WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7547 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-12-13 23:13:25 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-12-13 23:13:25 [post_content] =>How the "separation barrier" changed everything.
There was a time when people would ask, "Do Israelis and Palestinians hate each other?" and I would say "no." Then, the walls came up. Now, that time is increasingly hard to imagine, even in memory.
As a Palestinian who grew up in the West Bank and would frequently return to visit, I vividly recall the first time I witnessed the walls rising in the early 2000s along a road to Ramallah, a city in the occupied West Bank near Jerusalem. I thought: Why did the Israelis do this? Why has it been erected with such disregard for the communities living behind it? I understood, even then, that this division would only tear neighbors apart, and more alarmingly, further separate "enemies" from one another.
In just a few years, the walls would stretch over 400 miles, dividing the occupied Palestinian territories from Israel. These walls and fences, which Israelis called the separation barrier, would not just be physical barriers, but the hardening and entrenchments of dueling positions in this conflict. They still stand today: In some stretches, the walls are made of concrete and 30 feet high.
What Palestinians call Al Jidar—Arabic for "the Wall," connoting "the Apartheid Wall"—was, according to Israelis, mainly erected to prevent suicide bombings and violent attacks, which were accelerating at a rate they alleged left them with very few options. In 2002, during its construction, Human Rights Watch reported that "more than 415 Israeli and other civilians have been killed, and more than two thousand injured, as a result of attacks by armed Palestinians between September 30, 2000 and August 31, 2002,” with most of the harm “caused by so-called suicide bombings.”
But while I could understand the horror and the pain and the fear these attacks had caused, I could never understand how the wall was the solution.
A child of the occupation
As a child, I discovered a fear that would forever shape my understanding of the military occupation.
I have seen soldiers for longer than I can remember, but through childhood eyes, they’d always seemed friendly. One night, however, that changed.
I was maybe 5 or 6 years old when I demanded that I be allowed to mop the store floor in my small town in the West Bank. It was a sign of growing up, and behaving as I saw the adults around me do—working, tidying, driving, living. While I was mopping, a group of soldiers came into the store to buy some things. I remember being unable to control the joy I felt, performing this adult chore, while trying to control the mop, which was three times my size. I wasn’t paying much attention to my surroundings, until I accidentally hit one of the soldiers with the mop’s handle.
When I looked up, I saw something I’d never seen before—the soldier's hand on the trigger of a very long weapon and, oddly, his bared teeth. I still remember these teeth without a face, and how they scared me as much as the trigger on his weapon. I knew I’d made a mistake—and that night, I learned how easily a mistake could cost me my life.
I’d finally met my "master," and understood the divide between "us" and "them."
The "solution" that created the "monsters"
After the wall, this divide grew bigger. For Palestinians, the wall separated us from life. It turned our cities and towns into cages, where the sky above us was the only place outside that felt within reach.
Solutions to this conflict were never going to be easy, if ever achieved. Yet the wall allowed both Israel and the international community to sidestep its complexity, disregarding the future of both Palestinians and Israelis alike. It decreased all human interaction with the “other side,” regardless of which side of the wall you stood. It was not a solution at all, but the deference or maybe even the ignorance of one. It was also a boiling pot: I say this because I saw it, and I felt it, and I lived it.
The wall disconnected me from both friends and "enemies," but in time, I was no longer interested in seeing either. It isolated all of us and confined us to our own causes and anger, not caring for how the "other" felt. After all, I could only feel my anger when standing at a checkpoint. I could only feel my hatred when looking at the wall in front of me. I could only feel my outrage that my freedom to move was restricted by a permit, which I was required to obtain whenever I wished to leave, and that it was something I needed to be deemed “acceptable” to acquire.
For some Palestinians, receiving this permit may have brought joy, because they felt like the "lucky" ones. But for me, I often felt better just going about my life, refusing to get one, because living inside the wall felt more dignified than seeking permission to leave it.I did not always prioritize my dignity in this conflict. I looked for friendships and ways to enjoy life despite the violence and the vitriol that surrounded me. But eventually, all these constant humiliations chipped away at me. Chipped away at the hope and joys I sought—all the things available to most human beings, but not to me. It offered me no choice but to instead look at what I did not have: my freedom, my rights, even my will to love, something I cannot have when I am stripped every day of everything that is mine.
The wall did this. And I wondered as I wonder now, when people are unable to meet freely, is our only alternative more war and more killing?
Before the wall
There was a time when American-Palestinians from the West Bank could drive what we called a "yellow tag" car, which felt like the height of "privilege," because it meant you could drive freely in the West Bank and Israel. At the time, if you had one of these cars, it felt as if all you had to do was drive by the checkpoint and get waived through, most times without your ID even being checked. (Over the years—just like the ever-changing restrictions—civilian cars with a Palestinian tag couldn’t enter Israel and most parts of Jerusalem. Those rules continue to change even now, depending on the political climate.)
I drove a car like this once to go and meet with a friend for a swim in Tiberias, an Israeli town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Just writing this seems absurd in the year 2024. But it did happen often once, and not just for me, but for others, as well—although for Palestinians with limited "privilege" today who have an Israeli residence or hold an Israeli passport, it can still be a daily occurrence should they wish, because those people are considered "outside" the wall.
When driving back from my trip, I had to pass another checkpoint when leaving Tiberias. While I have an American passport, I also hold a West Bank ID, which placed restrictions on what car I could drive at the time. The restrictions had recently become stricter, and technically, I was not allowed to drive the "yellow tag" car I was driving.
I was nervous, but as I passed the checkpoint, the soldiers mistook me for Israeli. They asked me a question in Hebrew that I did not fully understand, and I said "yes." I thought they were asking if I was from Jerusalem, which would have allowed me to drive that car, and hoping they’d let me pass, I lied.
