I spent much of winter break working on an analysis of the UAW 2865 BDS vote, where the movement in the US stands today, and how it’s already succeeded in shifting the terms of debate on Israel-Palestine – that article is now up on the Berkeley Journal of Sociology website!
As we prepared for this past weekend’s Block the Boat action in Oakland, I interviewed key organizer Lara Kiswani (who helped immensely with my last article for Jacobin) about BTB, direct action, worker solidarity, and the future of BDS.
An edited transcript of the conversation is now up on the Jacobin website – check it out!
It’s been over a month since my last post but I’m very excited that my latest piece, on Block the Boat, organized labor and the future of BDS, is now up on Jacobin!
I also had an op-ed this week in the UC Berkeley student paper, the Daily Californian, on the academic boycott of Israel and the anti-BDS bill that died in a student senate committee thanks to the work of Cal SJP and other campus activists.
More to come soon (but not too soon)!
I haven’t written since July 14 for two reasons: I can’t write about Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza when others (see: Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss) are doing it so well, but I can’t write about anything else while Palestinians are being slaughtered by a government that receives upwards of $3 billion a year in military aid from our own.
Yesterday President Obama made people mad with comments downplaying CIA torture and blaming Hamas for the astronomical civilian death toll in Gaza. I won’t link to them because I don’t really care what he said. I can’t believe we still have to convince people the Democrats are the worst of the worst.
More important than Obama’s speechifying are the actions of Congress, who (also yesterday) voted overwhelmingly to approve $225 million in additional funding to replenish Israel’s arsenal, depleted by a three-week-long offensive that has killed over 1600 Palestinians, at least 75% of whom are, according to the UN, civilians.
Let me repeat that: After the Obama administration single-handedly torpedoed a UN inquiry into Israeli war crimes, the Senate passed by unanimous consent (and the House voted 395-8) to rearm the Israeli military during an operation that its most tactlessly honest defenders admit is a genocide. This is a massacre that has prompted the governments of Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru, and El Salvador to recall their ambassadors to Israel and the government of Bolivia to declare Israel a “terrorist state”.
What do those countries have in common? They all, to varying extents, have progressive governments willing to stand up to the US – a state sponsor and financier of terror if ever there was one. In taking a stand (however belated) against Israeli aggression, they stand in stark contrast to so-called progressives in the US government.
I’ve written a lot about issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree, but no issue makes a mockery of the “partisan polarization” narrative more than Israel-Palestine.
I recently argued that, should they run, candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (an “independent” whose independence from the Democrats is pretty tenuous) could pose a serious primary threat to Hillary Clinton, whose deeply conservative record is out of step with the Democratic Party’s “populist” base. On the issue of Israel-Palestine, a recent Gallup poll found that only 31% of self-identified Democrats think Israel’s actions in Gaza are “justified”.
Yet Sanders and Warren – along with every other member of Congress – voted not once but twice for symbolic resolutions endorsing Israel’s assault as “self-defense” and blaming the civilian death toll on Palestinians themselves. Both resolutions passed by unanimous consent: They were backed not just by mean old Republicans, not just by hawkish Democrats like neoliberal poster boy Cory Booker and Chuck “Bomb Iran” Schumer, but also by the party’s so-called left wing.
And now, leading House “progressives” like Barbara Lee and John Conyers joined their Senate counterparts (Ron Wyden and Al Franken, to name a couple others) to reaffirm yet again that, as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz once put it, there “will never be daylight between the two parties” when it comes to unconditional support for Israeli militarism and apartheid.
The 8 members of Congress – 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans – who voted against the additional funds are, on the Democratic side, Representatives Keith Ellison, Zoe Lofgren, Jim Moran, and Beto O’Rourke, and on the Republican side, Justin Amash, Walter Jones, Thomas Massie, and Mark Sanford.
They took a serious political risk going against the pro-Israel lobby and their respective party leaderships. I’ve linked to the Twitter accounts of each above – if you’re on Twitter, tweet them a “thank you!”, and if you aren’t, their Twitter bios include links to their websites where you can do so.
