Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur to Palestine, was featured in a special webinar on February 20, 2021 sponsored by the Canadian Voices for Palestinian Rights. This hour-long discussion is wide-ranging on many topics pertaining to Israel – Palestine, and I recommend it to anyone who especially wants to understand Canada’s role (past and present) on the occupation.
Beginning at about 48:00, in response to a question about what comes next, Professor Lynk says there are only 4 possible options. (1) Two-states, (2) One-state, (3) One-apartheid state or what Trump proposed, and (4) the status quo where nothing changes. He says there are no other options. I wonder what he would think of the concept of a confederation as Sam Bahour and Bernard Avishai spoke about today? I think I’ll ask him.
His last piece of advice at the very end of the program should be heeded by everyone who cares about making a difference in Palestine.
Professor Lynk’s strong understanding of international law and appreciation of the facts on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories make him a voice without equal for justice and dignity for Palestinians.
I first met Professor Norman Finkelstein in Albuquerque in 2012 when he spoke to a friendly audience about his book “This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion”about Operation Cast Lead. Several years later, I was serendipitously in the right place at the right time, and attended a course he taught over several weeks at the New York City public library dissecting John Stuart Mill’s classic ON LIBERTY. Finkelstein is a controversial figure in the best sense of the word. He thoroughly reads and researches before he expounds on a topic, and then he speaks his mind clearly and without reservation for the political correctness or sensibilities of his audience.
Norman Finkelstein received his doctorate in political theory in 1988 from the Princeton University Politics Department. He taught for two decades in the CUNY system, NYU and DePaul University (in Chicago). He has lectured on a broad range of subjects, and has written ten books that have been translated into more than 50 foreign editions. Finkelstein’s main fields of research and teaching are political theory, international law, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
On February 14, 2021, Finkelstein was asked his opinion about the recent ruling of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC concluded it had jurisdiction over the Palestinian occupied territories to investigate potential war crimes from Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014 as well as the 2018 Gaza border protests where Israeli sharpshooters maimed or killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian protestors. Many of us have been waiting for the court’s decision for years.
The mainstream media (including the United Nations) has framed the ICC’s recent ruling as “good news” for the Palestinians. I must admit that I’ve been on cloud 9 since reading this news, thinking that perhaps there would finally be a measure of justice for the Palestinians, as well as elevating the credibility of international law and of the ICC itself.
Unfortunately, I failed to read the opinion (or even digest the entire announcement made by the ICC on February 5, 2021). Although the ICC concluded it does have jurisdiction in Palestine, it went on to say:
In addition, the Chamber found, by majority, that the arguments regarding the Oslo Agreements, and its clauses limiting the scope of Palestinian jurisdiction, are not pertinent to the resolution of the issue of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. Such matters and other further questions on jurisdiction may be examined when and if the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear.
In this interview, Professor Finkelstein dissects the ICC’s opinion better than many who are well-versed in the intricacies of international law in the context of Israel-Palestine. Every Palestine solidarity activist would be wise to spend the next hour listening to his explanation. Without giving the punch-line away, I’ll just say that the Palestine Authority shot itself in the foot when it responded to the ICC’s query regarding the Oslo Accords.
Communication is never easy, but some topics (religion and politics rise to the top) can be downright dangerous. In recent years, we’ve seen social media abused, misused and weaponized for nefarious purposes. QANON , President Trump, and Israel’s hasbara come to mind.
A particularly sensitive landscape on which to tread lightly in my experience is the topic of Israel and Palestine. Words matter. Are we talking about “Israel proper” or “1948 Palestine” or “the Zionist entity” when we discuss the State of Israel?
Labels carry emotional weight for both the speaker and the listener, as one person noted when he mentioned that he prefers to use “the Zionist entity” to “annoy the professional class”.
I recently caught a discussion on Facebook about these labels, which generated a lively response from mostly an appreciative group of friends. With some interest, I observed the banter anonymously (as Facebook allows) until someone mentioned that he doesn’t recognize the existence of the State of Israel, regardless of what it might be called. I know some other Palestinians and pro-Palestine activists that share this viewpoint, to wit, the State of Israel is illegitimate, and the labels we use must not add any legitimacy to it.
