was fatally tased by a Chicago police officer in 2014.

    “Defund the police” has always been shorthand for a two-part demand: It is just as much about investing in thriving communities as it is about divesting from policing. Organizers of the local In Defense of Black Lives Dallas coalition surveyed hundreds of Dallas residents last year to create a People’s Budget in favor of cutting Dallas Police Department’s budget by $200 million and reinvesting in community care. Their current demands include funding for a non-police violence prevention office, mental health programs, emergency housing, economic development, recovery for the impacts of the pandemic and the unprecedented winter storm that hit the U.S. South this year, as well as decriminalization of poverty. The summer before George Floyd was murdered, an influx of state troopers was deployed to Dallas to address community violence, resulting in daily police harassment of local residents. On top of this, the winter storm resulted in deaths, displacement, economic hardship, damage to people’s homes and exorbitant debts to exploitative gas companies. In Defense of Black Lives Dallas’s platform is about defunding police in order to offer real solutions that get at the roots of interconnected problems of policing, structural violence and community violence. Mercedes Fulbright of In Defense of Black Lives explains that the coalition wants to “focus more on the affirmative, liberatory vision” in this year’s efforts.

    Regardless of indications of growing public support for reallocating funds from police at least in certain places, many decision-makers, including many self-proclaimed “progressives” have been hostile targets for defund organizing. In Chicago, where there is a robust movement behind demands to defund police, the city’s official 2020 budget survey filled out by tens of thousands of residents showed that 87 percent of Chicagoans favored reallocating police funds toward other programs. Mayor Lori Lightfoot, however, has rooted herself firmly in opposition, not only claiming that she would never defund the police, but actually giving the Chicago Police Department (CPD) hundreds of millions of Chicago’s COVID relief dollars instead of channeling them toward needed programs to support struggling residents. In Atlanta, after the police murder of Rayshard Brooks last June, progressive city council member Antonio Brown proposed reallocating a third of the $218 million police budget toward social services. Hundreds of residents gave public testimony calling for defunding the Atlanta Police Department. The council deliberated for two days, but ultimately struck the proposal down.

    When policy makers oppose defunding the police, one of the most common arguments they use is the idea that we need police in order to address crime, harm and violence. The reality is, however, that the “solutions” we get by funding police are not really solutions at all. For example, many local police departments contract with ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection technology which is advertised as a tool for addressing gun violence. However, not only is ShotSpotter ineffective in doing what it claims to do, it adds to the problem of gun violence. According to the MacArthur Justice Center, “the ShotSpotter system sends police on thousands of unfounded and high-intensity deployments, which are focused almost exclusively in Black and Latinx communities.” Eighty-six percent of the time an armed officer is deployed by ShotSpotter, no crime is reported at all. The least violent outcome of a program like ShotSpotter is that public dollars pay an officer to attend to a false alarm and a private company’s profits. The more violent outcome is that someone gets killed, like 13-year-old Adam Toledo, who was killed by a police officer in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood after ShotSpotter detected shots and officers pursued Toledo with guns drawn.

    Despite some narratives, those of us advocating for abolitionist approaches including defunding police are actually deeply concerned with violence and addressing the root causes of both structural and interpersonal violence with thoughtful, holistic and transformative change. We simply cannot afford to continue resourcing a system that so consistently kills our people.

    Given that many policy makers remain committed to this deadly system, one important piece of the work of visionary movements is pushing those unwilling to meet movement demands out of power. Black organizers in St. Louis recently celebrated creating the conditions in which the incumbent mayor decided not to run for reelection, making way for young, Black progressive Tishaura Jones to win and pass a budget amendment to defund St Louis Metropolitan Police Department by $4 million in her first days in office. Other examples of this work include campaigns like Chicago’s #ByeAnita campaign which helped oust State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez in 2016, and the less successful #StopLightfoot campaign that intervened in the campaign of current Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Other campaigns are creating political consequences for progressive politicians outside of campaign cycles. In Chicago during last year’s budget cycle, when city council members flip-flopped on movement demands of communities that helped get more progressive candidates in their seat, those same communities called them out. In the case of formerly DSA-backed Council Member Andre Vasquez, Chicago’s DSA chapter publicly broke ties with him over his vote in favor of a pro-cop austerity budget.

    While policing does remain the status quo, it is not a stable one. The truth is that part of police power is the stronghold they have on our imaginations. This happens through education, media, and the communications and press teams included in the bloated police budgets we want to cut that run smear campaigns of Black victims of police murder. That said, enormous numbers of people have come into the work of imagining safety beyond policing due to movement efforts of the last year and continue to be welcomed into participatory campaigns. “There’s everyday people looking for homes within coalitions like ours,” says Fulbright of In Defense of Black Lives Dallas, describing how more and more people are looking to join abolitionist groups. Opening one another’s eyes to the possibility of a better world in the face of fear and uncertainty is the important work of visionary movements, and the defund police movement has arguably done this work very well in the last year.

    One year ago this week, many of us watched videos of a Minneapolis police station burn to the ground, wondering what would come of the political moment we were in. While there is still no shortage of unfinished business for the abolition movement, hundreds if not thousands of new and old campaigns, organizations and neighborhood crews have advanced fights to defund police in what has felt like the longest year ever. Looking toward the summer of 2021 and beyond, abolitionists are positioned to be engaged in deep community building, making sharp demands, continuing to protest, manifesting concrete wins, and offering a vision for a society with a different set of priorities that can benefit us all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People protest in solidarity with Palestinian liberation on May 16, 2021, in Chicago.

    As many sectors of our society are celebrating the “ceasefire” between Palestine and Israel, a chorus of Palestinian voices are blasting across social media echoing a shared consciousness that this ceasefire could never be enough. It is not only recent events but what Palestinian historian Sherene Seikaly explains as the century-long struggle to remain on one’s land in the face of persistent ethnic cleansing that inspires this sentiment.

    Since early May, through massive air and ground strikes and ongoing land theft, Israel has killed hundreds of Palestinians, including 63 children. The Israeli state has wounded over 1,500, displaced more than 58,000 Palestinians, and destroyed or badly damaged nearly 450 buildings in the Gaza Strip, including medical centers that serve large segments of the population and provide COVID-19 testing and support. In the midst of this horrific attack, the U.S. blocked three United Nations Security Council resolutions, giving Israel permission to continue besieging the Gaza Strip, while President Biden agreed to continue providing $735 million in weapons to Israel.

    The corporate media continues its egregious complicity in these horrors, either by portraying Israel as the victim or misrepresenting the Palestinian struggle as a conflict in which “two equal sides” have been fighting for centuries. Meanwhile Zionist advocates in a variety of spheres are seeking to censor even the slightest gesture of solidarity with Palestinian liberation.

    Their primary tactic is to equate critiques of Israeli state violence with antisemitism, as if criticizing state violence is a racist act against Jewish people. (Many Jewish anti-Zionists have pointed out that this conflation of Jewish people with Zionists is itself anti-Semitic.) This strategy has taken a heavy toll, first and foremost, on Palestinian people bearing the brunt of Israeli state violence. It also targets the everyday lives of Palestinian and Arab activists in the U.S., many of whose lives have been devastated by such baseless targeting.

    An Instagram post from "Impact for Palestine's" exposes Instagram's censorship of criticism of Israeli state violence in May 2021.
    An Instagram post from “Impact for Palestine’s” exposes Instagram’s censorship of criticism of Israeli state violence in May 2021.

    Zionist institutions and advocates, in conjunction with most U.S. elected officials and the corporate media, set up the terms of a debate that ultimately blames the victim. Beyond the charge of “antisemitism,” Zionist colonialist strategies delegitimize critics of Israel by publicly portraying them as supporters of “terrorism” and reframing Palestinian self-defense through the racist trope of violent Arab/Muslim “savagery.”

    This is why, through political organizing and activism, teaching, writing, public conversation and debate, social media, and anywhere opportunity arises, solidarity with Palestinian decolonization requires mainstreaming the necessity of Palestinian liberation as a social justice, human rights, decolonial and feminist freedom struggle. Committing to solidarity also necessitates refusing to debate on terms set up by the Zionist, pro-Israeli U.S. status quo.

    Instead, we must affirm the full demands of the Palestinian people. These demands include, for instance, engaging in boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel until Palestinian refugees and their descendants achieve the right of return, and until Israel ends its occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands; lifting the siege on Gaza; dismantling the Apartheid Wall; ending the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; releasing all Palestinian political prisoners; and increasing Palestinian access to resources like employment, medical care, food, electricity and water.

    Yet most U.S. public debate strives to corner Palestinians, Arabs and our allies into discussing sensationalist racist topics in order to push the just cause of Palestine out of public view. At events, on social media and through the violent emails we receive, advocates for justice for Palestinians, especially Palestinians themselves, are consistently met with silencing, racist and hateful questions about topics like “Palestinian terrorism” or “Arab antisemitism.” Such attacks often rely upon dishonest questions about why, for example, Palestinians “voluntarily” left Palestine or “rejected” a “peace process” (which, in reality, was meant to normalize colonization). Behind the scenes, pro-Israeli advocates use these framings to target, censor, surveil and threaten anyone and everyone who criticizes Israel, especially Palestinians and especially youth and students, working-class folks, immigrants and refugees, and people lacking job security.

    To be sure, Hamas has fired rockets into Israel. Yet when it comes to Hamas, what we really need to be asking is not a set of intentionally provocative abstract moral questions about whether or not we agree with violent armed resistance (implying the racist idea that “all Palestinians and Arabs support violence”) but what the historical and political conditions are that have produced that resistance. We also need to consider what the asymmetry of violence, including the 10 to 1 disparity in casualty figures, reveals about the asymmetry in the balance of powers between Palestinians and Israelis.

    The time is now for the hundreds and thousands of people who have now registered their solidarity by wearing a kuffiya or waving a Palestinian flag on the streets to continue joining Palestinian-led actions, supporting Palestinian social movements and speaking out, in the loudest terms possible, about the necessity of Palestinian liberation — at work, at home, in the news, through writing, in the classroom, at board meetings, among administrators and elected officials, in our unions, on social media, podcasts, chat rooms, and in the intimate spaces of family and home.

    From the 1948 territories to Gaza, the West Bank and to the diaspora, Palestinians are united in protest against Israel’s agenda to displace and dispossess them in order to create a Jewish-majority state in what was, and once again is or will soon be, a Palestinian Arab-majority country. Their resistance offers up a choice between breaking the code of silence and growing the movement to free Palestine, or remaining complicit in the Zionist project of ethnic cleansing.

    A flyer for a rally in Silicon Valley at Facebook Headquarters calls people to protest against Facebook's censorship of criticism of Israel on May 20, 2021.
    A flyer for a rally in Silicon Valley at Facebook Headquarters calls people to protest against Facebook’s censorship of criticism of Israel on May 20, 2021.

    Reframing the Narrative for Palestinian Liberation

    In breaking the silence, we must make our points clear. Here are five facts to emphasize in communicating the realities of Israel’s violence and the urgent goal of Palestinian liberation.

    First and foremost, Israel is a settler-colonial state committed to displacing Indigenous Palestinian people from their land and replacing them with primarily European Israeli Jewish settlers. Consider the planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that underlined the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Early Zionists, using the term “transfer,” affirmed loud and clear that their plan was to settle on the land along with large-scale transfer and removal of the Indigenous Palestinian Arabs. On May 14, 1948, when the state of Israel was declared, more than 200 Palestinian villages had already been destroyed and emptied. The massacres, like that of Deir Yassin, accompanied by rape and imprisonment, will never be forgotten. Ultimately, over 500 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed.

    With the creation of the Israeli state or what Palestinians and Arabs call Al-Nakba (“the Catastrophe”), came the displacement of 500,000 Palestinians from their homes. Seventy-three years later, after massive Israeli expansion, the current number of Palestinian refugees exceeds 7 million. The current struggle of Sheikh Jarrah is not what U.S. and Israeli corporate media are calling a “real estate dispute” but a continuation of Israeli colonization that includes eliminating Indigenous Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem and replacing them with Jews.

    As we recognize Israel’s settler-colonial violence against Palestinians in Jerusalem and Gaza, we must also consider the West Bank — land international bodies determined to be controlled by Palestinians. In reality, Israel controls 60 percent of the West Bank and has divided the land up into what closely resembles Swiss cheese. Throughout the West Bank, there are more than 700 road obstacles and 140 Israeli checkpoints. Israeli settlers who have taken over Palestinian land in the West Bank total more than 450,000 (and 220,200 in East Jerusalem). An apartheid wall, which has transformed Palestinian neighborhoods into bantu stands, stretches throughout more than 700 kilometers, not to mention the 700 Israeli military road obstacles across the West Bank.

    This is not a “conflict between two equal sides”; it is an asymmetrical relationship between colonizer/colonized and occupier/occupied.

    Second, there is not one, but three groups of Palestinians. The U.S. and Israel would like us to believe that there is only one group of Palestinians, those living in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. That’s because, in addition to efforts to cleanse the West Bank and erase Gaza out of existence, Israeli settler colonialism also attempts to erase the second group of Palestinians, those who remain inside Israel, by naming them “Arab Israelis.” They also want to erase the struggle of the third group, the 7 million Palestinian refugees who represent the struggle to return home. Ironically, Zionists often refer to the right of Palestinians to return as an attempt to “destroy Israel,” even though anyone who is Jewish has the birthright to settle in Israel. To be sure, the return of Palestinian refugees would alter the nature of the Israeli state, which is colonialist, racist and exclusionary.

    Third, similar to the way U.S. white supremacy operates, Israel is an exclusionary racist state created for white European Jews. Its “ Jewish-only” nature, rooted in white supremacy, legitimizes Israel’s racist treatment of Jews of color, its treatment of non-Jews as second-class citizens within Israel, and its targeting of Palestinians as people to be eliminated. We must firmly put forth a counternarrative that refuses the “white man’s burden” that many elected Israeli and U.S. officials have been repeating for decades — a narrative that pretends Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East, a “safe haven” in a region full of “savages.”

    Fourth, the struggle to free Palestine is a struggle against U.S. imperialism. The U.S. unconditionally supports Israeli colonization with $3.8 billion per year. While many U.S.-based activists tend to treat Palestine as an island, ignoring Israel’s historical occupation of South Lebanon, Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, the struggle over Palestine has long been part of an Arab, Iranian and North African regional struggle against European and U.S. empire, specifically, the misogynist, expansionist, hypermilitarized, U.S. settler-colonial war machine currently waging a regional “war on terror” that finds its perfect ally in Israel.

    Fifth, U.S.-based pro-Israeli advocacy organizations are a key pillar maintaining Israeli settler-colonialism. They pay billions of dollars to repress criticism of Israel. These groups, in partnership with university officials and government officials, falsely accuse supporters of Palestinian liberation of “antisemitism” and “support of terrorism.” They intervene in democratic processes, hiring, tenure cases, K-12 curriculum, the corporate media, social media censorship, immigration cases, and more, devastating the lives of primarily Palestinian advocates (as well as other Arabs and their allies) in the U.S. In the case of the University of Illinois’ firing of tenured Professor Steven Salaita for tweeting his outrage over the 2014 Israeli massacre of Gaza, Chancellor Wise and her fellow administrators were responding to donor pressure.

    In this moment of ongoing repression, we need to continue to grow our revolt against the censorship that obfuscates the asymmetry in the balance of powers between Palestinians and Israelis. In their report, the “Palestinian Exception to Free Speech,” Palestine Legal recalls that:

    The Jewish Agency for Israel declared in 2013 that it was developing a plan that would eventually commit $300 million to this effort and “would combine donor dollars from the United States with Israeli government funds to create what is likely the most expensive pro-Israel campaign ever.” In June 2015, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and media proprietor Haim Saban convened a summit that reportedly raised “at least $20 million” to combat BDS efforts.

    While this is what we are up against, we have learned from history that there is no power greater than the power of the people. Today, the people are rising up, united across historic Palestine, backed by stewards of solidarity across the globe. Perhaps it is the escalation in the tactics and methods of Israeli ethnic cleansing coupled with the brilliant organizing of Palestinian youth, feminists and working-class organizers in coalition with U.S.-based Indigenous struggles, the movement for Black lives, anti-imperialist Filipino organizing, and beyond that has escalated the shattering of the silence on Palestine.

    As the voices of solidarity grow, the just cause of Palestinian liberation is taking the lead in the battle over narratives. Thanks to the power of Palestinian people’s unified resistance that rippled across the globe in May 2021, there is no neutral position here: Either you are with justice and liberation for Palestine or you are against it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A masked woman holds both her grandbaby and a sign demanding higher wages during a protest

    On May 20, 2021, about 50 service worker leaders at One Fair Wage, an organization I lead that brings together service workers to demand a living wage, gathered to take an official vote on whether to go on a “wage strike.” Some workers had already left the restaurant industry and were considering not returning, and some had stayed, doing the work of two or even three workers in understaffed environments. All were united in their determination not to continue to work for anything less than a full, living wage — plus tips.