Here’s the thing, though: That this many members of Congress voted “no” in such a rabidly pro-Israel political climate as Washington is a testament to how undeniably horrific the reports and images from Gaza have been. People on the ground say this attack is beyond anything they’ve seen in their lifetimes.
But Israel’s draconian blockade of Gaza, also a point of bipartisan consensus, had already made it an open-air prison that the UN projected would be “unlivable” by 2020. Israel counts calories to determine how much food can reach its prisoners, blocking everything but the bare minimum needed for survival: Items banned since the siege began in 2007 include shoes, paper, coffee, tea, wood, cement, and iron.
Despite the withdrawal of its Jewish settler population in 2005, Israel continues to control Gaza’s water, electricity, borders, airspace, coastline, and population registry. It has to approve (and often doesn’t) every person, every molecule of food or raw material, that goes in or out. Even during “ceasefires”, the so-called Israeli Defense Forces conduct deadly raids and airstrikes with no accountability.
Gaza is surely unlivable today, after Israel has bombed 4 hospitals, 2 UN shelters, and its only power plant. More than a tenth of Gaza’s 1.8 million people are now housed in the same UN shelters that have become targets for Israeli bombardment, and 1.2 million Gazans lack access to clean water.
As Americans, we are deeply complicit, and more and more of us are waking up to that reality. The politics of Israel-Palestine in the US are changing, as evidenced by the Gallup poll showing only 25% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 support “Operation Protective Edge”, compared to 55% of those 65 and up.
You can be on the right side of this 21st century struggle against colonialism, or you can sit idly by, congratulating yourself on how reasonable you sound talking about “both sides” and how hatred or religious divisions are the greatest obstacle to “peace”.
The greatest obstacle to peace in Israel-Palestine is apartheid, a racist system of segregation, discrimination, and expulsion. The greatest obstacle to peace is Zionism’s archaic project of an ethnically-exclusive state. The greatest obstacle to peace is the unconditional support of our government, including and especially its “progressive” darlings, for Israeli occupation and human rights abuses.
Empire rots from the inside out, and Congress will be the last domino to fall in the US-Israeli “special relationship”. Sooner or later, material support for Israeli terrorism will become a political dealbreaker. Make it sooner rather than later. Let your Congresspeople know: Enablers of mass murder and ethnic cleansing will lose your vote.
Whether or not you’re PEP – Progressive Except on Palestine – isn’t about ideological purity. It’s about whether you’re willing to stand up to evil when it really matters. Don’t call it evil if you don’t want to. Call it fascism, genocide – just don’t be silent. You’ll regret it.
Israel-Palestine isn’t a religious conflict, and neither was NYU SJP’s mock eviction notice action. So why did the university frame our “punishment” as an interfaith dialogue? My latest is now up on The Electronic Intifada!
NYU SJP’s mock eviction notice action didn’t shut down dialogue on campus – it opened up a space for it where there was none. My article for the NYU SJP blog setting the record straight is now up on Mondoweiss!
Media coverage of this week’s ghastly terror attack at two Jewish centers in Kansas City (which claimed the lives of three people) has mostly overlooked a pretty revealing detail about the politics of alleged killer Frazier Glenn Miller:
As Max Blumenthal points out on Mondoweiss, the neo-Nazi and former KKK Grand Dragon has “advocated the formation of an ethnically-exclusive white state in the Deep South” – and in the introduction to his self-published autobiography, Miller praises Israel as the model for his proposed white supremacist state.
Blumenthal zeroes in on this passage [Emphasis mine]:
Our Race is barely 8% of the world’s population, and even that figure is dropping fast. And we produce only about two percent of the infants. We buy twice as many caskets as cradles. Great future, huh?
But, on the other hand, look at Israel, where four and a half million Jews are surrounded by a billion Muslims. Armed to the teeth with one of the largest (if not the largest) nuclear arsenals in the world, these Jews dictate their will upon their Muslim neighbors.
There is a big difference, however, between Jew Israel and White America. Jew Israel is racist. They stick together. They fight for their own people. And, more important, they have the will to survive.
Why can’t we be like the Jews?
Why can’t we have the same racial pride, racial unity, and the will to survive as a people?
If the Jews can have a Jewish state of their own, then why can’t we have a White Christian state of our own?