When the Facebook thread turned to the issue of recognizing Israel’s legitimacy, I came out of the shadows and commented that the State of Israel is recognized under international law. . . . Regardless of what labels anyone wants to use for whatever purpose, denying Israel’s legitimacy as a State was denying international law. . . . And then the Facebook thread took off in an energetic discourse about the merits of international law.
(A side caveat: I didn’t know any of the participants — lawyers? Palestinians? activists? And they didn’t know me. Knowing your audience is probably a good lesson to remember on social media.)
When the exchange became personal and emotional, I tried to extricate myself. “Good night” “Good night”. The energy (hostility?) in the thread had grown mob-like and I didn’t think it was productive.
The following missive kicked me in the shins on the way out the door. I didn’t respond because I wasn’t sure it was referring to me. The poster surreptitiously mentions “the particular individual” and “entity” and “individual Zionist entities”. But later I confirmed it with another observer — I am the “entity” mentioned below.
Without further explanation, I’ve copied and pasted the missive.
Dear Palestinian Friends, I’ve been reading this thread, and am disgusted to find a particular individual has demonstrated that they are only here to disrupt and exact violence upon the Palestinian community on this post. It’s frankly disgusting, and this person is defending Zi*nists because they have kinship with THEM… Not our Palestinian sisters and brothers. Sickening behavior. As a Black woman, these particular positional tactics the entity is employing here are VERY familiar to me. I’ve dealt with racists my entire life, and this form of so-called ‘engagement’ is violent and purposeful. In addition to being mean spirited toward Palestinians (who they erroneously claim are ’emotional’), this entity is only validating the voices of (what appears to be) NON PALESTINIANS, again, as a purposeful tactic. It’s been a while since I’ve seen such hateful actions deployed in this manner, but, unfortunately, I am devoid of ‘surprise.’ Alarmingly, it has come to my attention that this entity ACTUALLY ROUTINELY ATTENDS PALESTINIAN EVENTS where they reside! How DISTURBING!! This is a betrayal and an affront, and I’m hoping that this particular thread and the behavior exhibited here will be shared with the Palestinians this entity has ‘communed’ with so that they may protect themselves. Let this thread be a cautionary reminder of the lengths individual Zi*nist entities will do to to gaslight, justify, and excuse the immoral erasure of the Palestinian people, similar to how Anti-Blackness is wielded and justified worldwide. Just look at the way this entity has insulted Brother Salaita on HIS OWN THREAD, as a Palestinian (as well as other Palestinians here). It’s vile. Please be vigilant, and most importantly, PRESERVE YOUR PEACE. This entity is NOT here to provide support or solidarity, and only to aggravate. Repulsive. Disengage.”
Thoughts and suggestions welcome. If you’re interested in reading the entire thread that preceded this missive, please let me know. I think I saved it.
On Monday, 26 October 2020, the Permanent Military Court in Gaza issued a decision to release 3 persons detained on grounds of “peace activism” and sufficed with time served after their charged were changed to “weakening revolutionary spirit,” as per Article 164 of the PLO Revolutionary Penal Law of 1979.
The Court convicted the detainees of the charges pressed against them in the indictment and sentenced Rami Eyas Helmi Aman (39) to a year in prison, including time served; however, the sentence was suspended as per Article 284 of the Criminal Procedures Law No.(3)/2001. Meanwhile, the Court sufficed with time served for the other two detainees as per Article 118 of the PLO Revolutionary Penal Law of 1979.
As their legal representative, PCHR has followed the case since the onset of their arrest more than six months ago on 09 April 2020, up to today’s court session where the Court decided to release all three of them. PCHR lawyers attended each one of the Court sessions, including today’s sentencing session; during which, PCHR lawyer argued that there is no legal or factual basis for a conviction as evidenced in interrogation minutes, affidavits and the detainees’ own testimonies before the Court. Our lawyer asserted that the charges lacked both factual and moral elements of the crime to permit a conviction based on the pressed charges; thus, the Court released them.