Seconds later, three soldiers entered my vehicle. Afraid of being caught violating the law, I just smiled and started driving. I soon realized that the soldiers wanted to hitch a ride to Jerusalem, something that might have allowed me to get away with my transgression, except I wasn’t going to Jerusalem, but home to a village in the West Bank. Not knowing what to say or do, I kept driving.
Amidst my panic driving along the winding road that night, one of the soldiers asked, "You came from America?" I said that I had. Then, he asked, "How come your parents didn’t teach you Hebrew?"
I knew this was the moment I should tell them I am Palestinian, so I replied, "Because my parents taught me Arabic."
After, it felt as if the world stopped turning and it was just me and the soldiers in the car. We were silent for a long time. My face turned hot, so hot I can still feel it all these years later. I could feel the soldiers were tense, too.
I’d made a mistake not confessing that I was not authorized to drive that vehicle and they’d made a mistake not vetting me at that checkpoint. In any other context, this might have been a moment of silent honor amongst harmless lawbreakers, but instead, it felt like a dangerous mess for us all.
For their safety, those soldiers should not have been in my car. For my safety, I should not have let them in.
"So, what are we going to do?" I asked after another long pause. "I cannot drive you to Jerusalem because I am almost out of gas and we must go through a checkpoint, and I cannot leave you on the side of the road just anywhere." We started strategizing when and where I could drop them off that was familiar to them, but was also somewhere I could go unnoticed. Eventually, we chose a place and parted ways, and never saw each other again.
This incident would not play out the same today—or maybe, more accurately, after the walls went up, it couldn’t: I’d see them differently now, and they’d see me differently, too.
You cannot contain hate
The wall did not just create a cage for "us." Israelis were also not free; instead, they were caged in fear.
You see, I am a person who is "occupied." I grew up understanding "they" rule me, and my rulers will kill "us" if we dare to rise and demand our freedom, the right of every human being on this earth. A right that is not to be granted or given. A right that we are born with and that belongs to us. Both of us also have a right to not live in fear. Yet it is their fear which is why we are made to stand, stripped of everything, in front of an enemy with an arsenal of weapons with which to annihilate us.
Killing, however, is not a right—not for "them" or for "us." As societies, we find different ways to justify it, support it, and, at times, speak proudly of it. Yet when we do so, we all lose, because there is no pride in killing. There is, I believe, no justification for taking a human life. And nothing can exonerate us from our complicity when we support it, even when it’s in service of pursuing our freedom.
When I was still a young aspiring documentary filmmaker, I remember once having to ride on an Israeli bus. As a Palestinian, I had no permit, and I remember being grateful I was still able to board, but was unprepared for how I felt throughout the ride.
I felt fear! What if there was a suicide bomber on this bus? One of my people, I remember thinking. Filled with anxiety, I surveyed every person who got on the bus at every stop, worried if "this person" could be the one. And in that moment, I understood there was no human difference between the fear Israelis must experience and my own.
But I also wondered if they would ever understand that, too. When I felt "their fear," I also wished they could know mine, and how we, the Palestinians, feared "them"—their cruelty, their disproportionate response to "our" attacks. Their collective punishment without mercy against the people inside the wall.
Witnessing horror in the making
As time passed, I grew accustomed to the wall's presence, and it became acceptable to see it everywhere without staring at or questioning it for too long. But the anger remained, an anger that is difficult to understand for those who have not lived on the "other" side of it.
Visitors saw the wall as an "ugly" thing, a sign of injustice, at most. But they were not witnesses to what has happened to the people for whom this wall represents the circumference of their existence. We were not living—just existing. Constantly adjusting to everything, from restrictions to violations, because we had no choice.
The years have gone by, and like many, I’ve seen less hope and more hate every year, with no way to correct it. My privilege as an American-Palestinian has allowed me to see the severity of these changes with each visit: the deteriorating living conditions, the increased restrictions, the endless violence, almost always without consequence.
But I have also observed something far sadder and more terrifying: a generation growing up without seeing their "enemy" as human.
You see, I am of a different generation. A generation that grew up under occupation and was constantly reminded that I had a "ruler." But before the wall, no matter how I felt about the occupation and my oppression, I could still see the people who "ruled" me; I could still see their humanity, because I could still see their faces.
Now, the wall has made the "enemy" soulless and faceless. And I wonder, on the other side of the wall, is there also a generation that fears their enemy and thinks of us as non-human, too? As people who not only do not belong to this world, but who also wish to cause them harm—to kill them?
I pictured a generation of people on either side, fighting an enemy they’ll never know, and I worried about what would happen when the walls come down, because walls always do. It’s because of this, when the time came, and people would ask me, "Do they hate each other?" My answer became, "Yes, they do."
The children of the wall
October 7, 2023 happened over two decades after the walls were built. To this day, I do not want to watch the videos that were plastered on every television screen. It is the nightmare I imagined, but even worse, because it was real. In the aftermath, many people—the media, acquaintances, colleagues—called the Palestinians who did it "monsters." Then, we saw the other "monsters" emerge, the Israelis.
On October 7, more than 1,200 people were killed in Israel, including about 800 civilians, 346 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers, and 66 police officers, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thousands were also injured in the attack and about 250 men, women, and children were abducted.
Since then, Israel’s retaliatory war on Hamas has killed more than 44,000 Palestinians, with more than half of them women and children. Gaza has become “home to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history,” according to a UN official. Entire bloodlines have been erased. The videos that have emerged have been equally unbearable to watch as those from October 7: As ABC reported, "in many pictures and videos that have circulated since the conflict began… IDF soldiers are seen blowing up buildings in Gaza while in combat, waving women’s underwear like flags and rifling through the possessions of Gazans with gleeful expressions."