    “When the pandemic hit, I was furloughed. I tried to get unemployment, but my subminimum wage was too low to qualify,” said Ifeoma Ezimako, an African American server from Washington, D.C. who became a leader with One Fair Wage right after pandemic-related shutdowns began last year. “My real issue is that tips are supposed to be extra. It’s not the customer’s obligation to pay us. So the fact that the employer is not giving the customer that obligation, and the customer knows this, that’s where sexual harassment comes in.”

    Ezimako told fellow service worker organizers of her experiences working at a local bar during the strike vote, saying that drunk customers would make unreasonable demands of her. “I felt obligated to do certain things because I’m like, ‘This is how I’m getting paid,’” she said. “But when I leave work, I have to feel right about myself. So I thank God for the pandemic because it made me stop and think, ‘This isn’t right. This isn’t right at all.’”

    After Ezimako and other service workers spoke out during the strike vote in states across the country, including New Hampshire, Michigan, Illinois, New York, D.C. and California, One Fair Wage voted unanimously to conduct the strike this week, agreeing not to return to work until employers paid them a base living wage, plus tips.

    “It’s not that we’re being lazy. We just want to be paid for the services we actually have. I stand with One Fair Wage because that’s all we want. Ultimately, that’s really what it comes down to. We’re not going back to work until we get one fair wage, or we’re going to find other work to do,” Paris Singeltary, a host and server from Michigan, told members and organizers during the vote.

    But although restaurant owners, elected officials and the media seem to only now be discovering restaurant workers’ unwillingness to work for poverty wages, their demands are nothing new: This week’s strike is the third national work stoppage service workers affiliated with One Fair Wage have called over the last year.

    The pandemic has created both the most devastating crisis ever experienced in the modern U.S. restaurant industry and the greatest opportunity for building worker power. This has come to a head in what many are calling a mass “worker shortage” — what we at One Fair Wage are calling a “wage shortage” and a moment of vastly increased worker leverage.

    Prior to the pandemic, with 13.5 million workers, the restaurant industry was one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy while also being one of its lowest-paying. The industry’s low wages can be attributed almost entirely to the money and power of the National Restaurant Association, which we call “the other NRA,” and which is driven by the nation’s largest corporate restaurant chains: Olive Garden’s parent company Darden, Denny’s, IHOP/Applebee’s, and many more.

    The other NRA was formed over 100 years ago explicitly to fight wage increases for restaurant workers. During emancipation, restaurant owners who eventually formed the other NRA sought to hire Black workers as a way to justify not paying a living wage, transforming the practice of tipping from an added bonus, as it had originally been, to becoming a replacement for wages. This has resulted in tipped workers, disproportionately women and women of color, receiving a federal subminimum wage of $2.13 an hour, and other subminimum wages in 43 states. Even before the pandemic, tipped workers suffered more than double the poverty rate of other workers as well as the highest rates of sexual harassment of any industry.

    With the pandemic, these already dire working conditions became completely unbearable. We at One Fair Wage created a Service Workers Emergency Fund to help support nearly 250,000 workers amid the pandemic. We began organizing this new base, inviting them to participate, speak out in and lead dozens of digital town halls to share their struggles, needs and concerns with elected officials ranging from then-Senator Kamala Harris to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    As summer allowed for greater in-person events, we began staging strikes and actions to call for living wages and working conditions in the restaurant industry. During these town halls and actions, thousands of workers shared their struggles amid the pandemic: Over 6 million restaurant workers reported losing their jobs during the initial shutdowns, and 60 percent reported facing challenges in obtaining unemployment benefits because their subminimum wages were too low to qualify for benefits in most states, according to One Fair Wage’s surveys of workers who participated in the town halls and actions.

    When millions returned to work in summer 2020, 66 percent reported that tips had declined by 50-75 percent while health risks, hostility and sexual harassment had increased. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the University of California San Francisco named restaurants the most dangerous place to work: Workers were now asked to enforce social-distancing and mask-wearing rules on the very same customers from whom they were supposed to obtain most of their wage, resulting in being tipped even less. Half of the women surveyed reported sexual harassment increased during the pandemic, with hundreds of women submitting comments detailing how male customers asked them to remove their masks in order to judge their looks — and their tips — on that basis.

    Amid health risks, declining tips, and increased hostility and harassment, it should come as no surprise that millions of restaurant workers were already leaving the industry before this spring. In May 2021, One Fair Wage released a report based on 3,000 surveys of restaurant workers nationwide on why they were leaving the industry. The report largely confirmed what we already knew: Over half (53 percent) of all workers reported that they are considering leaving their restaurant jobs, with 76 percent saying their considerations are due to low wages and tips, and 78 percent reporting that their top reason to stay or return would be a living base wage. Workers told us that in many cases, with a subminimum wage of less than $5 an hour and declining tips, it costs them more for transportation to get to work than what they earn on the job.

    While we had been hearing these stories from workers over past year, employers, elected officials, and media seemed surprised by the simultaneous unemployment/underemployment and lack of willingness to fill poverty-wage jobs in the restaurant sector. The issue was really exposed when governors started allowing restaurants to reopen at full capacity, and many restaurants found they could not actually do so for lack of staffing. When these restaurants attempted to open for greater capacity anyway, their overworked and underpaid workforces walked out en masse. Restaurant walkouts spread like wildfire, shutting down businesses across the country. One Fair Wage’s recent strike vote orients the leverage that those walkouts have created around particular demands for a living, base wage of at least $15 an hour, and increased worker power and voice on the job.

    One of Ezimako’s colleagues, restaurant worker Tizoc Zarate, spoke eloquently about how the pandemic developed his leadership, telling service organizers during the strike vote that now more than ever is the time to stand up to the restaurant industry’s greed and make the voices of restaurant workers heard. “Far too many people are under the assumption that tips are a reliable source of income. It turns out the majority of people who believe that have never worked in the industry. We are supposed to take our jobs seriously as professional servers and cooks, but whenever we mess up, or take too long to bring their ketchup, customers are so quick to say, ‘How hard can it be?’ and it’s a slap in the face, because at the end of the day, you’re expected to put up with customers who harass us,” he said.

    He told worker organizers that before he got laid off from the last restaurant he worked for, there were days he went home with only $30 after a seven-hour shift. There was no hourly wage, little to no COVID protections and only two servers working. After being laid off, he says he didn’t receive his check for two months. “The pandemic has demonstrated how critical our role is in society. Corporations are begging their workers to return to work, [and] politicians are starting to listen, but most importantly, we are coming together to protest and speak out against this injustice. So, let’s keep on fighting because I believe we can and will win the fight for fair wages,” he told worker organizers.

    While some seem to be willfully ignoring these workers’ voices, others are finally hearing them. While Republicans and eight Democratic senators are hearing only the other NRA’s ever-constant claim that they can’t possibly raise wages and stay open, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Bobby Scott have responded by pushing the Raise the Wage Act. Backed by President Joe Biden, House Democrats and 42 Senate Democrats, the bill would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years and phase out the subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth, providing restaurant workers with the base living wage they’re demanding.

    While the debate has raged all year, the new realization that workers will simply not return to work without one fair wage has changed the tenor of the debate, creating new urgency that this week’s wage strikes reinforce. Elected officials are realizing they have to raise wages or face a stalled recovery. Independent restaurants are beginning to raise their wages on their own, even joining with workers to call for policy change to even the playing field. Likewise, consumers are realizing they can’t enjoy their Sunday brunches the way they used to unless wages rise.

    As with other historical moments of seismic economic disruptions, this crisis must be resolved through higher wages and greater worker power, or we will all suffer.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A syringe prop seen displayed at the protest on March 11, 2021, outside Pfizer Worldwide Headquarters in Manhattan.

    The Biden administration’s decision to support waiving World Trade Organization (WTO) intellectual property rules to help fight COVID-19 has the potential to help shift the global power balance toward governments and their people and away from mega-corporations.

    At Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, an organization founded to dismantle corporate overreach of our “trade” and globalization policies, we celebrate the Biden-Harris administration’s departure from decades of U.S. trade officials relentlessly attacking other countries’ access-to-affordable-medicines initiatives on behalf of Big Pharma.

    While this announcement was historic, there is more work to do to ensure that Big Pharma doesn’t weaken or delay the waiver.

    The road leading to the Biden administration’s decision was paved by dozens of health, faith, labor and consumer advocacy organizations, over 100 members of the U.S. Congress and millions of people around the world who took action. Here’s the story of how that happened.

    The U.S Campaign for an Emergency COVID-19 WTO TRIPS Waiver

    The WTO requires its 159 member nations to provide pharmaceutical firms certain monopoly rights in a text called the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property or “TRIPS.” These monopoly protections mean that pharmaceutical corporations control how much and where vaccines, tests and treatments are made.

    Last Autumn, it became clear that most people in low- and middle-income countries would not get vaccinated until at least 2022, and those in the world’s poorest countries might have to wait until 2024 for mass immunization, if it happens at all. Current production capacity would not supply nearly enough vaccines, treatments or diagnostic tests to meet global needs. Those concerns proved true: By early May, global vaccine production had not reached 1.5 billion doses, while 10-15 billion doses are needed. Creating greater supply capacity is critical.

    Recognizing the unprecedented urgency of the fight against COVID-19, in October 2020 India and South Africa proposed a temporary waiver of TRIPS rules to increase global production of COVID-related health technologies. The Trump administration, doing Big Pharma’s bidding, promptly organized a handful of mostly wealthy countries to block even negotiations of the waiver.

    Organizations representing the interests of the Global South, such as Third World Network and South Centre, global advocacy groups like Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam, and Public Citizen launched an international campaign supporting the waiver. But here in the U.S. and around the world, many thought reversing the U.S. blockage of negotiations was a long shot.

    When Joe Biden took office in January 2021, a small group of organizations started strategizing about how to encourage the new administration to reverse the Trump position, which also was increasingly the focus of some Democratic members of Congress.

    Public Citizen began by coordinating thousands of letters from our members to Congress and hosting a series of meetings with other U.S. groups that also hoped to make the waiver a reality. Public Citizen, Oxfam, Partners in Health, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Doctors Without Borders, Health GAP, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the nurses and teachers unions, Avaaz, Right2Health, Be a Hero, and a host of other groups started to coordinate with the goal of reversing the U.S. position. (This truly was a feat achieved by hundreds of organizations. Any omissions are due to word limits and not the limited value of the work of our incredible allies!)

    Regardless of the odds stacked against us, this ad hoc coalition sought to build the political pressure needed to take on the Big Pharma lobby and help create a path for the Biden-Harris administration to take action.

    To educate and activate organizations who might be interested, we wrote and circulated a U.S. sign-on letter, which after hundreds of emails and calls, was signed by 400 U.S. organizations from Democratic Party base groups like Indivisible and MoveOn to dozens of national unions, consumer, faith, health, human rights, development and other civil society groups. The broad support for the letter inspired new constituencies to join the coalition to fight toward our increasingly realistic goal.

    The next step was to prove strong political support for the waiver within Congress. Working with public health champions, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), as well as allies in the Senate, the coalition helped to educate members of Congress in Washington and in their districts to build support for a letter to President Biden.

    Our campaign continued to pick up steam, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) sent a letter to Biden signed by 10 senators, and campaigners staged protests outside of Big Pharma shareholder meetings and at the homes and offices of brazenly anti-waiver, pro-Pharma members of Congress. After the story had been featured in the print press and on Democracy Now! and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, the mainstream media finally began covering the waiver.

    In the same week, Data for Progress released a poll showing that 60% of U.S. voters support the waiver. Be a Hero, working with More Perfect Union, produced a powerful video featuring health activist Ady Barkan reminding the president of his campaign promise to remove intellectual property barriers that block access to COVID-19 vaccines.

    And finally, after months of hundreds of individuals hosting thousands of meetings, phone calls and direct email exchanges with members of Congress, the majority of House Democrats had signed onto the Schakowsky-Blumenauer-DeLauro letter calling on Biden to support the waiver and enter text-based negotiations at the WTO.

    All of this campaigning was gaining momentum leading up to the critical decision point, a May 5 meeting of the WTO. That afternoon, U.S Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai shocked the world with her announcement that the U.S. would not only reverse its blockage, but would engage in negotiations in support of a waiver. Some countries that had joined the U.S. in blocking negotiations reversed quickly. Others are reconsidering their positions. Some doubled down on the pro-pharma position. For instance, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel came out harshly opposed to the waiver, which has made the European Union an obstacle to progress.

    The Fight Is Not Over

    Public Citizen, in coalition with national and international partners, will continue to organize until a waiver is enacted and we secure the funding to ensure more vaccines, treatments and tests are manufactured and people worldwide have equitable access. This will be a hard fight.

    At least 100 Big Pharma lobbyists have been swarming Washington to fight the U.S. position change. Their goal now is to ensure the waiver either never is agreed upon or is gutted of all substance.

    That’s why it is critical that U.S. activists keep pushing back against the Pharma lobby. And our partners in other countries must help the administration deliver on its promise to persuade the remaining countries still on the wrong side of the issue to stop blocking negotiations. Once talks begin, we need the fastest possible agreement on a waiver text that eliminates all intellectual property barriers on all of the health technologies needed to stop the spread of COVID-19, including diagnostic tests, treatments, vaccines and the equipment to make them.

    The announcement from USTR notably only mentioned support for waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines. A comprehensive waiver that removes intellectual property obstacles to the needed production of much greater volumes of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tests is essential to U.S. residents being safe from COVID-19 and our economy reviving, as well as the health and economic recovery of the world.

    Global vaccine apartheid could cost millions of lives, push tens of millions more into poverty and spawn mutated virus variants that evade vaccines. There can be no end to the public health disaster or economic crises anywhere if people in developing nations are not vaccinated. There is more the U.S. can and should do, in addition to the waiver, to help the world produce billions more vaccine doses.

    The announcement from the United States is something to celebrate, but our work does not stop here.

    Note: Mariana Lopez contributed to this op-ed. Please visit Rethink Trade’s website to get involved in the campaign and follow updates from Global Trade Watch on Twitter.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A Palestinian child stands amid the rubble of buildings, destroyed by Israeli strikes, in Beit Hanun in the northern Gaza Strip on May 21, 2021.

    So just what is the Biden administration’s policy towards Israel?

    Why did Biden take so long to respond to the violence as it spiraled out of control in Jerusalem and Gaza? Why do Biden’s repeated “Israel has the right of self-defense” litanies so closely match the positions of his predecessor, despite the wide disparity between Biden and Trump policies on so many other issues?

    Throughout his campaign and the first months in office, President Biden made his main priorities clear: the pandemic and the economic crisis it created. People across the United States are suffering, and Biden’s first tier of importance has been to deal with those intersecting crises.

    That makes a lot of sense — but there are consequences. Foreign policy, for one, gets virtually no priority. And transforming U.S. policy towards Israel-Palestine? Not on the agenda at all. Biden has yet to even appoint an ambassador to Israel, and waited nearly a week into the current crisis to send a special envoy.

    There have been no meaningful policy shifts so far — only some effort to supplant Trump’s hardline language. Even then, Biden’s team only slowly, even reluctantly, began to respond to the violent escalation of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians across occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, inside pre-1967 Israel, and especially in its air war against the Gaza Strip.

    The administration seemed to want to hold on to their operative position that “it’ll just have to wait.” Until suddenly it couldn’t wait, because the escalation of violence veered out of control.

    The longstanding reality of Palestinians facing violence and eviction, living under occupation and blockade, denied the right to move, and being killed by Israeli settlers, police, and military forces — that’s all considered normal in official Washington. But when Israelis were suddenly threatened with the primitive rockets from Gaza, that turned it into a crisis.

    During a briefing in the first days of the crisis, journalists pushed back against White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s familiar statement that Israel has “the right to self-defense.” They asked whether Palestinians also have the same right. But while she had said in other circumstances that “Palestinians and Israelis deserve equal measures of freedom, security, dignity and prosperity,” she had to twist herself into a verbal pretzel to avoid saying the words she had clearly been ordered not to say — that Palestinians also have the right of self-defense.

    But amid rising opposition to this uncritical support for Israel from within Biden’s own party, this usual line hasn’t been sustainable. Biden himself has dealt with the tension by largely avoiding most public comment on the issue. But now, others in his administration are using language that not so subtly criticizes Israeli actions alongside Hamas’s.

    When Biden’s UN ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield pushed “all parties to protect medical and other humanitarian facilities, as well as journalists and media organizations,” she was talking to Israel, not Hamas. The U.S. is “particularly concerned about protecting UN facilities as civilians seek shelter in about two dozen of them,” she added. Israeli airstrikes have destroyed medical, media, and UN facilities alike.