The security services in Gaza detained Aman, and seven of his colleagues including one girl, were for holding a Zoom meeting with peace activists from across the globe, including Israelis. A few days later, 5 persons were released while three remained under custody and were charged with recruiting self or others for the benefit of the enemy under Article 153 of the PLO Revolutionary Penal Law of 1979. On 23 July 2020, the girl was released on bail while the two other activists were kept in custody
On 04 May 2020, PCHR lawyer appealed for a release on bail for the detainees, which was rejected by the Military Prosecution two months later under the pretext that investigations are still ongoing. On 17 September 2020, their charges were changed to “weakening revolutionary spirit,” and Aman and his colleague were transferred to Ansar Central Prison awaiting trial on this charge; meanwhile, the girl was awaiting trail outside prison.
PCHR reiterates its demand for immediate cessation of prosecuting civilians before military courts under any circumstances, as it violates the simplest principles of justice and the Palestinian Basic Law of 2003, as well as Palestine’s international obligations.
PCHR stresses that bringing civilians before the military courts is clear violation of the Palestinian Basic Law, especially Article (30):
“Litigation is a protected and guaranteed right to all people. Each Palestinian shall have the right to find sanctuary in the legal system.”
Lastly, PCHR also stresses that the 1979 Revolutionary Penal Code is unconstitutional and illegal, this Code was not issued by a legislative authority responsible for legislation in the PA and its application has been critiqued by PCHR for more than two decades.
A Palestinian man has been arrested and held in detention in Gaza for the crime of participating in “normalization” activities with Israelis. His name is Rami Aman. For the past six months, as far as anyone knows, he hasn’t been charged or given an opportunity to respond in court.
To be clear, this is nothing new for either Hamas in Gaza, or the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the occupied territories, or the civil Israeli government in Israel. All four threaten to punish civilians who collaborate with the “enemy.” Israel forbids its citizens from visiting with Palestinians. The IDF routinely arrests Palestinian children and hauls them off to military detention. Some remain in detention for many months.
Rami Aman certainly knew what the risks were when he joined that Zoom call with Israelis, but he had nothing to hide. Unlike the “collaborators” who sneak around and work with the enemy to undermine the Palestinian military objectives, Rami wants Israelis to know Palestinians; and vice versa. He understands that the future depends on both sides understanding the other.
A former research consultant with Amnesty International in Gaza saw the zoom meeting and tagged Hamas officials to bring to their attention this forbidden “normalization” activity.
“So what’s wrong with talking? What’s normalization?”
Mike Merryman-Lotze with the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) answers both questions in this excellentpiece he wrote in 2018. My personal understanding of the subject was greatly improved after reading Mike’s story this Spring and his words of caution; I highly recommend it.
Mike ends with the following points:
“First, we should recognize that Palestinians and Israelis are getting together and cooperating but on their own terms. One of the key problems with many past people-to-people programs is that they were initiated and led by outside actors who imposed their own goals and terms on interactions. The normalization framework pushed forward by Palestinians is a reassertion of ownership of the terms of interaction by those most impacted by the systematic injustice of Israel’s occupation and inequality. Normalization principles transform interactions, moving them from coexistence-focused dialogue sessions to action-based interaction with the goal of transformation through co-resistance against injustice. If you are thinking about supporting dialogue or people-to-people programs, it is important to consider who “owns” the process and how it resists structures of injustice.
Second, we should understand that dialogue is not an end in and of itself and that dialogue can be harmful. Particularly in situations of ongoing injustice, attempts to bring people together can’t simply focus on building understanding if there is no corresponding effort by all involved to end the injustice and inequality that stands between people. While dialogue and exchange can be important parts of transformation, they can also be tools used to block change; reinforce existing imbalances of power; and erase legal, institutional, and structural injustices. Whether we are setting up panel discussions or working to pull people together, we always need to understand issues of power. Dialogue is not a neutral process, and we must carefully consider how dialogue pushes toward action for change.