Well, Whitey, whatcha say?
Strange, isn’t it, that an unabashed anti-Semite like Miller – the rest of the introduction is spent railing against “the Jews”, “the Jews-media”, etc. – should be so sympathetic to the Zionist project of a state that privileges Jews?
Strange that someone who goes on to defend German fascism and trivialize the Jewish Holocaust would claim that Jews have a right to Israel as a haven of Jewish supremacy.
Strange that a man who seeks to liberate the “Jew-ruled western world” would see the need for Israel to be “racist” and “dictate their will upon their Muslim neighbors” (not to mention the indigenous population of the land they stole).
Strange that a neo-fascist vigilante who yelled “Heil, Hitler!” after murdering three people would be the one to ask, “Why can’t we be like the Jews?”
Is it so strange? As Columbia University scholar Joseph Massad has written, Zionism and white nationalist anti-Semitism have historically been allies: Zionist leaders like Theodor Herzl collaborated with anti-Semitic leaders as early as 1903. “Jewish anti-Zionism across Europe and in the United States,” Massad points out, “had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti-Jewish movement well into the 1940s.”
Zionism and anti-Semitism shared a disturbing premise – that Jews, by virtue of their ethnicity, don’t belong in the West – and came to the same conclusion – that the only place Euro/American Jews have a right to be is a European settler colony in Palestine.
The ideology of Miller (and other white nationalists in the public eye, like Norway’s Anders Breivik) offers a key insight into the West’s rising far-right: They support Israel because they see it for what it is – a model ethnocracy.
Beneath the thin veneer of The Middle East’s Only Democracy™, today’s right wing in the US and Europe recognizes a warlike, unapologetically racist settler state that – in the 21st century – continues to deprive a non-white indigenous population of basic human rights, while openly declaring that “this country belongs to us, to the white man.”
Strange, isn’t it? Perhaps not.
Thursday night, I participated in a debate on Israel-Palestine with the Vice President of TorchPAC, NYU’s AIPAC affiliate, for the Washington Square News‘s Op Ed Live. The video is now on YouTube:
Secretary of State John Kerry made headlines this week when he told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that Israel is partially responsible for derailing the “peace process” – clearly, a controversial position for an impartial broker.
Last week, Israel reneged on its promise to release 26 Palestinian political prisoners as part of the nine-month negotiations scheduled to end on April 29. Apparently in response, the PA leadership headed by Mahmoud Abbas submitted applications to join 15 United Nations bodies. This gesture towards full statehood, while perhaps entirely symbolic, was nonetheless criticized by the Obama and Netanyahu administrations for circumventing the framework of direct talks: As Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power testified before a House panel, “deter Palestinian action…is what we do all the time, and that is what we will continue to do.”
While Kerry, too, referred to the PA’s UN gesture as “not helpful,” the straw that broke the camel’s back was, he said, Israel’s announcement of yet more Jewish-only settlement units in annexed East Jerusalem:
Unfortunately, prisoners were not released on the Saturday they were supposed to be released. And so day [one] went by, day two went by, day three went by. And then in the afternoon, when they were about to maybe get there, 700 settlement units were announced in East Jerusalem and, poof, that was sort of the moment. We find ourselves where we are.
The first thing to note is that, as far as “blaming Israel” goes, this is pretty weak sauce. The second is that Kerry, in his noble quest for Peace in the Middle East, doesn’t seem to really understand what the talks mean for Israel. The so-called peace process is, in fact, a charade that serves as cover for Israel’s policy of ramping up settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.
The current framework for negotiations has as its goal the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel along what are known as the pre-1967 borders, with land swaps. This last part is key: Under this plan, Israel’s borders would revert back to the partition agreed to in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbors, except for “mutually agreed” exchanges of land that a) allow large populations of Jewish settlers to be part of Israel, and b) shunt large populations of Palestinians off to the newly formed state of Palestine.
The longer negotiations drag on, the more time Israel has to demolish Palestinian homes and build settlements on the most valuable land, including the most arable land (like the West Bank’s Jordan Valley) and the land with the most natural resources. The more Israel accelerates its settlement policy in anticipation of a final deal, the more PA negotiators will call off this or that round of talks in protest, further prolonging negotiations.