Many families of the Israeli hostages who were not released or rescued are still waiting on their loved ones to come home, dead or alive; while thousands of unidentified Palestinian children are either buried under the rubble in Gaza or have been left orphaned and injured and starving. Mass graves are only a sign of the times for the people in Gaza: Their "open-air prison" is now a graveyard.
Many may uphold that staying in Gaza is a heroic honor—and it absolutely is. But when there is no choice but to stay, we cannot call it a choice at all. Those still alive in Gaza continue to have nowhere to go, their right to move and live freely taken from them. The children, especially, deserve to grow up and decide their position on a war they did not choose to be a part of. But we have robbed them of that. We are spectators with a cause: We count the dead but look away from the living. The Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian fighters, even Hamas—all of them chose to fight in this war. The children did not.
Are we comfortable with Gaza’s children dying for "our" cause? I am not. But there are no winners in war: What good is winning when the land is drenched in blood?
So, who is the monster?
Neither of us were created to suffer. It is not our destiny, or theirs. While I’m not a peace activist, I did—and still do—believe that the only way through this conflict is to be seen, to be heard, and to share without hate and fear. But we can only do that by opening ourselves to the idea of peace, to opening the doors for peace. Not by walling them up.
Like the Israelis soldiers in Gaza killing Palestinians, many of those who killed Israelis on October 7 are from "behind the wall." The same wall that taught them that neither of them is human, that the people on the other side are objects to destroy, to seek revenge from, and to win against, no matter the cost. It’s a matter of perspective.
But I do not believe it is only the people who pulled the trigger who are to blame. To me, all who were silent when the walls came up, who witnessed human rights violations increase every year, who watched two generations living side by side while growing to hate and fear one another—they are to blame.
All of us, then, are to blame.
Every educator, every media personality, every politician, every international leader who did not speak loudly and demanded solutions. Every person who only chose to look after it was too late. All of us are complicit in the death of every child and civilian in Gaza, and Jerusalem, and the occupied West Bank, for the death of every person and child on October 7, and for the fear every hostage and citizen feels in Gaza today. This misery was created by us all. The deadly airstrikes, the starvation, the inhumane conditions that people are living under, the unknown fate of the hostages—all of it was made and maintained by us. Whether consciously or not, through our complicity, through losing sight of our shared humanity, we have all become the monsters we most purport to fear. Because the truth is, when we choose to build walls, we are the ones making a monster out of the people on the other side—and a monster out of ourselves in the process.
We must all ask ourselves, then, if the right conditions were set, the right circumstances—would we become a monster, too? I don’t know that I can say “no” for certain; my privilege, relative though it may be, does not allow me to give definitive answers. I was born a Palestinian by chance, just as we all are born into our circumstances by chance. But maybe in another life, I, too, could have turned into the "monster" behind the wall in this one.
[post_title] => The "Monsters" Behind the Wall [post_excerpt] => How the "separation barrier" changed everything. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => monsters-wall-israel-occupied-west-bank-palestine-separation-barrier-gaza-war-al-jidar-apartheid [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-12-14 01:39:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-12-14 01:39:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7547 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Politics
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7425 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-11-20 02:58:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-11-20 02:58:45 [post_content] =>On building something better than what we've been given.
I was a young writer relatively early in my career when Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. Based out of California with most of the team in New York, I was also the only writer still online at the magazine where I worked when the election was called. In a fugue state, I wrote the story I’d been assigned: a neutral news piece laying out the facts. Then, I drank a Miller High Life and went to bed, knowing there wasn’t much else I could do until morning.
Two election cycles later, and again, I was the only one still online at my job when they announced the results of the race. But this time, my mother was sitting next to me. It was her fourth presidential election cycle as an American citizen, and watching the television screen, we both held our breath—not just in anticipation of the results, but for everything before and beyond them, and the chaos we knew would follow, regardless of who won.
When it was finally called, we both exhaled. Despite whatever other feelings we might have had as individuals, neither of us, I think, was surprised: Between us, there was a mutual understanding that anything is possible in America—for better but, more often, for worse.
~
It is impossible to convince someone who has bought into their own delusions that what they see in front of them is, in fact, a delusion. This fact is non-partisan, and applies as much to the Democratic Party as it does to the millions of Trump supporters who voted in favor of a candidate whose policies would cause them harm. If you are surprised by Trump’s victory this year, then you, too, have bought into a delusion—an idea of security either afforded to you by privilege or passivity or both. This is different from being disappointed, or scared, or even angry about it, although sometimes they can all feel the same.
“A system of supremacy justifies itself through illusion, so that those moments when the illusion can no longer hold always come as a great shock,” Ta-Nehisi Coates writes in his new book, The Message, which grapples with the narratives we tell ourselves in order to maintain our sense of moral righteousness when confronted with an immoral reality. Coates cites the Trump years as proof of this: The illusion of America has been crumbling for years, but accepting this requires facing your complicity in the facade—something not everyone chooses to do, particularly those that benefit from it.
Our democracy has long been broken. The 2024 election just tore down the last vestiges of the veneer for those still unable to see it. Now, the US must reckon with what remains. We cannot call ourselves a democracy when we live in a country where nearly 38 million people live below the poverty line, where basic healthcare isn’t a human right, and where ordinary citizens have no say in what wars we participate in and who we send weapons to. Nor can we call ourselves a democracy when the salary for a sitting member of Congress is more than twice the average total household income, and when the judges that sit on the nation’s highest court are appointed for lifelong tenures, able to change the fate of an entire generation, and entirely dependent on the political party in power when a justice either steps down or dies. Perhaps most obviously, we also cannot call ourselves a democracy when we elect a president based on an electoral college rather than a popular vote—and the outcome of any election, including this one, should not change our stance that this is fundamentally undemocratic; as is the frequent redlining, gerrymandering, redistricting, and voter suppression that happens openly and without shame.