Third, it is important to understand that the normalization discussion is largely not about us. Normalization concerns do not place blocks on Quakers listening to, interacting with, or dialoguing with any party. Challenging normalization initiatives is not aimed at silencing select viewpoints or limiting who is able to speak. Indeed, listening to and engaging with those with whom we disagree is an important part of building understanding as we push for change. The normalization discussion is about addressing power imbalances and injustice in relationships between Israelis and Palestinians, not shutting off all dialogue or ending conversations that build understanding.
Finally, the normalization conversation points to the fact that dialogue and listening are not enough. To achieve peace and justice there must be political change that ends the system of inequality and oppression that exists between Palestinians and Israelis, as well as U.S. complicity in that injustice. To address this, Quakers must then move beyond positions that express concern for both parties and that encourage dialogue and listening but that don’t lead to direct action. Quakers should support direct action to end injustice, such as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) and AFSC-led No Way to Treat a Child Campaign. We can support discussions, but we must back up our support for talk with support for action.”
I agree with Mike’s observations and words of caution, with the exception of his conclusion. He writes: “It is political change and an end to injustice that will lead to dialogue and understanding, and it is political action that is needed to bring change.” Which comes first — the chicken or the egg? I believe dialogue and understanding are the precursors to a political change and an end to injustice. But the dialogue must occur with Mike’s caveats in mind.
On September 9, 2020, a group of NGOS submitted a 24 page petition at the UN on behalf of Rami Aman. Check it out here.
The group that filed the petition — UN Watch — is an apologist for Israel’s crimes and human rights abuses in the occupation, and regularly calls out anyone or any country that stands up in support of Palestine in the United Nations. Sadly, Hamas’ actions in Rami Aman’s detention have given the UN Watch and the State of Israel fodder for their campaign.
Anyone familiar with the human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians will find the following words from the petition hypocritical in the extreme coming from the UN Watch, but no less true.
The Applicant is a Palestinian peace activist who resides in Gaza. He was arrested by Hamas security forces on 9 April 2020, three days after his peace group, the Gaza Youth Committee, held a two-hour video call with Israeli peace activists via Zoom. He is accused of holding a “normalization” activity with Israelis. Normalization refers to cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, including peace dialogue. According to both the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) and Hamas, normalization is a crime which is tantamount to treason. The criminalization of peace dialogue is a violation of the rights to freedom of expression and association pursuant to Article 19 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). Likewise, detention on that basis is a violation of ICCPR Article 19.
The Applicant has now been in Hamas detention for more than four months. His due process rights are being egregiously violated. He has not yet been charged and has never had an opportunity to challenge his detention in court. Moreover, he is a civilian who will be subjected to trial in a Hamas Military Court in violation of ICCPR Article 14.
Then the petition begins its propaganda campaign against Hamas by equating “collaboration” with “normalization” which I will not recite here. These are two very different activities but even many Palestinians can’t tell the difference!
Consistent with the above, the PA and Hamas reject any “normalization” with Israel. Normalization includes joint economic activities, joint sports activities and meetings to promote peace. As detailed below, Hamas considers “normalization” to be a form of treason and uses various provisions of the PLO Revolutionary Penal Code of 1979 to prosecute that crime.
Mr. Aman was held incommunicado for at least one week. According to a statement published by Amnesty International on 6 May 2020, Mr. Aman was permitted to speak with his family for the first time by telephone on 26 April 2020—more than two weeks after the arrest. According to information provided to us, he has had one visit with his family since then. Also, Mr. Aman has had three visits with his lawyer, the first on 16 April 2020—one week after the arrest. The Amnesty International statement added that Mr. Aman was likely to be charged under Article 164 of the PLO Revolutionary Penal Code of 1979, which refers to “propaganda aimed at weakening the revolution” and that he was likely to be tried in a military court. In addition, Mr. Aman has not yet been charged or brought before a court.
A good number of Palestinians in Gaza have locked the door and thrown away the key, refusing to participate in any dialogue with Israelis. Rami Aman is not one of them.
Rami Aman has an open mind, a curious mind, a well-developed sense of self-worth and personal dignity which he wants to share with Israelis who are interested in learning more about his world, his people and his culture.