    Similarly, when Greenfield urged all parties to avoid “evictions — including in East Jerusalem — demolitions and settlement construction east of the 1967 lines,” she was talking about Israel’s threatened evictions of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah to turn their homes over to Jewish settlers.

    Greenfield has also called for an end to the home demolitions and settlement expansions that have been going on in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank for more than 50 years. That’s all on Israel — Palestinians are not dispossessing Jewish families of their homes.

    So the language is changing. But the fundamental challenge is when and how will the policy change?

    Despite hints and claims to the contrary, the Biden administration does have a policy in place on Israel-Palestine. Biden’s gone back to assert support for the widely discredited “two-state solution” that Trump discarded. But the rest of his policy so far preserves Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the sole and undivided capital of Israel. It includes keeping the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, in violation of international law and UN resolutions.

    And it maintains the false claim that settlements are not illegal, paving the way for Israeli annexation of huge swaths of West Bank territory. Nor has the Biden administration issued a word of criticism regarding Israel’s 2018 “Nation-State Law” that states that only Jews, no other citizens of Israel, have the right of self-determination in Israel.

    Those policies sound pretty extreme — and they are. They violate international law, they defy longstanding U.S. diplomatic practice (which was already overwhelmingly pro-Israel), and they guarantee permanent oppression of Palestinians.

    Do Joe Biden and his top policy advisers actually believe in all that? Probably not. But those are the components of the policy that Biden inherited from Trump. And however extreme they may be, until Biden changes the actual policy, not just the rhetoric, they remain U.S. policy.

    Beyond helping to end the devastation underway in Gaza, Biden could, in a minute, transform U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians to one that actually reflects the human rights he claims are central to his foreign policy.

    He could announce the U.S. embassy is leaving Jerusalem to return to Tel Aviv. He could acknowledge the clear reality that settlements are illegal, and that annexation is an unacceptable act of further colonial expropriation. And Biden could state unequivocally that regardless of how many states there are, U.S. policy towards Israel and towards the Palestinians from now on will be based on human rights and equality for all — for everyone, from the river to the sea.

    If he looks carefully at U.S. opposition to Israel’s apartheid policies — now rising among young people, Democrats, African-Americans, Jews, and so many others across the country, as well as in the media and even in Congress — he’ll realize changing his own policy is just not that hard.

    Equality for all — turns out it’s pretty popular in this country too.

This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Three workers watch Joe Biden from behind a closed door

    Black workers have been hit hardest by the pandemic. We are more likely to lose income because of Covid-related layoffs and shutdowns, and by last August — five months into the pandemic — Black unemployment was nearly double that of white unemployment.

    But the impact is not just economic. We are three times more likely to be exposed to Covid-19 on the job and twice as likely to die from the virus. To recover from the devastating effects that Covid-19 has had on all communities, we must center the concerns and needs of Black workers in the economic recovery to come. It’s a moral imperative, but it also makes good fiscal and political sense, too.

    We already know what policies work: when we need to get help to American families, we rely on cash assistance, focus on eliminating barriers to employment and advancement, and build in legal protections against discrimination. It’s time to put them to work in this economic recovery.

    The National Black Worker Center has published a new report, outlining how federal, state, and local governments can finally place Black workers at the center of an economic recovery that works for everyone. Our recommendations include:

    1. Invest in immediate relief and job creation in the Black community.
    2. Protect workers and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.
    3. Promote equal pay.
    4. Establish and strengthen offices that protect workers.

    The nation’s job growth is sluggish not because workers are counting on government checks, but because our political leaders have yet to address the root causes of work shortages during this pandemic, including a childcare crisis and workplaces that are especially unsafe for Black workers and other workers of color. Until Congress and state leaders take these challenges on, we will continue to need direct payments, which, for many working families, can be the difference between having essentials or being forced to decide between food, utilities, or transportation.

    If we as a country are serious about criminal justice reform, we must also reckon with a specifically vulnerable population of Black workers: those who are or were previously incarcerated. Even before the pandemic, returning to a community after incarceration was challenging because of policies that block people with arrest or conviction records from securing housing, employment, and government assistance. Securing these necessities became even more difficult last year amid uncoordinated releases from jails and prison to ease over-crowding, resulting in even less time for formerly incarcerated people to make Covid-safe living arrangements or enroll for the public benefits they qualify for.

    Even Black workers who do not have these lived experiences are vulnerable to workplace discrimination in the best circumstances and became even more vulnerable during COVID. Earlier this year, One Fair Wage released a groundbreaking report on the subminimum tipped wage that revealed how the pandemic was making untenable work conditions even worse for Black service workers.

    According to their report, Black workers were more likely to be retaliated against with lower tips due to enforcing Covid safety measures; 76 percent of Black workers report that their tips have decreased due to enforcing Covid-19 safety measures, whereas 62 percent of workers report this on average.

    To help combat this treatment, we need Congress to not only revisit and finally pass legislation for a $15/hour minimum wage, but to adequately fund the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate instances of harassment and empower businesses to protect their workers.

    These policies are just the beginning. To meet this moment of urgency, we need policymakers at every level of government to act, but especially federal government to bring their resources to bear on fighting another lost decade for Black workers.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An elderly volunteer holds two signs encouraging people to vote

    Over the past couple months, GOP legislators in several states have passed legislation purportedly intended to protect the integrity of the vote. In reality, these bills — which GOP governors in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Iowa, and elsewhere, have rushed to sign — contain poison pill provisions that make it harder for residents to vote. Less publicized is that they also contain a number provisions that make poll workers and other election officials legally liable for small, unintentional errors of process that could occur at the polls or in the distribution of ballots.

    The laws are aimed at making the voting process more cumbersome, and at making the election process more manipulable for partisan advantage.

    In Iowa, for example, a new law mandates that polls close at 8pm instead of 9pm, thus reducing the time that many people have to vote after work. There’s no good reason for that; it’s simply intended to make it harder to vote. The law also reduces the number of days for early voting, limits the number of drop-boxes for ballots to one per county, and mandates that counties only send absentee ballots out to voters who explicitly request them. As a part of this package, legislators made it a felony offense for county auditors — the people in charge of the county elections machinery — to violate any of these provisions, even accidentally.

    In Georgia, where legislators attracted national attention after making it a crime to provide water to people waiting in line to vote, new laws allow the partisan State Election Board, controlled by Republicans, to replace county election officials they deem not to be doing a good job, and the law then allows those newly appointed county officials to fire other election workers in their jurisdiction.

    In Florida, Arizona, Texas, and several other states, election officials now face the possibility of fines of up to $25,000 and/or jail time for an array of very minor offenses, such as allowing drop-boxes to be left unsupervised or operable outside of early voting hours, failing to ask for proof of citizenship from would-be-voters who have been flagged as being potentially ineligible to vote, and mailing out absentee ballots to voters who haven’t requested them.

    All told, according to a New York Times analysis, nine states have already increased the penalties against elections workers who intentionally or accidentally get on the wrong side of these new rules. Others are likely to follow suit.

    As the GOP passes ever-more expansive rules aimed at sabotaging the electoral process, democracy advocates are growing increasingly concerned that these laws will scare away not only potential voters but also critical numbers of poll workers, the vast majority of whom are citizen-volunteers, as well as salaried officials who have spent decades building up knowledge of how the often-arcane election machinery in their counties and states works.

    Obviously, says Derek Tisler, a fellow at the New York-based Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, one wants local election officials to follow state law, but, he says, these new laws are being passed in such a clearly partisan context and amid such a flurry of disinformation that he worries they will be used not to promote best practices but instead to simply “chill election officials,” scaring them away from creating the sorts of user-friendly voting systems that were adopted in the face of the pandemic and that resulted in record levels of voter turnout last November. “It’s a really disturbing trend,” Tisler explains.

    In non-pandemic years, state officials know that a majority of their election volunteers will be elderly. When the pandemic hit, finding poll workers became a particular problem, as the elderly are the most vulnerable demographic. In the run-up to last year’s elections, state officials scrambled to convince tens of thousands of volunteers to put aside fears of personal safety about COVID, and to staff polling stations and do other election-related work around the country. Private companies urged their employees to step up. Sports franchises converted their arena into early voting sites and urged fans to volunteer. By the thousands, people responded, many of them far younger than the average age of poll workers in years past. It was an extraordinary outpouring of public service.

    Now, however, that renewed civic engagement is under direct threat. After all, why volunteer to help run an election if you risk huge financial penalties or even jail time if you misinterpret a state election law provision?

    If states end up facing poll worker shortages, at the end of the day voters suffer. There’s a risk, says Tisler, that there will be “fewer polling places, longer wait times, not enough people to assist them or offer guidance.” Paradoxically, he continues, these laws that are ostensibly meant to rein in errors will likely lead to more mistakes being made, as overworked poll workers try to do too much with too few resources.

    Monitors have already noticed a brain drain of election officials leaving their jobs in Pennsylvania, a state where, in the months preceding and following the November 2020 elections, officials were routinely harassed and threatened by political partisans, and accused of putting their fingers on the scales to tip the election against Trump.

    After Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill that included $10,000 fines for “technical infractions” such as accidentally opening a poll station a few minutes late, local officials warned that they could see an exodus of election workers as a result.

    Tisler says that he has also encountered stories of officials in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia deciding to either retire early or to seek other jobs in county departments outside of the field of elections. And he worries that, in the face of harassment, misinformation and now legislation that criminalizes commonplace mistakes, many of the most experienced volunteer poll workers — the ones who can be relied on year in year out to show up for Election Day — will decide it’s no longer worth it in 2022 or 2024.

    “We need to build public awareness — get people to understand the impact these laws could have, and the impact on voters,” Tisler says. “We need to get to a place where public leaders have a commitment to democratic fairness.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is seen as he delivers a speech to a group of American Evangelical Christian tourists and pilgrims during a visit to the ancient hilltop fortress of Masada in the Judaean Desert in Israel, on February 19, 2015.

    Over the past several weeks, the world has witnessed Palestinians continuing to resist forced displacement, apartheid and brutal military occupation. There have been outcries around the world calling for solidarity and to hold the Israeli government accountable. Missing in a lot of the circulating narratives, however, is the indisputable role that the powerful Christian Zionist movement plays, both now and in the long and bloody history of the colonization of Palestine.

    Christian Zionists are leading the call for the U.S. to unconditionally support Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians in Jerusalem and Israel’s bombing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Christian Zionist leaders regularly caricature Palestinian resistance to their displacement as “Jew hatred,” appropriating antisemitism to hinder Palestinian rights. Recently, John Hagee, the chairman and founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel lobby group in the U.S., tweeted that Jerusalem and Israel belong to the Jewish people, and encouraged Christians to “take a stand against evil” and show “unconditional love and support for Israel.”

    What Is Christian Zionism?

    Christian Zionism is by far the largest movement supporting authoritarian policies in the Israeli government outside of Israel, and an essential bloc within the larger U.S. Christian Right. The most politically active Christian Zionist movements are motivated primarily by the belief that Jews taking control over the biblical land of Israel will bring about Jesus’ second coming and the end of the world, when Christians will reach salvation and non-Christians — including Muslims and Jews — will be annihilated.

    These End Times theologies have roots in 16th-century Protestantism in Europe, and reflect the colonial context in which they were formed. Christian Zionism as a political movement gained traction as part of the 19th century “Fundamentalist Movement” in Britain and the U.S. when figures, such as Lord Shaftesbury, John Nelson Darby and William Blackstone, began proselytizing the End Times prophecy and conjuring up ideas of a Jewish homeland in Palestine decades before prominent Jewish Zionists called for the same. Britain’s Arthur Balfour, whose Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was himself a noted Christian Zionist, as was President Woodrow Wilson, who co-signed the Declaration at the encouragement of Jewish Zionist Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis.

    Jewish Zionism is a newer development than Christian Zionism, but alliances were formed between the majority Ashkenazi Jewish Zionists in Europe seeking a Jewish state and the Christian Zionists who were located in the highest offices in the U.S. and British governments. Indeed, it was Christian Zionists who had the imperial and military power necessary to occupy and colonize Palestine at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it was the League of Nations, led by Western Christian-majority powers, who ultimately partitioned Palestine and Israel. No doubt, Christian Zionist leaders viewed the displacement of Jews out of Europe into Palestine as a convenient solution to the “Jewish question,” whereby the Jewish State would serve as a proxy for Western imperial interests in a geopolitically strategic region, and Jewish bodies used as a sword and shield against a centuries-old Muslim enemy. The colonization of Palestine is rooted in, and largely continues to serve, Western Christian imperialist interests at the expense of Palestinians, Muslims and Jews.

    Many Christian Zionists today view the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, which created the Nakba — or expulsion of about 750,000 Palestinians — as a fulfilment of biblical End Times prophecy. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights beginning in 1967 similarly is interpreted as a sign that God is blessing Israel and paving the way for Jesus’ return. Subsequent wars, invasions and offensives have been seen as escalating measures that foreshadow the End Times that will bring Christians into salvation and annihilate non-Christians. In other words, Christian Zionism responds positively to conflict, in particular Israeli State aggression toward Palestinians. Regard for Palestinian land and life — including Palestinian Christians — is absent from Christian Zionism since Jewish rule over Palestine is key to unlocking the End Times.

    What Is the Ongoing Impact of Christian Zionism?

    Today, Christian Zionists are estimated to number at least in the tens of millions, far greater than the population of world Jewry. In the U.S., Christian Zionists are the most numerous and most right-wing voting bloc for Israel. The largest Christian Zionist organization, CUFI, boasts 10 million members, far eclipsing the 100,000 members belonging to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC, the much more famous pro-Israel lobbying organization. One out of every four adults in the United States identifies as Evangelical Christian, and 80 percent of Evangelical Christians, or 20 percent of the U.S. population, reportedly believe the gathering of millions of Jews by the State of Israel signifies the nearing of Jesus’ second coming. The power of Christian Zionism in the U.S. is summed up in a recent interview with Ron Dermer, a close ally of Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a former Israeli ambassador to the United States:

    The backbone of Israel’s support in the United States is the evangelical Christians. It’s true because of numbers, and also because of their passionate and unequivocal support for Israel…. About 25% of Americans — some people think more — are Evangelical Christians. Less than 2% of Americans are Jews…. If you look just at numbers, you should be spending a lot more time doing outreach to Evangelical Christians than you would to Jews. But also look at the passionate support. For most Evangelicals in the United States, certainly for many of them, Israel is one of the most important issues to them. For some it’s number one. For others, it may be number two or number three…. It’s very rare to hear Evangelicals criticize Israel.

    Many of the most egregious and anti-Palestinian policies by the United States are led by Christian Zionists. Former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy on Israel was largely appeasing his Evangelical Christian base who voted for him at a margin of 4:1 (on the other hand, a much smaller number of American Jews — somewhere between 21 percent and 30 percent –voted for Trump). Christian Zionists occupied the highest offices of the Trump administration, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump’s four years in office saw dramatic right-wing shifts in U.S. policy on Israel, including the cutting of U.S. funding to the UNRWA — the agency responsible for supporting Palestinian refugees — recognizing Israel’s illegitimate claims to the Golan Heights, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu’s right-wing government had wanted to institute some of these changes for years, but it was only because of the Trump administration and its Christian Zionist base that Netanyahu was finally able to do so. While most Christian Zionist money flows through churches and is therefore difficult to track, Christian Zionist funding sends millions of dollars annually to Israel, including to support Jewish immigration to Israel and right-wing Israeli organizations and settlements in service of their goals of “regathering” the Jews, Palestinian displacement, and greater Israeli control.

    While CUFI does not constitute President Biden’s base of support, Christian Zionism is shifting the U.S. conversation on Palestine as the movement continues to grow. The Biden administration restored funding to the UNRWA, but will not reverse many of Trump’s other Christian-Zionist influenced policies, including the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem, despite having been major departures from decades of U.S. foreign policy. CUFI has grown to 10 million members from just 2 million in 2015, and Christian Evangelicalism is believed to be one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, forming an ever larger base of U.S. and global political and financial support for Israel’s right wing. Current Israeli aggression toward Palestinians is an outgrowth of long-held Israeli policies that privilege Jews, especially wealthy Ashkenazim, over Palestinians, but tens of millions of Christian Zionists constitute the global movement supporting, instigating and pushing the expansion of Israeli State control over the “holy land” at whatever cost.

    Implications of Christian Zionism for U.S. Progressive Movements

    While Christian Zionist movements largely outpace Jewish Zionist movements in their numbers as well as in their extremist, authoritarian views, the two movements continue to use one another for their own gain. As many Jewish Zionists hail Balfour, an avid antisemite, as a hero, they are very happy to overlook the antisemitism of Christian Zionists to bolster the shared vision of an apartheid Jewish supremacist state in historic Palestine. For example, even when U.S. politicians distanced themselves from John Hagee for his overtly antisemitic views, the Anti-Defamation League remained silent. The alignment of establishment Jewish organizations with right-wing antisemitic Christian organizations for the benefit of the Israeli right wing is dangerous for progressive movements in Palestine, the United States and around the world.