Kerry’s interest in a “two-state solution” appears to me to be genuine, which is why I question whether he truly understands what’s going on or what Israel’s endgame is. I don’t know for sure, but I think Max Blumenthal is right when he pointed out, in an interview with The Real News Network last fall, that the US has the talks set up “to blame the Palestinians again [for the talks’ failure], as it did after Camp David, which…will give Israel the justification to annex Area C.”
Area C is roughly 60% of the West Bank; it contains the Jordan Valley and most of the settlements. Unlike Areas A and B, the Israeli military (IDF) exercises full control over Area C. It is the only one of the three West Bank cantons created in the 1993 Oslo Accords where Palestinian Authority police are not allowed. Netanyahu’s current Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, of the far-right Habayit Hayahudi or Jewish Home party, campaigned last year on annexing Area C. The plan resonated with Israel’s increasingly reactionary youth population, helping Jewish Home win 12 seats in the Knesset (second only to Netanyahu’s conservative Likud).
Bennett’s plan would leave Palestinians with a non-contiguous “state”, but under no plan supported by the US during these negotiations would Palestine have the sovereignty, infrastructure, or natural resources it would need to be economically viable (and thus meaningfully independent of Israel).
That’s what the Israeli government appears to want: a Palestinian Bantustan (in just 10-15% of Israel-Palestine) that can’t raise an army and doesn’t control its own borders, airspace, or water. Why does Israel need a Palestinian state at all? Because annexing all of the Occupied Territories, or even just the West Bank, would jeopardize the “Jewish and democratic” state’s Jewish voting majority. Israel would be forced to either deny voting rights to Palestinians, or else face the terrifying demographic threat of Palestinian babies.
While Israel’s Palestinian citizens can vote, they enjoy second-class citizenship across the board. The politics of Zionism are the politics of Jewish supremacy: They demand a regime of discrimination and segregation that includes over 60 discriminatory laws privileging Jews in every imaginable policy area. Israel’s apologists crow about The Middle East’s Only Democracy™, but the fact is that Israel isn’t a democracy – it’s an ethnocracy, government for and by Jews.
What’s at stake for Israel is nothing less than the preservation of Jewish supremacy between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. And Israelis know it: A 2012 survey found one-third of Israelis support revoking the voting rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, and in the event that Israel annexes the West Bank, 69% oppose voting rights for its roughly 2.7 million Palestinian residents.
The Israeli government sees direct talks as a way to buy time for its project of expansion and ethnic cleansing, while the presence of both the US and PA negotiators lends the talks legitimacy and shields Israel from international accountability. That’s what the “peace process” has always been about.
But don’t take my word for it – just ask Yitzhak Shamir, Prime Minister of Israel from 1986 to ’92, who admitted shortly after leaving office that, “I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people [in the West Bank]”. The most recent figures from Israel’s Interior Ministry put the current settler population of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at around 575,000.
The Netanyahu administration knows time is running out: Settlement construction saw a 123.7% increase in 2013. And contrary to this week’s hand-wringing over the supposed death of the “peace process”, the PA has indicated it intends to dutifully resume talks for an additional two months, as well as refrain from signing any further UN conventions. This is important because Abbas’s puppet government was careful, in choosing which agencies to join, not to apply to either the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, which would have allowed the PA to take Israel to court for war crimes and other human rights abuses.
Malcolm X once said of the civil rights leaders who collaborated with the white liberal establishment to tame the black freedom movement, “These ‘leaders’ sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These ‘leaders’ are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders.” Palestinian civil society, whose call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel has been attacked dutifully by Abbas, see their so-called leaders for what they are – charlatans – and they see the “peace process” for what it is – a sham.
At a recent security conference in Germany, Kerry warned that “for Israel there’s an increasing delegitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. there is talk of boycotts and other kinds of things.” Kerry was referring to the growing BDS movement, echoing Israeli politicians and businesspeople who have begun pointing to the campaign (which has, as its goal, the ethical decolonization of Israel-Palestine) as a threat of what will happen should the talks fail.