The State of Israel forbids any Israelis from visiting Gaza where the enemy and terrorists reside. The de facto ruling elites of Gaza forbid Palestinians from visiting and communicating with Israelis, the enemy and occupier.
Fortunately, there are people on both sides of this divide who understand this type of ostracization is medieval and counterproductive.
Rami Aman sits in a prison cell in Gaza, silenced by Hamas and many of his peers because he participated in a group Zoom chat between Israelis and Palestinians who were interested in learning about each other.
My hope is that the youth in Gaza and Israel will be able to rap to their hearts content; and more importantly, be able to hear each other’s rap.
What’s there to say about the 80-page draft Democratic Party Platform? There’s something in it for everyone, maybe that’s why it’s so long. It’s full of lofty goals and language that promises the moon. As a life-long Democrat, I found myself agreeing with 90+% of it, and taking notes to tweak it here and there.
The light-bulb went on about half way through my review when I realized that my “tweaks” actually pointed to a much bigger problem.
Even if the Democratic Party could make good on its intentions — and we all know it will require the Democrats to regain control of the Senate, build a stronger majority in the House, and win the Presidency in 2020! — this draft platform reads like a well-worn, dusty paperback from the 1990’s with ideas that might have galvanized my parents’ generation.
Sadly it’s not a platform for the 21st Century, for the young adults and children who are going to inherit the mess that the Democrats and Republicans (MY GENERATION) have bequeathed to them.
As a political statement, it’s understandable that the Democratic Party wants to distinguish itself from the ghastly failures of the Trump Administration. Nearly every paragraph begins with a description of the evil that has befallen our nation in the past four years, followed by how the Democrats are going to do things much differently, and so much better. Certainly, a breath of fresh air. I suspect most Democrats (maybe even some Republicans) will read this draft Platform and cheer the drafters.
THIS PLATFORM IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT NOR BETTERTHAN THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS OF A BYGONE ERA. It’s simply better than Trump, and setting the bar as low as that is not how the Democratic Party should be measuring itself. Instead, the Democratic Party needs to measure itself by the challenges facing future generations of Americans.
#1Climate chaos is an existential threat. The draft platform includes all of the talking points that any good Democrat wants to hear about climate change (with the exception of the inclusion of nuclear energy) but it falls flat in elevating climate decision-making to the central focus it must have in every aspect of our lives, and in our government.
#2 Global relationships and struggles are confirming the undeniable fact that we are truly one. Yet, the Democratic Party leaders (as the draft Platform reveals) still believe in the 20th century paradigm of us versus them; with a top-down, hierarchical worldview that belies reality, and the next generation of leaders around the world knows it.
#3 The economy of the 21st century will not look like the economy of the 20th. Yet, the Democratic Party doesn’t acknowledge how the future is evolving so rapidly and profoundly different from our recent past. The global pandemic is opening up opportunities to recreate our lives and hasten towards a more just future for everyone (Americans as well as the global south), but the Democratic Party clearly doesn’t see it and can’t articulate that future, much less set us on a path towards it.
I wasn’t surprised when I came to the very last page of the draft Democratic Party Platform and found how the draft addresses Israel and Palestine. It captures the fossilized thinking that permeates the Democratic Party leadership, and the inability of the Party to recognize and understand the new reality on the ground.
Democrats believe a strong, secure, and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States. Our commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself, and the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is ironclad.
Democrats recognize the worth of every Israeli and every Palestinian. That’s why we will work to help bring to an end a conflict that has brought so much pain to so many. We support a negotiated two-state solution that ensures Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state with recognized borders and upholds the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own.
Democrats oppose any unilateral steps by either side—including annexation—that undermine prospects for two states. Democrats will continue to stand against incitement and terror. We oppose settlement expansion. We believe that while Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, it should remain the capital of Israel, an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. Democrats will restore U.S.-Palestinian diplomatic ties and critical assistance to the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza, consistent with U.S. law. We oppose any effort to unfairly single out and delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement, while protecting the Constitutional right of our citizens to free speech.