    Indeed, Christian Zionism must be challenged as a powerful threat to a larger progressive agenda. Because Christian Zionism is predicated on Christian salvation coinciding with the end of the world and annihilation of non-Christians, Christian Zionism is at its core anti-Muslim and antisemitic. The anti-Muslim sentiments of many Christian Zionist leaders are often overt and indisputable: prominent figures such as John Hagee, Chuck Pierce and Pat Robertson have referred to Islam as satanic and the devil, and are key actors in the U.S. anti-Muslim industry. On the other hand, Christian Zionists use their unwavering support of the State of Israel rooted in philosemitism — the fetishization and objectification of Jews — to make it seem that they care for Jews while using Jews as pawns in their End Times drama and believing Jews are ultimately “damned to hell.” More broadly, many Christian Zionist communities adhere to a larger Christian Right agenda fighting against abortion and LGBTQ rights, contradicting any claims that they care for peace and freedom.

    To overlook the impact of Christian Zionism on the ongoing colonization of Palestine is to overlook the original and largest worldwide movement seeking full Jewish control in Palestine — and one of the largest and most consequential anti-Muslim, antisemitic and antidemocratic movements of our time. Christian Zionism has informed Western policy on Palestine since at least the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and continues to be the backbone of global support for ongoing occupation, apartheid and displacement. Progressives committed to Palestinian rights and liberation — as well as Muslim and Jewish safety — will be limited as long as they fail to directly challenge this behemoth of a movement.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Activists, including several Korean-Americans, rally against possible U.S. military action and sanctions against North Korea, across the street from the United Nations headquarters on August 14, 2017, in New York City.

    Noam Chomsky recently argued that the Biden administration’s foreign policy remains committed to maintaining U.S. global hegemony through sanctions and nuclear weapons. Nowhere else in the world is this more evident than in the Korean Peninsula, where the U.S. is pressuring its “ally” South Korea into the front lines of a long-simmering confrontation with China, and where a nuclear standoff between the U.S. and an increasingly isolated North Korea remains a real possibility.

    On the early morning of May 13, residents of the central farm town of Seongju, South Korea, joined in protest against the deployment of the latest battery of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in their backyard. Chained together to form a human barrier, they physically blocked the road to the nearby U.S. base. Two thousand South Korean police forcibly dispersed them — the second time in a month they had clashed with residents protesting the missile system — injuring dozens, including women and elderly farmers.

    In the wake of the ensuing public relations fiasco, South Korea’s Defense Minister reportedly admitted that the forcible removal of the villagers blocking the base was in response to a request by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III. The South Korean government had hoped that acceding to Austin’s request would help secure President Joe Biden’s support for resuming the inter-Korean peace process.

    The timing of this incident, just a week before South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s planned May 21 visit to Washington for his first summit with Biden, may foreshadow what is to come. Moon believes it is time to take action on North Korea, and is expected to press Biden to engage in diplomacy with Pyongyang. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the stalled denuclearization talks with the North are expected to top the agenda next week, odds of a breakthrough at this point seems slim.

    Biden will likely tout the U.S.-South Korea alliance, which is the cornerstone of U.S. regional containment policy, and whose framework, according to historian Bruce Cumings, is based on two pillars: isolating North Korea from the rest of the world while pressuring South Korea to serve as a forward base for the U.S.’s ongoing East Asian operations. This “alliance” reduces South Korea to the status of an occupied frontline outpost, saddling it with the burgeoning cost of supporting the massive U.S. military presence on its soil, depriving it of the authority to craft independent state policy and subordinating its military to U.S. command in the event of conflict. Framed by the neocolonial subtext that favors maintenance of this one-sided status quo, inter-Korean diplomacy is dismissed as a high-risk endeavor, leaving the two Koreas in a state of perpetual war.

    This containment policy also manufactures and perpetuates the myth of the North Korean threat, a decades-long adjunct of U.S. domestic politics accorded credibility in great part by a relentless propaganda campaign. Like Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, Biden’s priority appears to be to subsume South Korea within global network of strategic U.S. outposts under the mantle of multilateralism, forcing a permanent military occupation on its people in order to further hem in China.

    Biden’s Policy Centers on Containing the “Enemy”

    The first pillar of containment that Cumings describes is clearly evident in Biden’s new North Korea policy, which was announced two weeks ago after a lengthy review. Drafted by top-level officials with ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex, the administration’s plan is being presented as a “calibrated, practical approach to diplomacy with the North with the goal of eliminating the threat to the United States.” Despite minor tactical differences, however, Biden’s policy amounts to little more than a repackaging of the failed approaches of previous U.S. administrations toward Pyongyang. There has been no mention of security guarantees for North Korea, implementing a peace treaty to end the 70-year-old war or reassessing sanctions that primarily target the civilian sector.

    In fact, in spite of North Korea’s unilateral 2018 moratorium suspending nuclear weapons tests, Washington has not only refused to reciprocate, but has added hundreds of more brutal sanctions against the North. A senior U.S. official told the Washington Post that the Biden administration intends to “maintain sanctions pressure” for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, further eroding any realistic prospect for achieving a diplomatic solution, the Strategic Competition Act currently under consideration in Congress recommends maintaining “sustained maximum economic pressure” against North Korea indefinitely. Adding to the chorus of hostility, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the objective of any talks would be “complete denuclearization,” adding that “the diplomatic ball is in [North Korea’s] court.” It goes without saying that the United States does not plan to commit to a reciprocal abandonment of its own nuclear weapons as part of any such negotiations.

    While ratcheting up tensions with the North has done little to enhance prospects for diplomacy, it has enabled an administration heavily influenced by the U.S. military-industrial complex to rationalize an $18 billion defense package to develop a new interceptor program nominally designed to counter North Korean and Iranian missiles.

    U.S. Still Won’t Allow South Korea to Make Its Own Decisions

    The second pillar Cumings describes, the coercion of South Korea to subordinate itself to American national security interests, was brazenly summed up by former president Trump’s declaration that Seoul can do “nothing without our approval.” While the present administration may not trumpet this viewpoint quite as openly, it is clearly evident in Biden’s North Korea policy. Much of the current administration’s foreign policy team consists of Obama-era hardliners, including Secretary of State Blinken, who served as deputy secretary and national security adviser under Obama and has long advocated anti-China policies. It is therefore worthwhile to review the Obama administration’s legacy of pressuring South Korea to implement policies detrimental to North-South amity in furtherance of Washington’s broader anti-China strategy.

    In the aftermath of Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test in 2016, the Obama administration pressured South Korea to close the Kaesong Industrial Complex, where some 120 South Korean manufacturers had employed over 50,000 North Koreans for over a decade. That same year, the administration pressured South Korea into joining the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which mandates that the U.S.’s most hardened East Asian outposts, South Korea and Japan, share defense technology and tactical strategy with the U.S. in support of wartime military operations in the East Asian theater.

    Additionally, South Korea is still subordinated to the OPCON (Operational Control) provisions first instituted by the U.S. during the Korean War. These provisions, which specify “authority to perform functions of command over subordinate forces,” dictate that the South Korean military may operate independently only in peacetime, and is subject to full U.S. control in the event of war. The Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP), a nonprofit and nonpartisan international research and policy organization, notes that “apart from South Korea, only fragile states like Afghanistan and Iraq have entirely put their forces under foreign command in modern times.” While OPCON is nominally scheduled to be returned to the South Korean military next year, the ISDP bluntly states that the notion that “OPCON will be completed [in 2022] is not a given. Several significant roadblocks can impede or completely stop the transfer’s progress in the coming years.”

    In this context, the GSOMIA, lauded by former Secretary of State Mark T. Esper as “an effective tool for the United States, Korea and Japan … in times of war,” represents an additional incremental erosion of South Korean sovereignty. Under this agreement, South Korea is not only obliged to surrender military control to the U.S. in the event of war, but it is also forced to throw in its lot with Japan, with which it is still at odds over acceptance of responsibility for crimes committed by Japanese troops during their brutal 35-year occupation of Korea. For this reason, the majority of South Koreans oppose the GSOMIA as a further detriment to their sovereignty.

    In 2017, the Obama administration forced through the initial installation of the controversial THAAD anti-missile system despite nationwide protests and fierce opposition by local residents, unleashing a five-year war on the small rural community in which the battery was deployed. Biden is widely expected to follow Obama’s footsteps and pressure President Moon Jae-in into the installation of additional THAAD batteries as well as the forward deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles on South Korean soil.

    In March of this year, the Biden administration, following in the footsteps of its predecessors, pressured Seoul into bearing a heavier burden for hosting the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea through a defense cost-sharing deal. In addition to being bound to spending billions every year on U.S. military hardware (South Korea is the 4th largest importer of U.S. weapons), Koreans will have to make excessive contributions to the living costs of the U.S. troops stationed on their soil, covering 92 percent of the $10.7 billion cost of the new U.S. military base in Pyeongtaek, and providing additional rent-free land for the network of U.S. military bases and exclusive military leisure and entertainment facilities throughout South Korea.

    Noting that Washington continues to pressure Seoul into purchasing American weapons and bearing the costs of its garrisons without making any genuine effort to resolve tensions on the Korean Peninsula, former presidential adviser Moon Chung-in stressed the need to free the Korean peninsula from its “geopolitical trap” by ending U.S.-South Korea alliance in its present form.

    It’s Time to End the Containment Policy

    To sum up, the basic framework of the U.S.’s foreign policy in the Korean Peninsula has remained unchanged throughout successive U.S. administrations. Its goal remains to “contain the North and to restrain the South.” Unless Biden changes this approach, his North Korea policy will be a non-starter. Forcing South Korea to join an anti-China bloc under the framework of the U.S. Indo-Pacific plan will alienate the majority of South Koreans who do not feel a clear and present threat from China, their premier trade partner, and forcing yet another Cold War on a nation that has yet to overcome the legacy of destruction and division left by the last one.

    The alternative is to end the root cause of the decades-long stalemate — the U.S.’s containment policy. According to a recent survey, over 70 percent of Americans support a peace agreement with North Korea, and an even number of South Koreans support lifting sanctions against the North in favor of diplomacy. Meanwhile, 73 percent of South Koreans believe that Biden should restart talks with North Korea.

    In his summit next week with Moon, Biden has an unprecedented opportunity to end decades of hostility, division and occupation. By taking the historic step of supporting inter-Korean engagement and reconciliation and working toward a peace treaty to finally end the 70-year-old Korean War, Biden could help free Koreans from the tragic cycle of division, occupation and hostility that continues to define them as a nation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Diverse students in class clapping

    In September 2020, Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting institutions that teach critical race theory. I took that personally. As an academic and as a school board president of a district that has taken on the moral and ethical work of educational racial equity, the tenets of critical race theory (rooted in decades of academic research and scholarship) have been foundational in our pursuit of ensuring access to high-quality educational opportunities for every child in our district, with the goal of eliminating the racial predictability of achievement and outcome data. For four years, we have been under attack by anti-racial equity individuals and organizations, such as Fox News and white supremacists, as we’ve pursued what is good for all of the children and families in our schools, rather than a small exclusive subset. I believe it is because opponents do not want to see our model of policy making and leadership in opposition to white supremacy replicated in other places.

    The year was 2017; I’d been elected vice president to the Evanston Skokie/District 65 (D65) School Board in Evanston, Illinois, a suburb north of Chicago (a role I maintained for three years until being elected board president in 2020). School Board President Suni Kartha and I, two women of color, were elected on a platform of a commitment to transparency and inclusivity in governing through a racial equity lens. In Spring 2017, two months after the election, a room filled with educators, community representatives, school board leaders, administrators and caregivers — not exclusively, but largely white — packed into a conference room to listen to Sean Reardon. Reardon, a Stanford professor, was brought by the Family Action Network, a local nonprofit that brings thinkers to provide local learning opportunities that are free and open to the public and whose mission is to present “fresh ideas that elevate minds, expand hearts, and make the world a better place.” Reardon came to discuss his meta study of racially disaggregated metrics from every state’s assessment data in the nation. He shared upward of 20 slides along with some meaningful analysis.

    On one slide, he noted white students in 8th grade in D65 performed at the 99th percentile on average — among the top in the nation. The parents in the room beamed, and I braced myself. Next, he shared that D65 Black and Brown 8th-graders at the time were slightly below grade level (the 50th percentile) on average, and as I feared, their beaming did not dim; had they heard what I heard? There were some knowing nods, some apathetic stares and some pitying murmurs, but no sign of shame or even culpability at the systematic neglect of Black and Brown students whose families were invested in these schools and their children’s futures. Reardon’s thesis seemed to be that while every school district in the nation has a racialized gap in opportunity to achievement, D65 had “a very striking achievement gap” that was so disproportionate to the income gap that it was an extreme outlier in the nation. He based this assertion on his comprehensive analysis of the districts he studied nationwide. While most districts’ achievement gaps are correlated to access to economic resources, Evanston’s was not.

    Reardon showed that the income gap in Evanston is small compared to that of some other cities: very high-resource households (measured by the census) have, on average, an income of 2.5 times that of low-resource households (measured by free and reduced lunch data). In school districts like Atlanta, Berkeley and Washington, D.C. the income gap was much higher — with high-resource households bringing in an average of six times as much as low-resource households. Household income in our country has, unfortunately, historically been a significant predictor of access to and performance on standardized tests, not due to capabilities of the individuals, but because of the access that income provides (supplemental educational activities, reduction in household stress, relationship and access to institutions). Given that the income gap in Evanston is less than half as large as what it is in these other cities, it could be presumed that the gap in opportunity to achieve would be less than half as large as well. It is not. In fact, it is equivalent. We have had to collectively sit with that reality as an institution and as a community. D65 had the worst “achievement gap” in the nation, yet people moved here for “the schools.”

    When Reardon presented his data, he explained that it pointed toward a need for three steps in D65 and wherever racialized gaps in opportunity to achieve exist. First of all, he said, it’s important to implement early childhood interventions that increase the number of Black and Brown students who are kindergarten-ready, as the data suggests that the gap started in kindergarten and became more exacerbated over the years until 8th grade. Secondly, Reardon said, we must disrupt resource and opportunity hoarding in the K-8 educational experience to address the fact that the gap was intractable and worsened as students persisted through their K-8 experience. He emphasized it was the district’s responsibility to ensure resources were being equitably distributed racially. Finally, he emphasized that schools must be acknowledged as a common good. Reardon encouraged us to consider: Are schools “good” when they are only good for some students?

    As Ibram X. Kendi notes in How to Be an Antiracist,

    The idea of an achievement gap is just the latest method of reinforcing the oldest racist idea: Black intellectual inferiority. The idea of an achievement gap means there is a disparity in academic performance between groups of students; implicit in this idea is that academic achievement as measured by statistical instruments like test scores and dropout rates is the only form of academic “achievement.” There is an even more sinister implication of “achievement gap” talk — that disparities in academic achievement accurately reflect disparities in intelligence among racial groups.

    Over the next four years, the D65 board led a vision of policy making through a racial equity lens. We took on every single recommendation on Reardon’s list, initiating changes in outcomes and experiences for our most marginalized students and families. There is a great deal more yet to do, but a blueprint has been laid out, and given the white supremacist backlash, I think it’s fair to say that they feel threatened by our progress.

    While this is a broad overview of our road map to change, it is my hope that other school districts will model our process.

    Beginning Stages

    School Board President Kartha and I began monthly joint meetings with our educators’ union, administration and board leadership to ensure that we could build a culture of collaboration, transparency and inclusivity among the three influential stakeholder groups that impact broader district culture and climate.

    The board voted in 2017 to support the administration in adopting an educator-proposed plan to de-track middle school algebra, meaning we eliminated the use of racially predictable testing to create racially segregated “ability” grouped classes, in favor of “mixed ability classes.” We added an “Algebra Excite” class consisting of algebraic support and social-emotional learning content, which reduced the inequities that had been produced by opportunity hoarding via tutoring and hours of caregiver lobbying for placement. This increased access for all students for rigorous math a full grade level above the national average, which, in turn, opened up access to higher level math in high school for Black and Brown students. The program was a success, as measured the following year demonstrating a statistically significant increase in conditional growth on the NWEA MAP Math assessment for Black students from the 70th percentile to the 80th percentile, while sustaining progress and learning for white students (from the 86th percentile to the 87th on the same measurement tool and scale).

    The school board also mandated that every employee and board member in the district complete a two-day racial justice training to better streamline our language and understandings. We made access to these training sessions available throughout the community to caregivers and other leaders allowing our community to operate with a shared understanding. (This type of training was targeted by Trump’s executive order.) Additionally, we revised the district’s discipline policy and student handbook to be rooted in restorative practices, treating children’s behaviors as opportunities for learning and repair for children and adults. As we describe on our website, we now act on this premise: “All youth need a chance to learn from their mistakes and put them right. Conflict resolution is an important social skill they will need throughout their lives.”