This is not the track record of a country with a functioning moral compass, although it begs the question if a country can even have one. Morality is a thing for people, not for nation-states. Change in this country, in perhaps all countries, has almost always been reactionary. So, too, will change be on the other side of this, whatever shape “this” takes; something I would have said even prior to the election, because no amount of voting has ever been enough to save us from ourselves, to guarantee the safety of the millions affected by our government’s actions, or to definitively “fix” things for good.
A “functioning” democracy is dependent on the buy-in of its people, but I’d argue also on an electorate's collective desire to do what’s best for the majority of its populace. This baseline isn’t automatic, but built through its foundations, which are fortified by the choices we make each day in showing up for one another, far beyond the ballot box. When we treat voting as our only tool against oppression, we’ve already lost. When we only engage, and demand, and pay attention every two or four years, we’ve already lost. This doesn’t mean that voting isn’t important, just that we cannot solely rely on something that was originally designed to exclude the vast majority of us to enact meaningful change for that same majority.
“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” Audre Lorde said, something I see quoted time and time again. But people rarely seem to include the rest of the sentiment, and its context: “They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.” The reality, should we choose to see it, is our toolbox is often much larger than we believe it to be, our sources of support much wider. It is, I believe, our moral obligation to utilize both.
To do so, however, requires us not to do the work of our oppressors for them. “Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression,” Lorde said in the same speech. “But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.”
If a diverse people’s history of the country is our guide, when has the United States ever been a beacon of morality? When has what is ethically sound ever been achieved in this country without an uprising or without violence, or at least some degree of incivility? The modern Republican Party has always understood—and, arguably, romanticized—this in a way the Democratic Party has not, because the latter fundamentally believes the system works when it has continuously proven it doesn’t. (At least, never for all of us, or even for most.)
The real work, then, is in building the world we want to live in through organizing and action and care, not by solely relying on systems of bureaucracy and government that depend on our dysfunction and discord to keep us reliant on their mercurial benevolence in order to continue funding themselves. The work is in taking care of each other when the systems that purport to have our best interests at heart continuously fail to protect them. The work is in not only dreaming that something better is possible, but realizing it, every day, in our actions and in our communities, both close to us and far away. We achieve this by investing in our communities, not just financially, but through the creation of long-term, sustainable support systems and networks of care; by establishing community processes that encourage collaborative, collective decision-making and problem-solving; by sharing responsibility for our communities’ well-being and safety; and by making resources accessible to anyone who needs them, whether healthcare, food, or otherwise.
In spite of everything, we have done this. We are doing this. Even before the election, I saw the fruits of these efforts in my community every day: people rallying to find breastmilk for a baby who needed it, someone looking for help doing their dishes while struggling with their mental health, another person looking for housing leads after their current living situation proved unsafe. All three found the support they needed, not from the government, but from their neighbors.
So if you are seeking comfort right now, this is the one thing that has given some to me: We still have each other.
~
The day after the election, I text back and forth with a friend. He is disappointed, hungover, knee-deep in political analysis, doomscrolling.
“I left one country 15 years ago because I tried to be a part of something, and ultimately it led to me having to flee, and then everything got a lot worse than I even anticipated at that time,” he says. “Now I see the same thing happening here, but this time I don’t actually believe that anything will get better.”
What do you say to someone who’s already lived through worse? I tell him that I’m sorry and I love him and he deserves more.
~
In the lead-up to this year’s election, I am often very angry. Around me, a lot of people are, too. While some of this anger seems to circle around the election specifically, much of it does not—and it might be more accurate to say it is actually the election which is orbiting around the anger, and not the other way around. This is mostly because there’s been so much to be angry about: the way the United States continues to fund a genocide; the catastrophic reality of climate change; the endless threats to abortion and bodily autonomy; the rampant racism, transphobia, and xenophobia; how quickly the world has backslid into fascism, embracing right wing extremism in elections around the globe. All of it feels impossible to ignore, an endless cacophony of horrors; but still, some people manage, and this makes me angry, too.
None of this goes away after the election is over.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about anger since Trump was first elected in 2016; about its manifestations, its purpose. This curiosity began, in part, because of my own relationship to it: Historically, I’ve never been good at holding on to interpersonal anger, yet I’ve always felt it, deep and terrifying, in response to the world’s seemingly endless capacity for injustice, violence, and other forms of harm. I see it everywhere, notice the various shapes it takes. I learn that rage can be a guiding force when we really listen to it, or a parasite that hollows us out when we don’t. I ask my friends what pisses them off, discuss what our anger tells us about ourselves, and try to better understand what my anger might tell me about me.
What enrages us often reveals something that terrifies us, anger and fear just two sides of the same coin. People often vote (or don’t vote) because they’re angry about something. But fear, too, drives people to the polls: fear for how their lives might change if it goes one way or the other, fear for their livelihoods, their family, their friends, their safety, themselves, the world; and, inversely, fear of other people—although history suggests this isn’t anything new. “The sad truth of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either evil or good,” Hannah Arendt writes in The Life of the Mind, her final unfinished work. But somehow, this has always felt scarier to me, more dangerous, more unpredictable than the alternative. When morality is an afterthought, evil is gradual, more insidious, a slow burn that starts small, until eventually we’re so deep into it, it feels impossible to close the gap between where we are and where we were and where we want to be.