Of course, seen through the prism of Israel’s plan to preserve itself as a haven of ethnic privilege, the negotiations are already a smashing success – only, it won’t be enough. Israel still has the full support of what Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has called the most pro-Israel administration in US history, but even in the belly of the beast, the tide of public opinion has already begun to turn.
Unwavering support for Israel among Americans is decreasing, including among Jewish Americans. At the same time as endless peace talks provide cover for ethnic cleansing, their seeming futility has helped BDS emerge (in the span of a few short months) as a mainstream political issue in the US. In spite of the millions the Israeli government pours into propaganda on university campuses, it’s becoming clear that, slowly but surely, Palestine solidarity activists are winning the “war on campus”.
Netanyahu and Kerry warn of efforts on the part of activists to “delegitimize” Israel, but in truth, nothing could possibly rob Israel of its legitimacy more than its own archaic policies. The full weight of US power is still on Israel’s side; time and history are not.
In his address to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took special care to condemn the growing international movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
As frequent readers of this blog will recall, BDS has three core demands: an end to Israel’s illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; an end to ethnic discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel; and recognition of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
In short, the goal of BDS is the nonviolent dismantling of Israeli apartheid, a system of segregation and discriminatory laws that (not just in the Occupied Territories, but also in Israel proper) guarantees special rights for Jews, at the expense of an indigenous population. As I’ve written previously, BDS provides a crucial alternative to the rigged “peace process”, in which the rights of the majority of Palestinians are not even on the table, and which serves only as a cover for Israel’s continued construction of Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land.
Mentioning BDS no less than 18 times, Netanyahu argued that the acronym really stands for “Bigotry, Dishonesty, and Shame”, and that “those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot. They should be exposed and condemned. The boycotters should be boycotted.”
It’s not a coincidence that attacks on the movement have intensified as its successes begin to mount: Israeli politicians and businesspeople are increasingly warning of the threat BDS poses to the Israeli economy should the “peace process” continue indefinitely. And not without reason: In 2013, the economic boycott of settlement products by businesses, unions, churches, and other groups – primarily in Europe – cost Israel around $29 million in agricultural exports from the West Bank’s Jordan Valley. The government of Turkey has already cut all military ties with Israel, and South Africa has instructed its ministers not to travel there.
In a few short months, BDS has become a mainstream political issue in the US: One notable symptom of this trend is the unprecedented scrutiny and criticism actress Scarlett Johansson faced for her decision to resign as Global Ambassador for Oxfam in order to continue as Global Ambassador for illegal settlement profiteer Sodastream. But as I’ve pointed out on this blog, the most active battleground for Palestine solidarity in the US is the college campus.
It was in academia that, in December, the recent media coverage and debate surrounding BDS was kicked off by the national organization for academics in the field of American Studies. In a historic decision that prompted hysterical backlash from Israel’s apologists in the US, the American Studies Association (ASA) voted by a 2:1 margin to endorse the academic boycott of Israel, which targets Israeli institutions (not, as some critics claim, individuals) that have not spoken out against their government’s policies.
In response to the ASA vote, legislation has been introduced in New York, Maryland, Illinois, and at the federal level that would cut off government funding to academic groups that endorse BDS. These bills would effectively punish academics for publicly supporting BDS – they’re an assault on free speech and anathema to academic freedom in the US.
But this wave of political repression also impacts the efforts of students who are involved in Palestine solidarity work on our campuses. As I wrote in February, the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups spend millions every year on lobbying and propaganda to suppress Palestine solidarity in the West. More and more, that money is poured into efforts to suppress the activities of student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP, an organization of which I am a member).
Across the country, students have led campaigns to pressure their schools to divest from companies complicit in the occupation. In the past several weeks, the student governments at UC Irvine and Loyola Chicago have both passed divestment resolutions, adding to a list that already includes UC Berkeley and the University of Massachusetts-Boston. Under every version of the anti-BDS legislation proposed thus far, if the administration of a public university acts on a non-binding divestment resolution passed by the student government, the university could lose its funding for an entire year.