    The Attacks Escalate, But Our Work Continues

    The road to these rapid and significant changes was not always smooth. In the beginning of my tenure, one principal faced a public uproar after North Cook News and Fox News published disparaging articles circulating an internal school memo in which he encouraging staff to reflect in racial affinity spaces. Additionally, two D65 schools received anonymous postcards saying “White [N-word]s matter.”

    Meanwhile, Trump-appointed Office of Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow sent an unauthorized letter regarding racial affinity staff groups at Nichols Middle School attempting to intimidate the district into ending this work.

    Yet we did not let this deter our work.

    In 2018, parents from several other local Black families in D65 and I founded an African American, Black and Caribbean parent group. Families in the area also started Next Steps Evanston, a community education program offering free racial equity education opportunities to caregivers and members of the community several times throughout the school year. I have served as a facilitator, adviser and member of its planning committee since 2018 when the group discussed opportunity hoarding, anti-racism and policy change through a study of the book Despite the Best Intentions by John Diamond and Amanda Lewis, who also served as facilitators.

    The board also adopted a Racial Equity Impact Assessment Tool and glossary through which to review all policy, to prevent unintended negative consequences, and to increase the specificity of our policy-making to improve experiences for our most marginalized.

    In 2019, the board transitioned from our relationship with the superintendent at the time and embarked on a specifically anti-racist search process for a new superintendent with significant community engagement. At the end of that search, the board selected Devon Horton, who began his tenure with the district by adopting a framework of change called the MIRACLES framework, which emphasizes “motion towards equity,” seeks to “improve instructional methodology,” pursues a “relevant and rigorous course of study,” affirms a “commitment to accountability,” prioritizes “learning environments that support student success,” seeks to “establish expected targets driven by results,” and aims for “sound fiscal stewardship.”

    That year, the teachers’ union requested collaboration with the administration to carry out D65’s first Black Lives Matter at School Week. The frame of the content for second grade that week focused on how to notice when people are being treated unfairly. It also emphasized how we are the same and also different, sought to help students to understand the intersecting oppressions facing Black women and emphasized demonstrating the ability to respect oneself and the rights of others. We also adopted an LGBTQ+ equity week. The efforts to do so were supported in partnership by the District Administration and District 65 Educators’ Council. The week-long LGBTQ+ curriculum celebrated and affirmed LGBTQ+ identities with a stated goal of “fostering a deeper sense of allyship within our schools and the creation of a welcoming, inclusive environment for every child and adult.” The curriculum content introduced children to the concept of using affirming pronouns for self and others and fostered awareness of and appreciation for different family structures. The district’s commitment to this equity work pre-dated an adopted curriculum mandate at the state level.

    The board also dedicated a public meeting to hear from our community about having police, known as school resource officers (SROs), in schools. We requested that the administration end our school day relationship with the local police department, and allocate additional resources to schools to support the mental health needs of children and families rather than police those needs. We approved funding for de-escalation training for staff and appointed special services assistant principals to better facilitate students’ specialized needs as a preventative intervention rather than policing crisis behaviors at each school.

    2021 saw the district’s early childhood program — which serves primarily Black and Brown students and families who receive special education services — more than double the number of graduates who were evaluated as kindergarten-ready, a predictor for long-term dissolution of the gap in opportunity to achieve.

    Our district hosted a panel and discussion on adopting a resolution to read a Native Land Acknowledgement and Acknowledgment of the Contributions of the Enslaved prior to all of our meetings, and reviewed a proposal for a comprehensive rewrite of our social studies curriculum to be accurate, inclusive and affirming of the histories and contributions of the marginalized — pre-colonialism up to the present time.

    That same month, D65 Caregivers of Color — a multiracial and multiethnic ad hoc collective of D65 caregivers who were activated to respond to the racism that was being expressed in some of the school board candidates’ campaigns — organized a march against racism spurred by comments from candidates that Black Lives Matter Week at School shouldn’t be taught because it could hurt the self-esteem of white children (a comment that ignored the benefit to everyone of eradicating racism and the harm that has been done to children and families of color by not doing so). One candidate said, “I’m a big believer that you have to experience things [racism], and I worry that if you tell children how to think or what to think, you’re gonna miss that experience [of racism],” thereby ignoring the terrible harm associated with racist experiences. The D65 Caregivers of Color implored our peers and community members to vote and volunteer to get out the vote for anti-racism for the safety and well-being of our children and our entire community. More than 50 caregivers and children marched 2.3 miles to the polls for a multicultural, multilingual rally and press conference, and then shared food and water supplied by local volunteers and vendors as an act of care.

    However, D65 also faced some of the most vitriolic community conditions we have seen in recent years. In addition to Trump’s executive order to bar federal funds from going to institutions that teach critical race theory, resistance to the district’s anti-racist changes has included letters from Trump’s office of civil rights commissioners, death threats and hit pieces in the media. Moreover, the 2021 D65 board vice president’s car and personal belongings were ransacked and card with a homophobic message was left behind.

    But after a brutal municipal election cycle, wrought with instances of racism, the three racial equity incumbents handily won seats on the D65 school board on April 6, 2021. Their electoral win confirmed our communities’ support for governing through a racial equity lens and rejection of external efforts to undermine and intimidate.

    Institutional-level racial equity educational reform lives on to fight another day in D65 and as a replicable model for districts across the nation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A man exits a store with a "NOW HIRING" sign in front of it

    As the pandemic raged in 2020, tens of millions of U.S. families were kept economically afloat by expanded unemployment benefits — which lasted longer, were of higher value, and were accessible by more categories of workers (in particular freelancers or independent contractors) than was the case in non-pandemic moments.

    In the first terrifying days of the pandemic and the accompanying public health-informed shutdowns, the economy nose-dived, seemingly with no bottom in sight. Within a month of the initial shut-down orders, unemployment had increased to roughly 15 percent. In states like California, with particularly strict shutdowns, that number was far higher still. Moreover, millions more were likely jobless but statistically invisible, as unemployment offices around the country struggled to keep up with the surge of applicants.

    Going into the summer of 2020, even as some parts of the economy began to cautiously reopen, and even as new business models — such as DoorDash and other delivery services — started to pick up some of the employment slack, unemployment remained at over 11 percent, three times what it had been before COVID.

    Now, however, as we head into another summer, with the pandemic in the U.S. receding in the face of the country’s largely successful vaccination rollout, and with the economy growing again, the GOP has come out swinging against keeping those expanded benefits in place.

    The economy is still 2.8 million jobs south of where it was prior to COVID, the official unemployment rate is still 6.1 percent, and the tepid April jobs report showed the economy only added 266,000 jobs. But Republicans are now arguing those numbers are mediocre because generous benefits are providing a disincentive for people to work. Conservative economists and politicians on the right argue that sufficient quantities of jobs aren’t being generated, and a portion of those that are being generated aren’t being filled, largely because many of the out-of-work are perfectly happy sitting at home and living high off the hog on government assistance. It’s an updated but equally unpleasant version of the 1980s “welfare queens” cliché.

    Even as President Joe Biden’s administration seeks to dramatically expand the federal social safety net, and even as many Democratic-run states have embarked on largescale expansions and reimagining of their own programs, nine GOP-led states, starting with Montana, Arkansas and South Carolina, and followed in quick succession by Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota, have recently rejected federal funds for $300 per week supplemental benefits. In this, they join South Dakota, which as early as last summer rejected the expanded benefits for unemployed workers and instead opted to fully open its economy in the face of escalating COVID numbers. (By November of last year, South Dakota had one of the highest rates of infection in the world.)

    The GOP’s alleged rationale, building on anti-benefits arguments that go back as far as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, is that high-value government benefits lead to sloth and thus artificially keep a lid on economic expansion. As state-level political leaders fall into line with this ideological policy stance, it looks increasingly likely that in the coming weeks many more GOP states will also opt to reject billions of dollars in unemployment assistance from the federal government. In doing so, they will essentially be signing off on the consolidation of two entirely different employment social safety nets in the country, one a minimalist red state version based around low wages and deeply inadequate safety net protections; the other an expansionist blue state model.

    Last year, anti-immigrant voices in the GOP, such as Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, urged ever more restrictions on the numbers of immigrants legally admitted into the U.S., arguing that the labor market was so weak that all available jobs should be kept for red-blooded Americans. Now, just months later, they are arguing, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that the labor market is currently so strong that benefits should be slashed for those same red-blooded Americans.

    Each argument is disingenuous. Admitting large numbers of immigrants has always helped rather than hindered U.S. job creation. Restricting benefits doesn’t turbo-charge the labor market; rather it immiserates those already struggling to find a place within that market, and creates a huge incentive for unscrupulous employers to pay bargain-basement wages, knowing that workers don’t have any safety-net alternatives to fall back on.

    If the GOP were serious about drawing people back into the workforce, the party would support living wage legislation. But instead, it has consistently opposed raising the minimum wage, including most recently when Biden made his rather half-hearted, and rapidly abandoned, effort to include the $15 per hour minimum wage in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

    The Republican position on all of this is quintessentially Victorian: Keep wages low at the bottom of the economy, but keep benefits even lower. Force people into the workforce, even if wages are no better than subsistence, and make the process of accessing benefits as humiliating as possible (think of the 19th-century Work House).

    For the GOP base, this might make for good “red-meat politics,” pandering to the views and the biases of dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters. But red-meat politics doesn’t often make for good public policy making. Before limiting benefits to people who are out of work, the GOP should think carefully about the ongoing economic misery unleashed by the public health calamity.

    The peculiarities of the pandemic, and the scale of the economic dislocation it resulted in, have made it particularly difficult to get a comprehensive read on the scale of joblessness and unemployment in the United States; but estimates in recent months have ranged from a low of just over 10 million to a high of about 18 million.

    That’s an awful lot of workers — and their families — still reliant on government assistance to keep above water. And, in consequence, notwithstanding self-serving rhetoric about how tight the labor market is, that’s an awful lot of stacked-up pain waiting to be unleashed on those workers as the GOP uses its state-level power to curtail unemployment benefits over the coming weeks and months.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rally goers protest vaccines and the current administration during the "World Wide Rally for Freedom," an anti-mask and anti-vaccine rally, at the statehouse in Concord, New Hampshire, May 15, 2021.

    I dove into my personal archives to see if I could find the first time I ever mentioned COVID-19 in print. Turns out it was a Facebook post from January 26, 2020, a week before the Iowa Caucus and a little more than a year before seething mobs of hard-right Republicans crashed the doors of the Capitol building looking to hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.

    “I have never been one to get spooked by these ZOMG PLAGUE YOU GUYS stories,” I wrote, “even when I lived in a big city. This one, tho, has me nervous for entirely personal reasons. It’s a form of viral pneumonia, and I am only 2.5 years removed from a bout of pneumonia that came within a thin eyelash of killing me. Every time I hear the P-word, my ears perk up. Glad I live in the woods now. 50% increase in a day is wild stuff.”

    Sixteen months later, I’m sitting here trying to figure out where to slot that into what passes for reality today. The virus I called “wild stuff,” that I and everyone thought was only in China — but was probably already here — has infected nearly 33 million people in the U.S. in the intervening time, killing more than 587,000. The elderly in nursing homes and workers in meatpacking plants were laid waste, people of color and disadvantaged neighborhoods absorbed a ruthless pummeling, and virtually every institution we ever relied on either wobbled badly or collapsed outright.

    Meanwhile, Donald Trump spent his final year in the White House denying what he had known to be true (according to Bob Woodward) about COVID’s brazen lethality since February, because he feared looking weak to his base. He lost an election that still saw 74 million people vote for him despite his horrifying performance, and by the time the Capitol was sacked, the country had moved into a space that was almost completely unrecognizable.

    The fact that so much of it came down to masks will be one of the stranger mysteries future historians will ponder long into the night. Thanks in large degree to Trump, wearing a mask came to be perceived as an un-American act. Certainly, it wasn’t something any Trump-supporting Republican was going to do as a matter of honor. After the vaccines arrived, refusing the needle (along with the lost election and the Capitol sack) in favor of a slate of fact-free conspiratorial fictions became yet another acid test for the True Trumpers among us, despite the fact that Trump himself got the jab.

    By the millions, they have taken the pledge, and Biden’s rapid vaccine rollout has stalled out for lack of willing participants. At present, only 37.3 percent of the entire population has fully been vaccinated against COVID-19 and its variants.

    All these months and dead people later, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly announcing that masks are mostly superfluous for vaccinated people now, the argument has not ended. Instead, masks have become the banner for those who have lost faith in the muddled guidance emerging from the CDC. Many of these people are progressives who stapled themselves to science as a guide through the long dark of the pandemic, but that faith has been badly shaken, and may never return.

    A recent New York Times article showcases a man named Joe Glickman, who has no intention of unmasking anywhere in the immediate future:

    Even as a combination of evolving public health recommendations and pandemic fatigue lead more Americans to toss the masks they’ve worn for more than a year, Mr. Glickman is among those who say they plan to keep their faces covered in public indefinitely.

    For people like Mr. Glickman, a combination of anxiety, murky information about new virus variants and the emergence of an obdurate and sizable faction of vaccine holdouts means mask-free life is on hold — possibly forever. “I have no problem being one of the only people,” said Mr. Glickman, a professional photographer and musician from Albany, N.Y. “But I don’t think I’m going to be the only one.”

    Whether made of bedazzled cloth or polypropylene, masks have emerged as a dystopian political flash point during the pandemic. A map of states that enforced mask mandates corresponds closely with how people in those states voted for president.

    Governor Charlie Baker on Monday announced Massachusetts will lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on May 29, moving up the state’s reopening timeline by about two months,” reported The Boston Globe on Monday. “Acting Boston Mayor Kim Janey announced Monday afternoon that Boston will join the state and rescind its COVID-19 measures on May 29.” Large-capacity venues like Fenway Park and the TD Garden will likewise be opened to full capacity on the 29th. This is all because of that CDC announcement, and cities across the country are following suit.

    I am perfectly willing to hear the argument that anxiety is impacting my decisions after this grueling year of death, uncertainty, loneliness and fear. Maybe I’ve become one of the people you’ve surely read about, who are still cloistered and unnerved after so much solitary time spent worrying about bubbles, hand sanitizer and yes, masks. Time, and the body count, will bring the truth of it, as it has since the beginning.

    But I believe this is too soon. Less than half the country is fully vaccinated, and no children under 12 have gotten the shot; there’s about 50 million of them, and as I wondered yesterday, will kids keep wearing masks if they see the adults around them taking those vital coverings off? Anyone with children knows the answer to this, and it isn’t a comforting thought. Meanwhile, India and South America are in the midst of an exploding COVID calamity, and as we have learned to our woe, those calamities couldn’t give less of a damn about respecting borders.

    More than anything, I am hesitant because I know this is all happening to serve the appetites of capitalism. There is no question that business has suffered during this pandemic, but it has time and again been that rush to serve business that has caused us to reopen before we are ready. Every time we have relaxed, the virus has surged, and businesses along with the rest of us have taken it on the chin.

    Our constant inability to bring that hungry capitalist hound to heel in the name of science and safety is the reason this pandemic has lasted so long. We have made sacrifices, all of us, but we all take a far back seat to capitalism’s need for warm worker bodies and cash. Capitalism has won that argument every time it has come up during this thing, and today it is winning again.

    Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this, but I haven’t been wrong very often since that Facebook post from two Januarys ago (something else that has also sucked), and I’m pretty certain I am not wrong now. I will keep wearing my mask and avoid crowds as best I can. I believe in my heart this thing will be over to a livable degree someday, but it is not today.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israeli security forces stand guard outside an Israeli settler house in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem on May 15, 2021.

    Like many, I have watched with horror as cynical state actors and the legacy of Palestinian dispossession and settler colonialism have fueled the latest conflagration across Israel/Palestine. Underwriting the cheap political calculus of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his political cronies is a network of U.S. financial support. Indeed, U.S. military aid and perverse corporate incentives underlie the U.S.-Israeli arms trade. A few courageous politicians are beginning to forge new conversations on sanctions and conditioning U.S. aid. However, absent from these conversations has been the messier, but no less critical, U.S. financial vehicles that fuel Israeli state violence. Corporate welfare and tax subsidies are also taxpayer monies that come at a cost to local communities.

    So let us start at the beginning then in Sheikh Jarrah, where four Palestinian families face the imminent threat of forced displacement. How is it that violent appropriation of the homes of Palestinian refugees through paramilitary and state policing can be peddled as a private property dispute? The answer has to do with U.S. capital and its ability to subsume any critical interrogation into its production. Just as former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously appealed to Americans for their open hearts and open purses, so too today is this patronage at work. However, the funding streams are perhaps more convoluted. While anecdotally, one can find no shortage of Americanized Hebrew in East Jerusalem, the settlement enclaves sprouting up across the area are supported by a constellation of corporations and nonprofits financed mainly through U.S. tax-exempt donations. In the case of Sheikh Jarrah and other East Jerusalem neighborhoods, one need only look at two such settler organizations, Nahalat Shimon and Ateret Cohanim.