How, then, do we push back? The most optimistic answer I can come up with is by making the “good” so obvious a choice that there are actual consequences to being “evil,” rather than a deepening of the status quo. Rather than moving the threshold for what we accept, for how we categorize and define “good” and “evil,” we make up our minds not to waver from what we know is right—critically, not just in our elections, but in how we move through the world every day. It is stoking the fire of our anger, and our terror, and actually using it for good.
Back in 2020, I read On Anger, a Boston Review forum led by philosopher Agnes Callard. The book was released just before COVID shut everything down, a few months before that year’s election. “Maybe anger is not a bug of human life, but a feature—an emotion that, for all its troubling qualities, is an essential part of being a moral agent in an imperfect world,” editors Deborah Chasman and Joshua Cohen write in the book’s introduction. Some of the writers agree; others less so. There is debate on whether it is possible to be both justifiably angry and morally sound; whether anger is “useful” from an evolutionary standpoint; whether anger is, in fact, what makes us human. All seem to agree that it’s a powerful emotion; Callard, perhaps, most of all.
“When people commit injustice against us, we feel it: our blood boils,” she writes in the book’s seminal essay. “At that point, we have to decide how much we want to fight to quell our anger, how much effort we are going to put into repressing and suppressing that upswell of rage.”
“The answer,” she concludes, “is rarely none.”
~
The night of the election, a friend calls me, afraid and alone in her grief, her husband already asleep. “I feel guilty for calling,” she says. I tell her not to, that I’m glad she did. The next day, another friend calls. He asks why I sound so calm. “Aren’t you worried about NATO?” he asks. “I’m worried about NATO.”
“Well,” I say. “Everything is shit.”
“Everything is shit,” he repeats.
Another friend and I text back and forth on Election Day. “I’m so deeply jaded by this country at this point,” she says. “I feel like politicians aren’t as scared of us as they should be.” My response is immediate. “Well, to be fair, I don’t think we’ve given them enough reason to be.”
~
Much like America itself, the American Dream has always been one of deluded and individualistic self-exceptionalism, selling itself as a meritocracy when in reality, it is a lottery stacked in favor of a very small minority, the buy-in rarely worth the pay-out.
While American exceptionalism is unlikely to be the death of us all, it’s already been the death of too many of us, the vast majority not even American, but people whose greatest sin was being born somewhere the US had a financial and/or political interest in, a Venn diagram that I’m pretty sure is just a circle. But to believe this type of unfettered power through violence could be limitless and without consequence is foolish: Global imperialism is a cancer, and like all cancers, it ultimately feeds on the host. “Nobody is exceptional, we are all just people worthy of life and dignity,” writer Fariha Róisín posted in a message on Instagram. “US Americans made domination a world order and what they didn’t realize was that fascistic glean would rear its ugly head and turn inward.” It should come as no surprise that fascism is now in full bloom on American soil: Its keepers have been watering it for years.
There is little we can do but try to plant something better that might outgrow it, by not abandoning our humanity when it may feel “easier” to give it up. I often revisit Muriel Rekeyser’s poem, “Elegy in Joy,” as a reminder it is always possible to grow something new: “Not all things are blest, but the / seeds of all things are blest. / The blessing is in the seed.” Each choice we make is a seed, each choice a new beginning. Not all will bear fruit, but that doesn’t mean the planting is fruitless.
I know we—the collective we—will survive this, in part because there isn’t much of a choice. What devastates me and enrages me is how many will suffer unnecessarily in the process, how many already have; and the people who won’t survive this at all, who already haven’t. “Where there is power, there is resistance,” writes Foucault. And it’s true: As long as people give a shit, there will be resistance. As long as there are people who haven’t given into their own complacency, there will be resistance. And for all my own disillusionment, I’m not so far gone that I can’t see it’s there: Right now, there is despair, but despair is just a reminder there’s still something human left in you yearning for better, that there’s still some sliver of hope, kicking and screaming and furious and terrified, buried underneath the muck.
“Our roots are in the dark; the earth is our country,” Ursula K. Le Guin said during her commencement address at Mills College in 1983. “Why [do] we look up for blessing—instead of around, and down? What hope we have lies there…Not in the light that blinds, but in the dark that nourishes, where human beings grow human souls.”
It is also in this darkness where we must grow a backbone, because the longest stretch of the fight is always still to come.
~
Late Thursday afternoon, two days after the election, my mom’s phone dings. Looking at it, she groans.
“Forget it, Nancy Pelosi,” she says. “Jesus. It’s over!”
~
In the early afternoon, long before any of the polls closed on Tuesday, I began donating. Not to any political campaign (despite the onslaught of texts, I never understood what possible use my $20 would do in changing an election on Election Day), but to Palestine, to Sudan, to mutual aid. I signed up to make lunches for my unhoused neighbors. I spoke with friends. I chose to respond to a situation that felt dependent on the cooperation of millions, many not interested in mutual liberation, with small choices that felt, comparatively, within my control—a practice I try to keep in my everyday life. These actions may have been insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but they felt more significant than any vote I’ve ever cast, more fortifying. Closer to a version of the world I want to live in, but don’t.
At the 2001 Connecticut Forum, Toni Morrison was asked, “How do you survive whole in a world where we’re all victims of something?” She took a moment to gather her thoughts. “Sometimes you don’t survive whole, you just survive in part,” she said. “But the grandeur of life is that attempt. It’s not about that solution. It is about, you know, being as fearless as one can, and behaving as beautifully as one can, under completely impossible circumstances.”
For the last few years, so much has felt impossible. So much has felt enraging, and heartbreaking, and terrifying, and worse. But I’ve seen enough jokes about the relentlessness of living in “unprecedented times,” and counter-jokes from historians that the times are not, in fact, unprecedented at all, to know that what feels impossible is less impossible than we might believe.