While this legislative threat looms ahead, solidarity activists are already facing political repression of a sort rarely (if ever) experienced by other student groups, no matter how left-wing. Last month, the SJP chapter at Northeastern University was suspended for distributing mock eviction notices (a direct action meant to call attention to Israel’s routine demolitions of Palestinian homes).
Justifying its decision, the university administration claimed that SJP had put up the notices without approval – a feeble excuse, since students distribute unapproved flyers at Northeastern (and at every other campus) every day. On March 18, more than 200 activists and their allies (including from other SJPs and over 30 Northeastern student groups) marched in protest of NU SJP’s ongoing suspension.
That same week, at the SJP chapter at the University of Michigan (called Students Allied for Freedom and Equality or SAFE) succeeded in bringing their divestment resolution to the floor of the Central Student Government. The resolution had the support of a coalition of 36 UM student organizations, including the Michigan Student Union, the Black Student Union, Amnesty International, and United Students Against Sweatshops.
Still, in an unprecedented decision, the CSG moved to table discussion of the bill indefinitely, frustrating the activists and their supporters who had turned up in record numbers to support divestment. Refusing to be silenced, SAFE and its allies occupied the chambers of the CSG (rechristened the Edward Said Lounge), demanding increased transparency and a vote on the resolution.
I was lucky enough to be in Ann Arbor (for an unrelated reason) the next week, on March 26th, the very night that the CSG – responding to the sit-in – reconsidered the bill. The turnout was a record for CSG meetings, a testament to SAFE’s efforts to publicize their campaign and build coalitions with potential allies. As only the first 500 people made it into the CSG’s makeshift chambers in the Michigan Union ballroom, I (having broken away from a dinner with grad students) watched the livestream of the meeting with SAFE members and allies in the occupied Lounge.
Community speakers in opposition to the resolution stuck to the official Zionist talking points: smear the (predominantly Middle Eastern) BDS activists as violent; claim that “singling out” Israel for criticism is motivated by anti-Semitism; refer repeatedly to the equal responsibility of “both sides”; paint BDS as a threat to “peace” and “dialogue”. But as one of the bill’s authors pointed out, far from shutting down “dialogue”, SAFE’s divestment campaign has led to more dialogue about Israel-Palestine and BDS than there ever was before. After a grueling five hours of discussion, around 1:45 am, the student government showed its cowardice by voting down divestment by secret ballot, 25-9 (with 5 abstentions).
Student representatives argued the divestment resolution was too “divisive”, but what I witnessed before, during, and after the meeting suggests that BDS’s radical demand for justice unites more than it divides: SAFE’s initiative drew mass support by reaching out not only to other social justice and political groups but also to cultural organizations like the Black Student Union and the Muslim Student Association. It’s only through forging bonds of trust and responsibility that parallel struggles become shared struggles.
That’s what the Israeli government and its defenders fear most: that the struggle of Palestinians against apartheid should become inseparably linked to struggles for freedom and justice around the world. They chalk up the increasing momentum of Palestine solidarity to Israel’s “image problem”, which they attempt to correct by pouring 100 million shekels into lobbying and propaganda overseas. Despite those efforts, the issue of BDS has, since December, moved forward more quickly than anyone expected. In some instances, activists themselves are only now starting to catch up. How can that be?
The answer is that Israel doesn’t actually have an image problem. Israel has a reality problem: the reality that the work of activists, journalists, and academics is undermining blind support for Israel, even in the belly of the beast; the reality that there are 5 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – and they want their rights.
On the Place and Non-Place of Radical Thought
Partido Verde del Condado de Alameda
Diasporic Solidarity
Adoptee, rematriated.*
"Et s'il faut commencer par les coups d' pied au cul faudrait pas oublier qu' ça descend dans la rue"
A giant art installation project that targets predator drone operators sitting thousands of miles away who refer to kills as BugSplats. Now they’ll see a child’s face instead.
Working to build community and bring good food to Bushwick
The blog of Junct Rebellion, taking on the corporatized university of America
Justice, human rights, liberation and self-determination for Palestine
official site of writer TF Ahmad
Reconstruct the Left
Author of "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin" and "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas"
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." -- Audre Lorde
The World from a Hip Hop Perspective
leben gesellschaft umwelt natur menschenrechte
The Red Fury 