    In 2003, the Delaware-based Nahalat Shimon International purchased Sheikh Jarrah properties from two Jewish trusts. Nahalat Shimon intended to push Palestinians out of their homes and build a 200-unit housing complex. Delaware happens to be a corporate tax haven, but it is also convenient for setting up shell operations to launder money. Even the minimal corporate ownership disclosures required by the state of Delaware are blocked from public view. Just as the Israeli settler movement has hidden its activities under state-contracted mercenaries and local police, it has also benefited through the cover of sophisticated transnational tax havens. The movement’s financiers and board of trustees remain shrouded across the Atlantic and receive public subsidies in the form of Delaware’s lax corporate taxes. These financial structures lend themselves well to extrajudicial home seizures.

    Similarly, Ateret Cohanim, another settler organization active two miles away in Batan al-Hawa, receives tax-exempt foreign donations through its “American Friends of” 501(c)3. A quick Google search reveals an address on West 35th Street in New York City. In his groundbreaking 2015 Haaretz investigation, Uri Blau found that Americans sent at least $220 million in tax-exempt donations over a five-year period to Israeli settlements, through organizations like Friends of Ateret Cohanim. These tax subsidies and the activities they support — the ethnic cleansing and Judaization of East Jerusalem — come with a loss to the U.S. Treasury. As the violence escalates, it is incumbent on us and our government to examine how our tax policies are furthering Israeli state violence and Palestinian dispossession, and fomenting political instability.

    Though the U.S. Treasury does not actively condone this dispossession, they purport these U.S. charities to be lawful as long as they comply with IRS codes and self-reporting requirements. While U.S. policymakers pay lip service to the peace process, how is it that private citizens have legally spent millions inciting political violence and Jewish supremacy through our tax codes? The donations are damaging to U.S. interests abroad, and they most certainly do not offset the societal monetary costs of the tax exemptions themselves. More importantly, this philanthropic system was never democratic to begin with. Somehow, a handful of subsidized U.S. donors whose identities are not even public have contributed to Israeli apartheid and violent incitement.

    Gaza is on fire, and U.S. multinational corporations and their investors are not just fanning the flames, they are literally part of the combustion. Of the U.S. munitions used in Gaza — Boeing, Hewlett Packard, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — the list is long and predictable. These corporations not only bring in revenue from their contracts with the Department of Defense and independent arms dealings, many also receive additional corporate welfare through state legislatures by bullying local officials and threatening job cuts. Raytheon did this in the mid-1990s in Massachusetts, my home state, radically rewriting Massachusetts’ corporate income tax code. Boeing has historically been one of the largest recipients of corporate welfare in the country, receiving an incentive package estimated at $8.7 billion in state tax breaks in 2013 that was only overturned in 2020. This corporate malfeasance is the product of rapacious capitalism with low taxes, low wages and little regulation.

    Our tax money is not just subsidizing Israeli military aid. It subsidizes private provocateurs, settlement lobbies and multinational corporations sowing destruction in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is time we start recognizing tax breaks as public funds worthy of public debate and discretion. Reforming the United States’s antidemocratic finance system and holding our citizens and corporations accountable for what they do with federal and state subsidies is critical not only to ending apartheid in Israel/Palestine, but also to democratizing a tax system that’s fundamentally unjust.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People gather for a demonstration to mark Nakba Day on May 15, 2021, in New York City.

    Palestinians everywhere are experiencing déjà vu right now, deep in our stomachs, while watching our people again resisting the erasure that Israel violently demands we accept, and knowing that many more will die.

    As a mother myself, I wept while reading a mother in Gaza’s tweet that she had her kids sleep with her “so that when we die, we die together and no one would live to mourn the loss of one another”; while reading about a father trying to reassure his child asking if their home could be destroyed at night, telling her the bombs “can’t see us in the dark”; while imagining the unspeakable terror of being one of 2 million people packed like sardines in an open-air prison when the most advanced weapons of mass destruction are unleashed on you. Having lived through the Israeli invasion and siege of Beirut in 1982 as a small child, this kind of terror is embedded in my memory.

    Together with this desperate sorrow and impotent rage, there’s also a familiar energy, a feeling that this is it. There’s no going back. The truth is bare. Our people can no longer contain their need to resist a settler colonial state that has trafficked in generations of dispossession, oppression and lies sold to justify our dehumanization.

    It’s similar to the feelings that welled up throughout the U.S. last summer, as yet another Black person in the U.S. — George Floyd — was lynched by the state in public, on video, for an excruciating 9 minutes, and as Black communities rose up to declare an end to their oppression in a society that is racist to its core, a society that was built with the sweat and blood of their bodies on the stolen land of Indigenous peoples.

    These are the moments when an oppressed people can no longer take it. Black and Indigenous people have been resisting their erasure and oppression all along. And so have Palestinians.

    The latest Palestinian uprising firmly rejects the conquest and division of our people legally and geographically, into separate, besieged, apartheid parcels of land similar to the Bantustans of Apartheid South Africa. This latest uprising declares that all of historic Palestine is under some form of occupation, and that it must end.

    My great-grandfather’s house in Jaffa lies partially in ruins, fenced off and unreachable, in the hands of the euphemistically named “Custodian of Absentee Property.” The theft of the houses of our grandparents who were driven from and prevented from returning to Jaffa in 1948 is part of the same brutal project as the ongoing violent evictions of hundreds of Palestinians from their homes by Israeli settlers backed by the state in Sheikh Jarrah, or Silwan in Jerusalem. It serves the same project as the demolition of the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar or villages in the Negev, and the forced relocation of their people. It furthers the same aim as the expropriation of our lands to build illegal Jewish-only fortified settlements all over the West Bank. They all serve the same purpose: to remove one people in order to create an exclusivist, discriminatory, apartheid nation-state for another, in all the land from the river to the sea.

    May 15, 2021, marked 73 years since the original Nakba — the forced removal of 750,000 Palestinians from their lands and homes to make way for a Jewish state in 1948. The Nakba has not abated since.

    That’s what this is about: a violent colonial project to replace the native population with another. The fact that the colonizer has been an oppressed people throughout history, whose survivors were reeling from an indescribable genocide carried out by European fascism, does not make it right.

    And yet, even in this dark, terrifying moment, a new dawn feels possible. This feeling is what fuels my work with Palestine Legal to ensure that people in the U.S. — the belly of the settler-colonial empire that arms and funds Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the tune of $3.8 billion per year — can resist our complicity here. In the face of a massive campaign to suppress our movement through legislation, lawsuits, lies and intimidation, can we continue to truth-tell and, through grassroots organizing, create the kinds of shifts we are seeing when Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib bear witness to our oppression in the chambers of the Capitol?

    As in Palestine right now, where young Palestinians are risking life and limb by leading the popular uprising, the growing movement for Palestinian rights in the U.S. has been fueled by a new generation of Palestinians, and more and more allies every day. It is a generation that is bold, unapologetic and unafraid, because it sees there is nothing left to lose. And it’s a generation of activists that’s connecting with historical and contemporary parallels of oppression, resistance, and radical imagining of another world founded on the collective liberation of Black, Brown, Indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and other oppressed communities the world over.

    And yet young Palestinians here in the U.S. face enormous obstacles to speaking their truths. When Ahmad Daraldik was elected to student senate at Florida State University, he was immediately and mercilessly attacked for his posts criticizing Israel based on his experience living under occupation. An Israeli-state-funded app directed people to complain he was antisemitic and demand his ouster. Florida politicians demanded the same, threatening university funding. He received dozens of threatening, racist, vile messages, calling for his castration and deportation. This has become the norm for Palestinians and their allies challenging Israel’s hegemony in the U.S. Facebook/Instagram’s shameful censorship is one measure of that.

    That’s partly because of the threat young Palestinian and allied voices pose to this hegemony. This generation has no patience for willful ignorance or brazen racism, and it is also unafraid to shatter the platitudes of liberals who wring their hands about abuses of Palestinian rights but refuse to recognize that Israel as we know it would not exist and cannot continue to exist without those abuses and the U.S. government’s unconditional support. By definition, Zionism requires the destruction of Palestine and the erasure of the Palestinians to make a Jewish state. This generation rejects the notion that Israel as a Zionist entity can be reformed, just like the Movement for Black Lives rejects that inherently, structurally racist institutions like the police can be “reformed.”

    So hear them now. This generation of Palestinians is showing us the path. They are talking to every one of us because all of us together hold the power. The only way out is to end the occupation, end apartheid, end the siege and destruction of Gaza, end the enduring dispossession of generations of Palestinians, acknowledge the historical injustices and repair them — by implementing the right of return, through reparations, and other restorative means. Because only then can we talk about genuine peace — not peace only for Jewish Israelis to enjoy at the expense of Palestinians under their colonial boot.

    Palestinians — under occupation and in the diaspora — are asking all of us to witness and share their realities, to say their names, repeat their demands, end our complicity, and join in their visions for a new, decolonized, liberated future for all. Are you in?

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A sign asks visitors to wear a face mask inside of a shopping mall in Manhattan on May 13, 2021, in New York City.

    I found myself out and about with several vaccinated friends this weekend, just after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly blew up its mask guidance to the consternation of millions. The strange chaos of “mask rules” was on vivid display wherever we went — they were required at inside venues and crowded outdoor spaces, but once we were seated inside a restaurant, the mask could come off no matter how clustered we were — reminding me why I was more comfortable at home than anywhere else over these last 14 months.

    The new CDC mask guidelines state that if you’re fully vaccinated, you’re pretty much free to hang that sucker on a hook and enjoy breathing air that does not smell like your face. (I never knew my face had a scent until COVID, another dollop of pandemic wisdom I could have done without.)

    The announcement tried very hard to be the virus version of V-E Day, a moment of celebration to be shared by all. Instead, it had many eyeing each other, and especially the deliberately unvaccinated, with alarmed distrust. We’re supposed to trust those guys? Combined with some deeply curious timing, and what we have here is the first bona fine both-feet bollocks of the Biden administration.

    “[T]he huge policy turnaround caught senior White House and administration officials, medical experts, elected officials and business leaders completely off guard,” reported The Washington Post, “and prompted some physicians to criticize the move as premature. Some Democratic governors were angered by the White House’s rollout, arguing the move effectively passed the buck to states and businesses to implement the new rules without any assistance. The abrupt timing of Walensky’s decision also smacked of politics to Biden’s antagonists, who noted that the president benefited from the announcement during a difficult week when many Americans queued up in gas lines, tensions in Israel flared and markets roiled amid inflation fears.”

    Even this, however, comes with its own muddied waters. According to Politico, the president was not informed about the new rules until scant hours before the announcement. This was an abrupt departure from procedure for Biden, who reportedly rolls like a dog in the details of an issue for a long time before making a decision. When his staff is slow or inept with the delivery of those details, Biden has been reportedly quick to anger. One wonders how he reacted to his own CDC pulling what amounted to a surprise announcement of the single most important policy decision of his presidency. I can see Biden doing a solid R. Lee Ermey imitation from Full Metal Jacket: “Can I be in charge for a little while? Well thank you very much.” So much for Sleepy Joe.

    The consternation over these new rules is palpable. Vaccinated folks can unmask, which is super, great, but who is vaccinated and who isn’t? We’re doing the honor system now? Will vaccinated people eventually have to wear a scarlet “V” to announce their status? Vax cards? Vaxxports? If unvaccinated people act in bad faith and go maskless, doesn’t it invite the kind of scenario that just struck the New York Yankees, who had eight vaccinated players recently test positive? Also, India and Brazil are still on fire with virus variants reaving people by the thousands. How is this anything other than a dangerously unformed premature decision?

    Parents with young children are also in search of some insight on the matter. There are nearly 50 million children under 12 in the U.S., all of them unvaccinated. Are they safe around unvaccinated people who are pretending to be vaccinated? Are we to expect small children wear their masks when their vaccinated parents or caregivers don’t? Anyone with 12 seconds of toddler experience knows that’s a non-starter from the jump.

    Hundreds of epidemiologists had fully expected the prior mask mandates to remain in place for at least another year. “I think the CDC meant to say something really good, which is these vaccines are really protective,” medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen told CNN on Sunday. “The thing is though, there were unintended consequences of their actions. We’ve seen governors and mayors and business owners drop mask mandates, and as a result of that we’ve now made life much less safe for people who are unvaccinated, for immuno-compromised individuals and for young children who cannot yet be vaccinated.”

    It is to be hoped that some clarity will be brought to this situation with haste. “I would imagine within a period of just a couple of weeks, you’re going to start to see significant clarification of some of the actually understandable and reasonable questions that people are asking,” Anthony Fauci told Face the Nation over the weekend.

    Good. In the meantime, let your common sense be your guide. Get vaccinated if you can, as soon as you can, and tell your friends. Wear your mask until this confusion passes. Your face smells just fine.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Harry S. Truman speaks during a television address from the Oval Office.

    God works in mysterious ways — and so do Jewish voters. To see a perfect illustration of this, look no further than the Jewish community’s complex relationship with Harry S. Truman, the antisemitic president who helped Israel come into existence.

    If you know anything about Israel, you almost certainly know that the Jewish nation relies on the United States for economic and military support. This is in no small part because the U.S. has the largest Jewish population of any nation outside Israel and because American politicians of both parties hope to win over Jewish voters (and Jewish political donors) by taking Israel’s side. When Israel is accused of human rights violations, it can usually rely on American presidents and other major political leaders to have its back. (In that respect, even Donald Trump and Joe Biden are united.) This reality has long frustrated advocates for the Palestinian cause, especially at a moment like this, when the Israeli government is effectively waging war against Palestinians in Gaza.

    Let’s consider Truman, the first president to have Israel’s back. Growing up as an American Jew in the 1990s, I was taught to view Truman as an icon, a hero for the Jewish people, the brave president who opposed his own State Department and became the first world leader to recognize Israel after it declared itself to be a new nation. In religious school I was regaled with the story of how the Chief Rabbi of Israel later told the president, “God put you in your mother’s womb so you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel.” Truman was said to have wept with joy.

    Maybe that’s how Truman is viewed by Jews in retrospect. When he ran for president in 1948, however, he had the worst showing among Jewish voters of any Democratic candidate in 20 years.

    Jews have voted predominantly Democratic in national elections since the 1920s, but even by that standard Franklin D. Roosevelt was beloved by Jewish voters. FDR never got less than 82% of the Jewish vote, and topped 90% in his last two campaigns, in 1940 and 1944 (elections that happened while Adolf Hitler was actively trying to wipe out the Jewish population of Europe). But in 1948, Jewish support for Truman fell by one-sixth, to 75% — although it wasn’t Republican nominee Thomas Dewey who benefited.

    Truman’s Jewish support, in fact, was siphoned off by former Vice President Henry Wallace, running on the left as the Progressive Party candidate. Wallace only received 3% of the national popular vote, but won 15% of the Jewish vote — running in the year Israel was created and against the president given credit for helping to make that happen. Despite the antisemitic stereotype that Jewish voters only care about Israel, quite a few of them were so dissatisfied with Truman that they went for an actual left-wing alternative. You could almost hear the Wallace voters saying, “Israel Shmisrael!”

    That was no anomaly. Jews have tended to support leftist and progressive causes throughout their history, whether that meant the labor movement, the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, feminism, LGBTQ rights and many more. It is difficult to state decisively why this is true, but the large number of prominent Jewish people involved with left-wing movements and American Jews’ century-long voting patterns make it undeniable.

    And despite what antisemites may believe, relatively few Jews are “Israel first” voters. Polls old and new alike consistently find that the percentage of Jewish voters who consider Israel a paramount issue is usually in the single digits. A number of polls find that a majority of American Jews are critical of Israel’s policies, with only one-third in a recent survey saying they believe Israel sincerely wants peace with the Palestinians. And that’s true in spite of the fact that a growing number of Jewish Americans are increasingly concerned about antisemitism, a strong indication that they view the two issues independent of each other.

    In other words, ever since the first time an American president stuck his neck out for Israel, American Jews have repeatedly proved that they are not a monolith. They do not have dual loyalties, as Donald Trump implied during his presidency, and they cannot be won over by bribing them with support for Israel.

    There is another lesson in Harry Truman’s story, namely that people who do good things for Israel are not necessarily true friends of Jews. Indeed, if American Jews in 1948 had known more about how President Truman perceived them, he might have received an even lower share of the Jewish vote.

    “Truman had an uglier side to his personality and sometimes that side that was prejudiced,” Randy Sowell, an archivist at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library & Museum, told Salon. “I don’t deny that at all.”