“The worst thing about being human is our ability to adapt,” a friend tells me. But maybe it’s one of the best things, too. Even if we are no longer whole, we are changed—and it's precisely because of this change that we can begin to build a new whole from our parts.
[post_title] => Fear and Rage and Grief and Joy [post_excerpt] => On building something better than what we've been given. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => united-states-2024-election-community-building-american-exceptionalism-fascism [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-11-20 07:25:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-11-20 07:25:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7425 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7357 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-25 17:34:53 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-25 17:34:53 [post_content] =>Why you should pay attention to Arizona's Proposition 314 this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.
Emily Sotelo Estrada knows firsthand the ramifications of letting local police departments enforce federal immigration laws.
She was seven years old when her father was supposed to pick her up from school one day but never arrived. Later, she discovered he’d been taken into custody by local law enforcement after a traffic stop. Her father spent almost five months separated from his family before they were eventually reunited.
“It’s a really hard thing to understand as a child that, because your parents don't have proper documentation, that they’re gone,” says Sotelo Estrada, who grew up in Prescott, Arizona, about an hour and a half north of Phoenix. “It’s something that’s really hard and traumatic for children and because of that, I grew up in fear of law enforcement.”
Sotelo Estrada’s parents are immigrants from Mexico, and her father had been arrested after the 2010 passage of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070—colloquially known as the “show me your papers” law—which allowed local and state law enforcement agencies to ask for proof of citizenship if they suspected someone was in the country without authorized documentation. It was one of the strictest anti-immigration laws in the country, and its passage led to both national and international outcry, including marches and boycotts.
Sotelo Estrada, 20, now attends Arizona State University, and is one of many activists throughout the state speaking out against a new measure—Proposition 314—that will ask voters to once again let the state enforce federal immigration laws. She is currently an Arizona’s Future Fellow with Aliento, a youth-led organization that advocates for undocumented immigrants, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and families with mixed immigration statuses within their household. Through this leadership development program, she’s been working to educate voters on the potential effects of the proposition, hosting voter registration drives, and conducting outreach campaigns within her community and on college campuses.
If passed, Proposition 314 would make it a state crime for migrants to enter the country at any location that’s not a port of entry, allow state and local police to arrest noncitizens who have entered the country illegally, and allow state judges to order deportations. The proposition would also criminalize migrants who knowingly submit false documentation when applying for federal, state, or local public benefits, as well as those who submit false information or documents to an employer to avoid detection of employment eligibility under the E-Verify program. (E-Verify is an online system that allows employers to confirm whether their employees can work in the United States.) If passed, the law would also enact certain penalties, such as an additional five years added to any prison sentence for anyone who knowingly sells fentanyl that was smuggled into the United States and causes the death of another person.
The Republican-controlled Arizona State Legislature passed a similar law in March during the legislative session, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the measure. At the time, Hobbs said the bill would hurt businesses and communities around the state while overburdening law enforcement and potentially attracting lawsuits.
The state legislature referred the measure to the November ballot in June, and in August, the Arizona Supreme Court helped the proposition clear a final hurdle after it rejected a legal challenge from Latino advocacy groups who questioned the constitutionality of the law, allowing it to remain on the ballot.
In the leadup to the election, Proposition 314 has drawn the ire of activists, civic groups, religious leaders, and even some law enforcement personnel, who view the measure as an unfunded mandate that could pack the state’s prisons, overwhelm police and sheriff’s departments, promote racial profiling, and instill fear into immigrant communities throughout the state.
“It’s a huge overreach in regard to law enforcement overstepping boundaries, leading up to potential racial profiling,” says Alicia Contreras, executive director of Corazón Arizona, an interfaith grassroots organization that has spoken out against the proposition. “It really puts extreme risk and harm in our community, and when we talk about our communities, that’s our Black, brown, [and] indigenous people of color in [our] community.”
Corazón Arizona has worked with a coalition of other groups to conduct voter registration drives, host a press conference, engage the community through town halls and roundtable conversations, and work with faith leaders to help educate their congregations, Contreras says. She believes the work will continue beyond election day.
“Nov. 5 is not the end,” she said. “We’re going to continue to fight with our communities, organize with our communities, and stand up to unjust laws.”
Contreras referred to the proposition as “SB 1070 on steroids,” saying it could cause further division within communities across the state and harm Arizona’s most vulnerable populations.
“It is not going to support us, and, to be clear, it does nothing to improve our immigration system,” says Contreras, who organized and protested against SB 1070 14 years ago.
Arizona recently ranked as the state with the highest number of migrant crossings, although the number of crossings along the Mexico border have plummeted after President Joe Biden enacted asylum restrictions this summer. Biden implemented the restrictions at a time when more Americans, including Democrats, have become more resistant to immigration.
In Arizona, a poll released in September by Noble Predictive Insights showed that Arizona voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 314, with 63% saying they would support it and 16% saying they would vote in opposition to the measure. However, if passed by voters, Proposition 314 wouldn’t become law unless a similar measure in Texas, Senate Bill 4, is deemed constitutional. The Texas law, which was passed by its state legislature in 2023, has been blocked due to legal challenges.
The state’s Republicans have continually described the arrival of migrants as an “invasion,” with Republican State Sen. John Kavanagh saying during a televised debate last month that the proposition would attempt to address problems caused by the “tsunami of illegal immigrants.”
According to Kavanagh, Proposition 314 is supposed to target the “worst of the worst” such as drug smugglers, human smugglers, those on the terrorist watchlist, and others who wouldn’t qualify for asylum.