I won’t dignify these last three paragraphs of the Democratic Party Platform with a critique because I honestly don’t believe the Party leaders are capable of hearing, much less understanding, a thoughtful response.
I’m going to work as hard as I can to get fresh new thinking into the halls of Congress and into the White House. The next Democratic Party Platform needs to be drafted by 20- and 30-somethings who will have a stake in the future of our country. Clearly, the old fogies don’t have a clue.
Israel used to be a “safe” bipartisan issue for members of Congress to rally behind. Israel’s lobbying arm in Washington (AIPAC) proudly touted this broad support.
If any members of Congress had the courage not to join in AIPAC’s love-fest for Israel, they merely abstained from voting. Certainly, a vote in opposition was unthinkable.
The support for the State of Israel has been slowly eroding over the years, but this summer it appears the dam has broken.
On June 30, thirteen members of Congress (all Democrats) sent a letter to Secretary of State Pompeo urging him to stop Israel’s planned annexation of a large part of the West Bank.
We write to you to express our deep concern over the planned annexation of occupied Palestinian territory by the government of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said annexation could begin as early as July 1, 2020. Should the Israeli government move forward with these plans, they would actively harm prospects for a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians can live with full equality, human rights and dignity, and would lay the groundwork for Israel becoming an apartheid state, as your predecessor John Kerry warned in 2014.
We call on you to take all necessary action available to reverse course on this proposal, which will cause more tension and conflict for decades to come. While the full scope and details of the plan are not yet public, Palestinians have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of annexation, and have understandably refused to participate in a process that is not grounded in a recognition of their national rights under international law.
Spearheaded by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., they ended with strong words.
Should the Israeli government continue down this path, we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.
Read the entire letter here. The other House signatories to the letter included Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., André Carson, D-Ind., Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., Bobby Rush, D-Ill., Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, D-Ill., Danny Davis, D-Ill., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. Reach out to thank them for their courage for standing up for human rights and international law. I’m writing my Congresswoman from New Mexico and asking her to join them.
On July 2, thirteen Senators filed an amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to prohibit Israel from using U.S. security assistance funds to unilaterally annex Palestinian territory in the West Bank. My two US Senators from New Mexico were part of this group. I’m so proud of them! I’m writing thank you letters today.
Senator Tom Udall
Senator Martin Heinrich
In addition to Senators Udall and Heinrich, the amendment was sponsored by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The text of the amendment is here. It’s short and sweet.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2020, this Act, or any other Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act, or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense, may be obligated or expended to deploy, or support the deployment of, United States defense articles, services, or training to territories in the West Bank unilaterally annexed by Israel after July 1, 2020, or to facilitate the unilateral annexation of such territories.
I heard a strong organizer – activist, Raed Jarrar, speak on Friday about these recent actions in Congress, and I knew immediately the significance of this watershed moment. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there’s no putting her back in.
I’m pulling together resources to help with my personal education on white supremacy, policing and related topics.
I believe the Zionist history of the founding of the State of Israel and its subjugation and occupation of Palestinians mirrors the colonization of the U.S. and subjugation of the Indigenous peoples and Africans brought to this country as slaves.
Neither Israelis nor Americans have come to terms with our past, nor honestly reconciled with the descendants that continue to bear the brunt of our cruelty to this day.
I will continue to add resources to this list as I come across them. If you have recommendations to add to this list, please email me LoraLucero3@gmail.com I hope you find this helpful.
The Truth about the Confederacy in the United States (1 hour 40 minutes video) available here – Jeffery Robinson, the ACLU’s top racial justice expert, discusses the dark history of Confederate symbols across the country and outlines what we can do to learn from our past and combat systemic racism. UPDATED 7/13/20
Scaffolded Anti-Racist Resources available here. Friends who are ready to get serious about our education on racism and white supremacy: There is a wealth of information included here for all ages. This resource has books, podcasts, videos and links to other resources, as well as many contacts on social media. The goal is to facilitate growth for white folks to become allies, and eventually accomplices for anti-racist work. These resources have been ordered in an attempt to make them more accessible. We will continue to add resources. UPDATED 06/12/20
Seeing White podcast (14 episodes) on Scene on Radio available here.