    As Sowell recounted, Truman private bigotry was complicated, as is so often true at the individual level. He used familiar ethnic slurs to refer to Jews in general, even though one of his closest friends, Eddie Jacobson, was Jewish. (Truman apparently believed that Jacobson’s success in business stemmed from his ethnic background.) Reportedly at his wife’s request, Truman didn’t allow Jewish people in his home. He described Jews as “very, very selfish” and claimed that “neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” (Truman also made racist or bigoted comments about other marginalized groups, including Black people and Asians.)

    At the same time, as Sowell explained, Truman’s public actions are difficult to square with his prejudices. As a senator from Missouri, he wrote letters to his wife that brimmed with contempt for Jews, while also using his platform to advocate helping save Jewish people from Hitler and the Nazis. Even before the Holocaust was over, Truman became persuaded that the Jews’ Biblical homeland would be a fitting place for the survivors to build a new nation. When Secretary of State George C. Marshall, whom Truman deeply admired, urged the president not to recognize Israel because he feared the political tension blowback from Arab nations, Truman did so anyway.

    Yet even in this story of humanitarian impulses overcoming antisemitic prejudice, there are some sour notes. Truman helped legitimized the new Jewish state by being the first world leader to recognize it, but did very little to help the native Palestinians who were being persecuted or driven into exile. When Truman at one point refused to meet with a Zionist activist to discuss Israel, his longtime friend Eddie Jacobson stunned him as he burst into tears, ultimately changing his mind. During this conversation, Jacobson compared the Zionist activist to one of Truman’s personal heroes, Andrew Jackson. Neither man, it seems, realized the cruel irony in linking the issue of Israel’s existence to a president widely reviled today for his racist and genocidal policies.

    The moral here is that just as Jewish voters work in mysterious ways, so do the politicians they depend upon to protect their interests. Harry Truman was a bigot who wouldn’t let Jews enter his home yet felt compassion for the millions terrorized and murdered by a fascist dictator. We’ve seen a more recent president, Donald Trump, tell Israel it may do whatever it wants while still indulging his supporters’ overt antisemitism. Politicians on the Christian right may support Israel, but largely because of a half-baked prophecy holding that once Israel is a Jewish nation again, the messiah will return and Jews will either convert or go to hell.

    Similarly, while leftist or progressive politicians may make some Jews uncomfortable when they criticize Israel, it is important to listen closely to what they say. Of course it’s contemptible to traffic in stereotypes about Jews being greedy or secretly controlling the world — the kinds of stereotypes Harry Truman quite likely believed — and anyone who exploits those beliefs in criticizing Israel deserves to be condemned. But criticism of Israel, or any other nation, that is rooted in facts and evidence is quite another matter. The lesson we can draw from the antisemitic president who helped create Israel is perhaps a lesson about challenging our assumptions and looking past them, and about learning to live with complexity and contradiction.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A protestor holds a sign reading "Stop the Steal" during a demonstration at the Nevada State Capitol on February 1, 2021, in Carson, Nevada.

    Liz Cheney is not on my short list of politicians I admire or wish to see in Congress. But she has done the right thing in calling out the “big lie” and promising to do all she can to keep Donald Trump away from the White House, literally or in terms of his influence over a terribly broken party. She is a canary in the coal mine. Would that others had the courage to follow suit.

    Most sentient beings on the planet breathed a huge sigh of relief last November when Joe Biden won the presidential election. We were even happier when he and his administration immediately began acting robustly on myriad issues. First came the well-chosen appointments, the flurry of executive orders reversing Trump’s perversities, then the big bills aimed at health care, infrastructure, economic recovery, climate change, income inequality, childcare and more — all of which made Republicans in Congress and their QAnon conspiracists cringe — and jump into action.

    A majority of states immediately flew into action to bring back Jim Crow with hideous voting rights restrictions. Protesters began to be arrested. Gun violence and hate crimes grew by startling percentages while cops kept killing Black people. Arizona Republicans decided to hold yet another recount of the election results there, barring journalists from the hangar where counters reportedly tried to spot bamboo in the ballots. (Proof, if we needed it, that the party has gone crazy.)

    Republicans in Congress began their urgent campaign, articulated by Mitch McConnell, to stop any legislation proposed by the White House or Democrats in the House of Representatives. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley and other deranged GOP members went on various rants grounded in lies and nonsense. Rand Paul accosted public health expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, accusing him of funding dangerous research in China (more proof of crazy). Vaccine conspiracies and anti-masking activists got really crazy.

    All of this occurred after Jan. 6, when the unimaginable happened and an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol sent America a clear message: This country is not out of danger.

    The fact is, the real and growing possibility of living through the destruction of American democracy is not going away. It is growing. Donald Trump is now viewed as the head of the Republican Party as he holds the feet of elected officials to the fire with his fierce, alarming grip on their futures. A significant number of regular Republicans continue to embrace the lies, mantras and inconceivable theories spewed out daily by Fox News. Insurrectionists crawl out from under their rocks in droves. The Supreme Court is now a quasi-political body with a 6-3 conservative majority.

    All this is terrifying in its implications. Like many others, I grow more and more anxious by the day — so much so that I actually inquired about getting a British passport, which my husband and children hold. I know that what happened in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Poland, Hungary and others can happen here.

    We are not immune from autocrats and dictatorship and we are not protected by our Constitution if it no longer holds meaning for those in power. Our future is riding on the midterm elections next year, and the 2024 presidential election.

    If you think I am needlessly hyperventilating, consider this: In 1923 Hitler mounted a failed coup. When he failed, his effort was treated leniently. A decade later he was Germany’s dictator. In 2021 Donald Trump inspired a failed coup. It too has been treated leniently by those who say we “need to move on.” Will he, or his appointed alter ego, be our dictator in less than a decade?

    Ece Temelkuran, a noted Turkish journalist, wrote a book in 2019 in which she explains how President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to rule that country. The book is called How to Lose a Country: The Seven Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship. In the first chapter she writes, “Watching a disaster occur has a sedating effect. As our sense of helplessness grows along with the calamity, [we begin to feel that] there is no longer anything you can do.… global news channels jump in [for] the denouement. It has been a long and exhausting [time], unbearably painful. It began with a populist coming to town.… A bleak dawn breaks.”

    She goes on to draw chilling comparisons between the fate of Turkey and what’s happening in the U.S. and elsewhere: “It doesn’t matter if Trump or Erdogan or [the U.K.’s] Nigel Farage is brought down. Millions of people are fired up by their message and will be ready to act upon the orders of a similar figure.… These minions will find you, even in your own personal space, armed with their own set of values and ready to hunt down anyone who doesn’t resemble themselves.”

    Temelkuran points out that this is not something imposed top down or imported from the Kremlin. It also arises from the grassroots. She says wisely, “It is time to recognize that what is occurring affects us all.”

    It is time, indeed, for America to realize what is occurring — and that it will affect us all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Smoke billows above buildings after an Israeli airstrike on Gaza City in the Gaza Strip early on May 15, 2021.

    On May 15, Palestinians around the world mourn the Nakba, or “catastrophe” in Arabic. The Nakba traditionally refers to a dark period of our history in 1947 and 1948 when Zionist militias drove roughly three-quarters of a million Palestinians — including my grandparents — from their homes. The violence against Palestinians was characterized by disturbing accounts of massacre, psychological torture and sexual assault. Zionist settlers moved into the very houses that they drove Palestinians from, and they have not stopped displacing Palestinians since. The Nakba is ongoing, intentional ethnic cleansing: What we’re seeing in Gaza and Jerusalem this week is proof of it.

    The ongoing Nakba is evidenced by the fact that those 750,000 refugees from 1948 have become more than 7 million. The Nakba is what propelled a fanatic group of Israelis this week to chant “erase their names” as the grounds of Al Aqsa Mosque burned. The unending Nakba encompasses every attack on Gaza, every murdered and orphaned child, every home demolition. This Nakba Day let me be clear: Our legacy is not one of “clashes” and terror. For 73 years, Palestinians have been resisting colonialism and dispossession with every breath we take.

    In April of 1948, armed militias that would later become the Israeli military rolled through the village of Jaffa and forced 120,000 Palestinians to flee for their lives. My grandparents were among the exiled masses. As I grew older, I learned the harrowing story of how our family became refugees. All my life I’ve imagined what this was like for them: what thoughts raced through their mind as violence engulfed their neighborhood, what possessions they managed to grab from their homes when they left for the last time. Unfortunately, today I don’t have to imagine — I see it happening right now in Sheikh Jarrah.

    The residents of Sheikh Jarrah are survivors of the original Nakba and their descendants. They were resettled to the Jerusalem village as part of an international agreement. Since then, settlers have been hell-bent on reproducing the trauma of the Nakba for families like Nabil al-Kurd’s, whose children, Muna and Mohammad, are fighting day and night to prevent their dispossession.

    In 2020, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the families of Sheikh Jarrah to not just leave their homes, but to pay for the legal fees of the settlers displacing them. The evictions were delayed when their case garnered international attention, but the decision stands. The fate of the residents of Sheikh Jarrah is as fragile as a bubble balancing on a needlepoint. Now more than ever, we cannot waver in our support.

    Palestinians around the world have erupted in protest against the ongoing Nakba. Where I live in Boston, a crowd gathered in Copley Square to demand an end to Israeli war crimes. Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, and folks from a diverse range of communities came out. Speakers connected the struggle for Palestinian liberation to the ongoing movement for freedom for Black people from state violence. Solidarity through struggle runs deep, and for good reason. The U.S. finances the Israeli military with a colossal $3.8 billion annually — and that’s just direct funding. Police departments like the Boston Police Department waste public resources sending officers to Israel to learn strategies for increasing the discrimination, surveillance and harassment already faced by our communities.

    Many of the groups fueling the Israeli extremist settler movement are headquartered in the U.S. and registered as American nonprofits. The funders of Palestinian dispossession get a tax break for every check they write. The average American pays about as much to Israel’s murder machine as they do toward the public library system. All of this money should be going into our communities instead. If you aren’t already, it’s time to start paying attention to what Israeli beneficiaries are doing with U.S. dollars.

    Yet, all told, people in the U.S. should decry the ongoing catastrophe wrought against Palestinians not only because we are funding it, but also because opposing this violence is the right thing to do.

    Today, Palestinians in every corner of the diaspora commemorate the Nakba, but we need you to acknowledge it, too. Encourage your congressional representatives halt all aid to Israel. Support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. For the better part of the last century, Palestinians have endured unending catastrophe — particularly in the moments where the world drops its gaze — so don’t look away.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israeli security forces walk in Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third holiest site of Islam, on May 14, 2021.

    Earlier this week, massive protests erupted in ’48 Palestinian towns and cities. ’48 Palestinians (known as “citizens” of Israel) had mobilized to protest the threat of expulsion facing Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem, and in protest of Israel’s attack on al-Aqsa Mosque.

    As Israel escalated its violence against the families in Sheikh Jarrah, worshipers in al-Aqsa mosque during the holy month of Ramadan and in Gaza, ’48 Palestinian protests escalated as well. Palestinians came out in their masses, from the Naqab to the Galilee, in what has become the most widespread protests among ’48 Palestinians in living memory: Rahat, Tal sl-Sabe’, Shkieb al-Salam, Shefa ‘American, Yaffa, Haifa, Akka, Nazareth Lydd, Umm al-Fahem, ‘Ain Mahel, Baka al-Gharbiye, Majd al-Kroum, ‘Arabe, al-Be’ene, al-Zarazir, Ramla, Kufr Kana, Jaljoulye, Kufr Manda, Jdaydet al-Makr, Reine, Mashhad, Kufr Kana, and the list goes on and on. Correspondingly, Palestinians have been met with brute Israeli force.

    The protests became particularly violent as Israel escalated its oppression with each passing day. Israel became especially worried with the situation in ’48 Palestinian cities that have mixed Jewish and Palestinian populations. Lydd (Lod) became of special concern for the Israeli government. The recent violence in the city of Lydd has been described by many as “civil war,” including Israeli president Reuven Rivlin and the Mayor of Lydd, Yair Ravivo, who declared that a “civil war has broken out in Lod.” Headlines in the Guardian, Daily Mail, the BBC, and Reuters, to name just a few international media outlets, followed this narrative and framed it as a matter of civil unrest and unfolding civil war.

    But the civil war narrative is misleading and plays into Israel’s hands. It masks settler-colonial power relations, settler-colonial violence and Jewish supremacist violence. What we are witnessing are not “clashes,” or between two equal sides, but rather the Israeli settler state together with Zionist militias declaring a war on its colonized “citizens,” who need to protect their lives, homes, and families themselves.

    Israel has never tolerated Palestinian mass protests. In Land Day 1976 Israeli police shot dead 6 Palestinians, and thirteen in the October 2000 events that erupted at the beginning of the second intifada. Accordingly, protests in the last few days have been met with extreme levels of police violence. Israeli forces are using stun grenades, gas canisters, skunk water and now also rubber bullets. Protesters are severely beaten, denied medical treatment, and hundreds, including minors, have been arrested and some denied legal representation. Palestinian towns and cities look like a war zone.

    The prevailing narrative in Israel is one of loss of sovereignty. Netanyahu referred to it as anarchy. “Without the rule of law,” he said, “there is nothing.” The discourse, thus, became one of restoring order and regaining control. Border police, known for its brutality, were called from the West Bank to be deployed in Palestinian cities and towns. Lydd became the symbol for reclaiming Jewish sovereignty. For the first time since 1966, when ’48 Palestinians were still under military rule, Israel used emergency powers and a curfew was imposed on the city; six army units were deployed in it alone.

    As Israel was deploying its military, civil settler militias organized in concert to defend “Jews”, “Jewish towns” and the “Jewish State.” A product of decades of deliberate dehumanization of Palestinian people, and aided by militarized police, they started to target Palestinian homes, people, and businesses. In Lydd, Musa Hassouna was shot dead by a Jewish settler. The shooter was later arrested but Amir Ohana, minister of police and one of Netanyahu closest allies, backed the shooter, saying that if it was up to him he would be released.

    Ohana’s statement emboldened Jewish settlers to continue and attack Palestinians with impunity. Palestinian activists documented dozens of calls sent out by far-right Jewish settler groups urging supporters to invade Palestinian towns and attack Palestinians. The peak, so far, was Wednesday. Horrifying scenes of armed mobs roaming the streets shooting at Palestinian homes, vandalizing and destroying property, mosques and churches. They looked for Palestinians to lynch. In Bat Yam, a Palestinian man was lynched on live TV, and he is currently hospitalized with serious injuries. In Jerusalem, Jewish settlers stabbed a Palestinian man, who is also in serious condition.

    At this point, Israeli media and politicians have moved on to describe the situation as civil unrest and civil war. The civil war narrative works in the favor of Israel and plays into the Pavlovian instinct of international media and the international community, as it presents the violence against Palestinians as a clash, where there is a symmetry between two parties who are inflicting violence.

    The civil war discourse erases the colonial context in which violence against Palestinians takes place. It is designed to mask the reality on the ground: one of settler colonial brutality, state-sanctioned violence, and pogroms by Jewish supremacist groups backed by the state against Palestinians, the Indigenous people of the land. This week’s pogroms are presented as an unfortunate turn of events in an ongoing internal national conflict. This framing enables Israel to present its military interventions against ’48 Palestinian as an attempt to prevent civil unrest from escalating in the benefit of both groups.

    The government, via its armed forces, becomes a neutral actor. From backing a Jewish mob, Ohana changed his tune to “Violence mixed with hatred should be condemned outright. We have no other country. We must live here together.” Even Bezalel Smotrich, Kahanist MK and architect of the notorious Flag March in Jerusalem, who’s party was publicly supported by Netanyahu during the last election, tweeted about the lynching of a Palestinian man, that he is “shocked and ashamed to the bottom of my soul. We are in difficult days, under attack, frustrated… but damn it, how can Jews be so cruel?! Terrible.” Only two weeks ago Smotrich tweeted that Palestinians should remember that their presence in Israel is only temporary. How easily the tune changes.

    The pogrom we are now witnessing is not an aberration. The Israeli state is leading this violence either by employing its security forces, army and police, or by using its proxy civil militias. Terrifying footage shows Israeli police joining the pogroms, storming into Palestinians homes, intimidating, beating, and arresting them just for being Palestinian.

    Israel never made peace with the existence of ’48 Palestinians and wants to see them vanish. As Yousef Munayyer comments, this is “an extremely dangerous moment which the Israeli state could exploit to carry out further ethnic cleansing.” ’48 Palestinians know that all too well. They, like all Palestinians, live this trauma and the anxiety of future expulsion.

    Crucially, the civil war discourse risks fragmenting the Palestinian people and their resistance at a time where it is united. Israel applies the civil war framing only to ’48 Palestinians, not other Palestinians. In doing so, it aims to undo this powerful moment by trying to domesticate them again as Israeli citizens and as an internal issue of the Jewish state.

    ’48 Palestinians have been resisting as Palestinians, not Israeli citizens. Through framing it as civil war or sectarian violence, Israel wants to box in ’48 Palestinians and tame them as (inferior) Israeli citizens because after all, Palestinian citizenship in Israel is part of Israel’s regime of domination.