Kavanagh, who supported SB 1070 and defended the controversial law during the debate, said this measure is supposedly different because of its “laser beam” focus on stopping criminals and smugglers, instead of authorizing law enforcement to conduct roundups of migrants.
Democratic State Rep. Analise Ortiz called the proposition “unconstitutional” and a “waste of your tax dollars” during the debate with Kavanaugh. She also argued that it wouldn't “secure the border” and invoked its similarities to New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy, turning law enforcement and civil servants into immigration agents without the financial backing.
Sotelo Estrada, meanwhile, only remembers the trauma of not seeing her dad for months, and has expressed fear that children and their families could experience the same hardships if this proposition is approved by voters.
“No matter your immigration status, it’s going to impact so many different families within the state of Arizona,” she says. “Our biggest thing is we don’t want children to grow up in fear.”
[post_title] => When Local Police Enforce Federal Immigration [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Arizona's Proposition 314 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => arizona-proposition-314-immigration-border-control-patrol-law-enforcement-deportation-law-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-25 17:34:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-25 17:34:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7357 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7341 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-24 07:12:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-24 07:12:28 [post_content] =>Why you should pay attention to Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.
While wind energy production in the Gulf of Mexico is still a nascent industry, Louisiana voters will soon decide whether potential royalties from offshore renewables should be spent on protecting and restoring the state’s sinking coastline.
Louisiana has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land since the 1930s, in large part because of the construction of levees along the Mississippi River meant to prevent flooding, which have blocked sand and mud carried by the river from replenishing the coast. Canals dredged through the marsh by oil and gas exploration companies and sea level rise have also contributed to the state’s land loss. As the coast has eroded, communities have retreated inland, landmarks have been wiped off the map, and the threat of hurricane storm surge has increased. Native American communities once driven to the coast by white settlers are now among the most vulnerable to storms and sea level rise. Indigenous fishing villages like Grand Bayou, Isle de Jean Charles and Pointe-au-Chien have also been left outside of the federal levee system. Their populations have dwindled as frequent hurricanes have destroyed their homes and saltwater intrusion has made it difficult to grow crops.
“We’re talking about part of the country not being here anymore because of man made environmental change,” says Charles Sutcliffe, a resilience, climate, and coastal policy specialist for the National Wildlife Federation. And energy production in the Gulf of Mexico depends on the people and ports along Louisiana’s coast, he explains.
As one potential solution, a November 5 ballot measure asks voters, “Do you support an amendment to require that federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf alternative or renewable energy production be deposited into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund?” The Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund at the center of the measure is a trust fund that the state’s constitution says must be spent on projects in line with Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan, a roadmap of projects aimed at protecting residents from flooding and restoring the state’s wetlands. The plan includes a $2.9 billion project to unleash the Mississippi River into degrading wetlands downriver of New Orleans and a $1.9 billion project to elevate thousands of flood-prone homes. Currently, a portion of the royalties from offshore oil and gas production is already directed to the state’s $50 billion Coastal Master Plan. If passed, the measure would also direct royalties from alternative energy production towards the same efforts.
State Rep. Joseph Orgeron introduced the Constitutional amendment in the legislature this spring. He said he’s been asked whether the measure is putting the cart before the horse, since there isn’t a federal law yet that directs the Department of the Treasury to share offshore renewable royalties with states like there is for offshore oil and gas.
“Louisiana is moving from only oil and gas to any energy,” Orgeron says. “If there are federal revenues to be received from them we would like those to also be dedicated to the Coastal Restoration Fund.”
The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) allocates a portion of the revenue from oil and gas pulled from federal waters of the Gulf to Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Before former Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pushed to get GOMESA passed in 2006, Louisiana lawmakers created state legislation to dedicate revenue from offshore oil and gas to coastal protection and restoration, Orgeron noted.
“It would have been difficult for her to pass that legislation if it was not for her state legislature the year before making this legislation,” he says. “Mary Landrieu used that to go to Congress and say that we’re not going to use it on splash parks and butterfly museums.”
According to Oregron, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is following Landriue’s footsteps with his efforts to get a slice of the royalties from offshore renewables sent to states. Sen. Cassidy introduced legislation last year that would send 37.5% of offshore wind revenue to states adjacent to offshore wind farms. The bill has bipartisan support and is expected to pass out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next month, says Molly Block, Senator Bill Cassidy’s Communications Director. As written, the bill would also lift a cap on the amount of revenue states receive through GOMESA.
So far, Louisiana has secured about $21 billion of the $50 billion needed to construct all of the projects in its Coastal Master Plan. Gulf states have received more than $2 billion from offshore oil and gas royalties under GOMESA since 2009. But the $8 billion Louisiana received in legal settlements and fines resulting from BP’s 2010 oil spill in the Gulf has made up the lion’s share of funding for Louisiana’s flood protection and coastal restoration projects. Oil spill settlement payments to the state will end in 2031, leaving Louisiana’s delegation in search of more funds.
Royalties from offshore wind in the Gulf are unlikely to shore up the state’s funding shortfall for coastal projects. There are currently two offshore wind projects planned in Louisiana waters, and a third project further out in federal waters off the coast of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The offshore wind industry is expected to create thousands of jobs in Louisiana over the next decade. Proceeds from wind lease sales in federal waters go to the U.S. Treasury General Fund. Wind farm companies also pay the federal government annual rental fees during construction and operating fees once the projects start generating electricity, says John Filostrat, Director Of Public Affairs at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
But those fees are smaller than the severance fees collected on oil and gas production in the Gulf, Orgeron notes. “There is no severance. It’s not like you’re extracting oil and gas and you’re taking something from the ground. Wind works differently because you're returning the molecules of air on the other side of the blade,” he says. “You’re not severing anything.”