Just what is going on with white people? Police shootings of unarmed African Americans. Acts of domestic terrorism by white supremacists. The renewed embrace of raw, undisguised white-identity politics. Unending racial inequity in schools, housing, criminal justice, and hiring. Some of this feels new, but in truth it’s an old story.
Why? Where did the notion of “whiteness” come from? What does it mean? What is whiteness for?
Scene on Radio host and producer John Biewen took a deep dive into these questions, along with an array of leading scholars and regular guest Dr. Chenjerai Kumanyika, in this fourteen-part documentary series, released between February and August 2017. The series editor is Loretta Williams.
Anti-Racism Resources for All Ages — Cooke, N. A. (2020, May 30). [A project of the Augusta Baker Endowed Chair at the University of South Carolina]. Available here.
This project emerged out of the pain and frustration associated with the back-to-back deaths of #GeorgeFloyd #BreonnaTaylor and #AhmaudArbery in 2020.
We must do better as a global society! #BlackLivesMatter
This list is not a panacea. This compilation of resources is JUST A STARTING POINT to encourage people to do their own work and have their own hard conversations.
White Privilege Checklist compiled by Peggy McIntosh, associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Available here.
I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.
Me and White Supremacy by Layla F. Saad Available here.
Me and White Supremacy: A 28-Day Challenge to Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor leads readers through a journey of understanding their white privilege and participation in white supremacy, so that they can stop (often unconsciously) inflicting damage on black, indigenous and people of color, and in turn, help other white people do better, too. The book goes beyond the original workbook by adding more historical and cultural contexts, sharing moving stories and anecdotes, and includes expanded definitions, examples, and further resources.
The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates was first published in The Atlantic in June 2014. I remember exactly where I was sitting when I first read Ta-Nehisi Coates’ opus magnum that summer — on my friend’s porch in Gilroy, CA. Today I listened to the audio version and was reminded of why reparations is a critical piece of the discussion Americans must have when we truly take stock of the evil of racism and white supremacy.
TheAtlantic · The Case for Reparations – The Atlantic – Ta-Nehisi Coates
This book attempts to spark public discussion by revealing the tainted origins of modern policing as a tool of social control. It shows how the expansion of police authority is inconsistent with community empowerment, social justice—even public safety. Drawing on groundbreaking research from across the world, and covering virtually every area in the increasingly broad range of police work, Alex Vitale demonstrates how law enforcement has come to exacerbate the very problems it is supposed to solve.
“Cops and the Klan”: Police Disavowal of Risk and Minimization of Threat from the Far-Right (article by Taimi Castle published February 15, 2020) Available online here.
Critical scholars argue that contemporary policing practices reproduce colonial logics through the maintenance of racial and economic inequality. In this article, I extend the framing of policing as a colonial project grounded in white supremacy to an analysis of police responses to white power mobilization during a heightened period of activity and violence (2015–2017). Borrowing from Perry and Scrivens (2018), I identify the two most common police responses—“disavowal of risk” and “minimization of threat”—in the official investigations into the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12, 2017. Based on an analysis of newspaper reports from across the United States during the two-year period since then, I found that local and federal law enforcement consistently trivialized the presence of white power groups in the community, elevated the potential threat from protestors, concentrated intelligence efforts on activists, and provided differential protection to white supremacists.
Social Justice: Fifteen titles to address inequity, equality, and organizing for young readers | Great Books by Taylor Worley (March 5, 2020) Available online here.
Documentary film “Birth of a Movement” available here.
D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation” was America’s first epic blockbuster, and the first feature film to screen at the White House. The 1915 film’s plot glorified the Ku Klux Klan in a re-imagined post-Civil War America. Packs of white men wearing hoods thunder through “Birth of a Nation” on horseback while white actors in blackface play slaves who turn lawless and violent after being freed. The new documentary “Birth of a Movement” explores “Birth of a Nation” through a modern lens.