    ’48 Palestinians don’t see themselves as Israelis, but Palestinians. ‘48 Palestinians have been affirming they are Palestinians not just as a symbolic identity, but as a political project of liberation. The liberation of Palestine is their liberation. And if there is something that this uprising is showing us is that the Palestinian struggle for decolonization is stronger when the fragmentation of Palestinians is resisted and when Palestinians mobilize as one people.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump await his return to Florida along the route leading to his Mar-a-Lago estate on January 20, 2021, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Sixteen minutes. That’s how long it took for House Republicans to broom Rep. Liz Cheney out of her leadership position. A pizza takes more time, but Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and his merry band of Trumpian thralls don’t have a second to waste.

    They seek to seize tomorrow, which, for them, means completely rewriting yesterday — pretending that Donald Trump handily won the 2020 election, but was dispossessed by a rash of election fraud currently being remedied in various states with new laws. (Those laws, of course, are a monumental, racist threat to voting rights.) Oh, and that murderous riot at the Capitol in January? Nothing more than “a normal tourist visit,” according to GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde’s Wednesday explanation. There’s really no fixing that.

    I have no truck with those trying to paint Liz Cheney as some kind of valiant hero. This is her fudge, and now she has to cook it. Whatever this party is today, it has Cheney and her repugnant father’s fingerprints all over it.

    Cheney is in this soup because she refused to parrot the ersatz “We Wuz Robbed” plank of the Republican Party platform, which is currently the only plank in that platform, while her Trump-loving replacement — Rep. Elise Stefanik — saw the inside track afforded by total Trump loyalty and pounced on it. Just like that, Cheney is out of there like her chair was some James Bond ejector seat … which makes you wonder how comfy Stefanik will be once she sits down in the same spot. Things happen damn fast in today’s GOP, like 16 minutes fast.

    The man currently enjoying a luxurious tongue bath from almost every elected Republican wasted no time sending an arc of spittle into Cheney’s open political grave. “Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being,” said Trump (not by way of Facebook, Instagram or Twitter). “I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party. She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country.”

    Cheney, for her part, let it be known to all and sundry that she intends to be a burr under Trump’s saddle for as long as the people of Wyoming will have her, and perhaps beyond. There are already mutterings of a possible presidential run by Cheney in ’24. She has carved herself out a nifty little national platform, and appears un-shy about smoking it down to the filter.

    “I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former President’s crusade to undermine our democracy,” she vowed the night before her et tu, Brute moment on the House floor. If Cheney brings the same energy to this new project that she did to being a terrible right-wing mouthpiece for ignorance and hate, things could get wild at flank speed.

    While only a handful of current Republican congresspeople have opted to stand with Cheney, she is not alone in the world. “More than 100 Republicans, including some former elected officials, are preparing to release a letter this week threatening to form a third party if the Republican Party does not make certain changes,” according to The New York Times.

    A fractured GOP, a conservative third party with Cheney as its Joan of Arc leader, could make life uniquely aggravating for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his plans to retake the chamber next year. That alone is worth the price of admission.

    The news media has been a day, a night and a day unspooling various elements of this latest Republican fiasco, and I am happy to leave them to it. Let them ponder the eternal question: Is this mere cowardice on the part of the GOP, a continuing dread of Trump’s broiling base? Or has a majority of that party seen the demographic numbers, encompassed the actual results of the 2020 election, choked down the reality of what actually damn happened in Georgia, and decided that a racist hard-right totalitarian lurch under Trump is the only way the party survives?

    That’s a D.C. parlor game they’ll be playing until the stars swallow the moon, and they can have it. My thing is this: Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani just had his home and offices raided by federal authorities, all of his phones confiscated and a big WE ARE WATCHING YOU sign draped around his neck. Giuliani has cut staff, tried unsuccessfully to pry owed legal fees out of his sole client and hired Harvey Weinstein’s defense team to represent him. One does not do such things when the sun is shining bright, and Trump would have to be exceptionally dense to miss the obvious threat to himself.

    “State prosecutors in Manhattan investigating former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization have subpoenaed the personal bank records of the company’s chief financial officer and are questioning gifts he and his family received from Mr. Trump,” reports the Times. “In recent weeks, the prosecutors have trained their focus on the executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, in what appears to be a determined effort to gain his cooperation. Mr. Weisselberg, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, has overseen the Trump Organization’s finances for decades and may hold the key to any possible criminal case in New York against the former president and his family business.”

    Plainly put: If Weisselberg starts dancing to the prosecutor’s tune, all that will be left to do is for someone to bring a mop to swab up the aftermath.

    Even the folks down by Trump’s mini-Elba have begun to smell blood on the fetid Florida breeze. According to Politico, Palm Beach law enforcement officials are making contingency plans in the event Trump is indicted while residing at Mar-a-Lago. If he is, he will have to be extradited to New York, and that’s where the funky music starts. Florida law allows the governor to “intervene” in an extradition proceeding, and Ron DeSantis is a known devotee of the 45th president.

    This is worth watching, because Trump’s reported plan is to close up shop and haul stakes for Bedminster once the Florida heat really kicks in. New Jersey has a similar extradition intervention statute on the books, but Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy would send MetLife stadium to Connecticut before standing in the way of Trump and New York justice. Will Trump stay in Florida and sweat it out under the protective wing of DeSantis, or will he risk a summer on the Jersey shore? Keep an eye on the thermometer, and we shall see.

    All the questions about Republican motives are, for the most part, largely irrelevant. They did this, period. They have cast their bread upon Trump’s waters, and now they get to wait and see what happens next with the rest of us.

    Personally speaking, signing on with a guy who has a whole forest of Damoclesian swords festooned above his head sounds like a really bad bet. Then again, these are the nimrods who thought elevating Sarah Palin to national prominence was a bully idea. These people would back a stinkbug if it made the base wave their flags, but that does not make it a smart idea.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Juthaporn Chaloeicheep, 44, and son Douglas Jones, 5, stand for a portrait in the courtyard of Arnett Watson Apartments, a permanent supportive housing community where they reside in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco, California, on March 16, 2021.

    One hundred and fifty years ago, in the bloody wake of the Civil War, the abolitionist Julia Ward Howe issued a “Mother’s Day Proclamation.” The world, she wrote, could no longer bear such terrible violence and death. She called on women across the country to “rise up through the ashes and devastation” and come together in the cause of peace. Forty years later, her daughter Anna Jarvis created Mother’s Day.

    In the midst of another national trauma, with the latest Mother’s Day just past, perhaps it’s an auspicious moment to celebrate not just mothers, but women more generally. I think about countless women like my mom (who died nearly a year ago) enduring tremendous adversity to make ends meet and care for those they love. During the pandemic, after all, women have found themselves on the front lines in so many ways. They make up more than 75% of healthcare workers, almost 80% of frontline social workers, and more than 70% of government and community-based service workers. Add in one more thing: women have been hit first and worst by the economic crisis that Covid-19 set off, as female-dominated industries like retail, leisure, and hospitality were decimated.

    The situation continues to be so dire for women that economists have even begun to talk about a “shecession.” A recent poll found that a quarter of women claimed they were financially worse off a year into the pandemic. In March, the percentage of women out of, or looking for, work was the highest it’s been since December 1988. For the first time in American history, job and income losses in an economic crisis have been worse for women than for men. And it’s been poorer women and women of color who have been hit hardest of all.

    But the true depth of this crisis can’t be measured by job numbers and frontline risks alone. In an intensified yet eerily familiar way, this past year-plus has laid bare the pressures, burdens, and violence that women, especially poor women and women of color, face every day. It’s highlighted the disproportionate, unpaid labor they shoulder at home; the role they take in raising and educating children while caring for the sick and elderly; and the paternalistic, often punitive, presence of welfare and law enforcement agencies like Child Protective Services, the police, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in their lives.

    In such a moment, we should all think about the opening words of Howe’s 150-year-old proclamation: “Arise, then, women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts, whether our baptism be that of water or of tears!”

    Of Water and Tears

    Before slavery was outlawed in America, formerly enslaved abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass insisted that those who feel the first pains of injustice must be the first to strike out against it. That was the very kind of “baptism” Howe invoked in her proclamation — an invitation to initiate women into struggles born from those already so much a part of their lives. Today, her invocation of “water and tears” should resonate for millions. Among them, it may have no greater relevance than for the women of the Michigan cities of Flint and Detroit.

    April 25th marked the seventh anniversary of the ongoing water crisis in Flint. Many will remember the breaking news coverage about the lead poisoning of that city’s water system at the end of 2015. Others will recall President Barack Obama’s “mission accomplished” moment when he visited Flint and drank a cup of newly filtered tap water. But for the many women, poor and largely of color, who have become Flint’s “water protectors,” the crisis isn’t over. Even now, new water lines are still needed in some neighborhoods. A $641 million class-action settlement fund from lawsuits against the state of Michigan has indeed recently been set up for Flint residents, particularly impacted children, to receive help. However, community leaders are continuing to organize, because unfortunately many of the families and children who need the resources the most will be left out since the settlement requires documentation, which the poorest and most vulnerable families will struggle to obtain.

    It’s important to note that the struggle of these warriors for clean water did not begin when the first cameras arrived in Flint to record the disaster. It began when, in 2011, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed an unelected emergency manager to rule the city with near-dictatorial powers.

    A similar emergency manager had already imposed mass water shutoffs in Detroit after that city went bankrupt, while the one in Flint switched from piping in well-treated water from Detroit to pumping water directly out of the Flint River, which had been an unofficial waste-disposal site for local industry for decades. It was seen as a cost-saving measure for that financially strapped city until a new water-piping system could be built. Warnings and safety precautions were ignored when it came to lead and other pollutants ending up in local drinking water, a decision that would, in the end, condemn Flint’s inhabitants to years of mass lead poisoning. Because of that same tainted water, more than 100 people would also die of Legionnaires’ disease.

    We’re talking about a place that had once been a beacon of industry and prosperity, a city now struggling under the weight of deindustrialization and growing poverty. Claire McClinton, a long-time Flint community organizer and leader, summed up the crisis this way: “They could not have taken our water away without taking our democracy first.”

    Her words are informed as much by history as by contemporary events. McClinton and many of the other women fighting for clean water had already spent decades organizing for a broad range of welfare, labor, and economic rights. She and many of those other Michigan water warriors are my political mothers and mentors. No wonder I once again celebrated them (as well as my own mom) this Mother’s Day.

    Even earlier, in 1996, during the heyday of neoliberal austerity politics, welfare-rights and labor activists like those in Flint and Detroit witnessed Democratic President Bill Clinton eliminate the entitlement of millions to welfare and better living standards of millions by signing into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Among its other “reforms,” it replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program which provided desperately needy children with welfare payments, with the far more restrictive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. They watched as government agencies kicked staggering numbers of people off life-saving federal assistance programs and continued to forcibly rip kids away from parents who, in terrible economic circumstances, could no longer afford to feed and house their own families adequately.

    As the situation in Flint made clear, the historic fight for welfare was integrally connected to the ongoing fight for clean and affordable water, as well as, in our present moment in thousands of communities, the fight for living wages and voting rights. And don’t forget the need for a revival of an increasingly impoverished, not to say (in the wake of Donald Trump) ravaged, democracy.

    Indeed, all these issues raise questions about the role the government should play in caring for people and addressing fundamental fractures in society like poverty, hunger, and sickness, which always disproportionately hurt women. All of these are, then — or at least should be — non-negotiable issues for women today.

    Lifting From the Bottom Up

    The first 100 days of the administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have clearly represented a surprising pivot from neoliberalism’s halcyon days under Clinton. For an anti-poverty organizer like myself, schooled in the politics of the 1990s and early 2000s, it was startling, even moving, to watch Biden address a joint session of Congress and announce that “trickle-down economics has never worked. It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle-out… We have a real chance to root out systemic racism that plagues American life… A chance to deliver real equity. Good jobs and good schools. Affordable housing. Clear air and clean water.”

    Without a doubt, one of the administration’s biggest achievements so far is the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), a $1.9-trillion relief package that has already begun to inject desperately needed resources into a needy America. Included in it was the Child Tax Credit (CTC), a potentially breakthrough anti-poverty program.

    The CTC could be transformative for millions of poor families, especially if it were to be expanded and made permanent. For some observers, it may seem like a good idea conceived by policy experts for a critical but passing moment of national need. Dig a little deeper, though, and what you’ll find is that the CTC is an inheritance from the efforts of poor women over these last decades, especially those of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the 1960s and 1970s, some of whom are still organizing in Flint and Detroit.

    The NWRO was a national organization of poor women on welfare, Black and white alike, at a time when more than eight million single women and their children received regular but meager benefits through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. NWRO leaders, however, saw such welfare not as a form of charity, but as a right. They insisted on the dignity of all work, whether in traditional jobs or at home, and the need to compensate all women for their labor. They championed a welfare system that wouldn’t separate the “deserving” from “undeserving” poor but instead put agency and power in the hands of welfare recipients rather than bureaucrats and social workers.

    As it grew, their organizing coalesced around a demand for a guaranteed adequate annual income — and, in the late 1960s, they would prove a force to be reckoned with, recruiting leaders like Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., to their cause. Their political imaginations were decades ahead of their time and their moral clarity on the position of poor women in this society prophetically advanced.

    In 1972, Johnnie Tillmon, the first chairwoman of the NWRO, published a paradigm-shifting essay entitled “Welfare is a Women’s Issue,” in which she wrote:

    “I’m a woman. I’m a black woman. I’m a poor woman. I’m a fat woman. I’m a middle-aged woman. And I’m on welfare. In this country, if you’re any of those things you count less as a human being. If you’re all of those things, you don’t count at all.”

    Nearly half a century later, as we pause to honor mothers, isn’t it time to recognize the ways women like Johnnie Tillmon have for all too long been discarded by this society? Isn’t it time to be honest about those men — and women — who have risen to great heights, only to wield power in ways that hurt women? As for me, I can’t forget the moment when, during the fight over ARPA, Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema, a Democrat, made a show of walking past the Senate clerk’s desk, giving an exaggerated thumbs down to an amendment to the bill that would have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

    When a reporter from the Huffington Post inquired about her vote, the senator’s spokesperson claimed that it was sexist to comment on a female politician’s “body language” or “physical demeanor.” Much more harmful to women, though, is the disproportionate impact of poverty and low wages on their families and them.

    Sinema represents a state in which nearly three million people are poor or one emergency away from economic ruin, a majority of them women. It’s troubling, then, that a woman who has reportedly experienced poverty herself (although questions have been raised about whether she has exaggerated how poor she was) would deny living wages to poor and low-income women in her state and across the country. Among the Democrats in the Senate joining Sinema in dissent were New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, as well as five male senators. (All seven of them are millionaires.) Their actions are a stark reminder that women need genuine representation in Congress, as well as policies that lift us all.

    Sadly, that “Nay” vote against including a minimum wage raise in the Covid-19 relief package hurt women, people of color, and the poor. Altogether, 59% of low-wage workers are women and nearly 40% of all Black workers labor for less than $15 an hour. Yes, during the pandemic, we’ve begun calling many low-wage workers “essential.” It turns out, though, that they aren’t essential enough to be guaranteed wages that might help them afford the essentials of life.

    Now, Sinema is also at the center of another legislative battle — about the future of the filibuster, a racist relic of the slavery and then Jim Crow eras that still has democracy in chains. It continues to prove a powerful cudgel for extremists in the Republican Party who are increasingly unable to win a governing majority fairly. It’s especially useful for those determined to stonewall on a host of policies that disproportionately impact women, from wage increases to welfare programs and reproductive rights. Sadly, despite claiming to care about sexism and the fortunes of women, Sinema continues to help hold the Senate hostage to score political points.

    Arise Women of This Day

    As a white woman — a mother, a pastor, a feminist, an activist, a teacher, and the co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival — I feel obliged to challenge Senator Sinema: for her performance on the Senate floor, for her stance against living wages and for the filibuster, and for the long-term impact her actions will have on the 140 million poor and low-income people in this country, especially the 74 million poor and low-income women.

    I also feel honored and obliged to uphold the work of women like Claire McClinton, Johnnie Tillmon, and Julia Ward Howe who have allowed us glimpses of what a government and economy that served and empowered all women could look like and who have highlighted the prophetic leadership of women impacted by the social injustices of their day. Now is the time to raise wages, ensure vaccine equity, and so much more. Now is the time to lift from the bottom so that all of society can rise, as poor people have been saying for years and President Biden has recently reaffirmed.

    Tillmon couldn’t have made it clearer for us. “Women’s liberation,” she said so many years ago, “is simple. No woman in this country can feel dignified, no woman can be liberated, until all women get off their knees.”

    Today, let’s hear her and arise together! In truth, every day should be Mother’s Day.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.