Last year, two million barrels of oil per day were produced from the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, generating $6 billion in federal revenue. At most, wind energy in the Gulf could produce about a tenth of the royalties that Louisiana gets from oil and gas production, Orgeron says.
[post_title] => Paying the Bill for Lousiana's Crumbling Coast [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => louisiana-outer-continental-shelf-revenues-for-coastal-protection-and-restoration-fund-amendment-down-ballot-climate-change-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-24 07:12:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-24 07:12:30 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7341 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Still, Sutcliffe says the state could use every penny it gets to put towards its coast, where nearly two million people call home. “I think it’s too early to know how much it’s going to produce, but right now it’s zero,” he says. “This amendment is just trying to say however that works out those dollars are dedicated to the coast.”
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7331 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19 [post_content] =>Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.
As voters around the United States prepare for a tight presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, they will also have to make pivotal decisions on ballot referendums in their respective states. In Wisconsin, one of the questions this year revolves around noncitizen voting.
Noncitizen voting is illegal at the state and federal level in the U.S. On voter registration forms, people must sign under the penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, facing punishment of fines, imprisonment, or deportation if they are not. But on a local scale, noncitizen voting is allowed in some cities and towns in Vermont, California, and Maryland, allowing residents to cast a vote in school board and city council elections.
At this time, there are no elections in Wisconsin that allow for noncitizen voting. Wisconsin previously allowed noncitizen voting in 1848, but that was disallowed by 1912. In a ballot initiative on deck for Nov. 5, however, a coalition of Wisconsin Republicans are seeking to change language in the state’s constitution around citizen voting, making it as explicit as possible that noncitizens cannot vote in any election in Wisconsin.
Currently, the state’s constitution reads “every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” The referendum, however, would change the language to “only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.”
A yes vote for the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment would allow the language change and a no vote would prevent any changes to the constitution.
Behind the bill
There are 14 Wisconsin state senators and 41 state representatives behind the push to pass this referendum, an effort which began in September of 2023.
While several members of the Wisconsin Legislature did not reply to requests for interviews, Sen. Julian Bradley, a Republican among the coalition that introduced the ballot measure, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that their goal is to make it extremely difficult for noncitizens to ever have an opportunity to vote in Wisconsin. He also said he wants less room for interpretation around the law.
"If you want to vote in elections, then you have to declare your citizenship, and you have to go through the process," he told the Sentinel.
However, Debra Cronmiller, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, says the initiative is unnecessary and could foster misinformation. The league was one of 30 organizations that has endorsed a no-vote on the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment and also released a toolkit with information about the ballot.
“It creates an opportunity to suggest, imply, whatever word you want to insert there, that this is a problem. This is not a problem. That's been documented time and time again,” she says. “It makes me wonder, is the real motivation here not to change the constitution to prohibit noncitizens from voting in municipal races, but is it to fuel a conversation that is more about us and them, who should have the rights and who shouldn't have the rights.”
Cronmiller compared the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment to a 2011 push by Republicans in Wisconsin to require voter IDs during elections. She said that on its surface, both sound good: ensuring that only citizens of Wisconsin are voting in elections. But she also pointed out the unintended consequences of these policies. In the case of voter IDs, not everyone has a driver's license or works for the state or is a member of a tribal community. And in 2017, the Associated Press reported that the law ultimately turned eligible voters away as a result.
“There's too many people who were unnecessarily disenfranchised because of what sounded like a good idea,” she says. “We suspect [the same] in this instance, where only a citizen should vote sounds good, but the constitution actually already guarantees that.”
The Wisconsin Elections Commission, a six-member board created in 2015 to oversee election processes, reported 30 potential cases of fraud from July 1, 2023 through September 12, 2024. However, none of the cases were related to citizenship, and most were related to people voting twice or involved people with felonies.
In October of 2023, a woman in Wisconsin was charged with election fraud for voting in an April school board election, despite not being a citizen. But she admitted to the act, saying that it was a misunderstanding and that her daughter-in-law completed the paperwork due to an English language barrier, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She has since entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and the charges will be dismissed.
Anti-immigrant concerns
Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin organization that works with the civil rights of immigrants, says the drive behind the ballot initiative is anti-immigration sentiment and disinformation.
“My greatest concern is that this is being used to create a narrative that is intended to motivate part of Trump’s MAGA base to turn out on election day and based on how people look, and if they’re not English dominant, they will try to intimidate and harass U.S. citizen voters to try to steal the elections,” she says.
Neumann-Ortiz is also concerned that the ballot initiative is part of a longer-term strategy of voter suppression.
“It’s been a very calculated agenda by the right wing,” she says. “There’s been a relentless attack on eroding voting rights.”
She pointed to a lawsuit, Cerny v Wisconsin Elections Commission, filed by a citizen in Wisconsin in August. In the case, Ardis Cerny, a resident of Pewaukee, sued the commission and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to challenge how the state verifies the citizenship status of voters with drivers licenses. Cerny alleges that the commission does not check the registration of applicants with the Department of Motor Vehicles list of driver’s licenses and identification cards to ensure they have citizenship. The lawsuit is still ongoing.
Neumann-Ortiz believes that the amendment would “disenfranchise so many people,” because when residents become naturalized U.S. citizens, they don’t have to go to the DMV to update immigration status, meaning the documentation isn’t always aligned. When they register to vote, however, they have to show evidence of citizenship, she says.
Immigrants who are working to gain citizenship are not interested in registering to vote illegally and jeopardizing their future, Neumann-Ortiz added.
“It’s more anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s more disinformation, and it’s voter suppression for all voters,” she says. “It’s an attack on democracy.”
The Wisconsin constitution has been amended 148 times, with the most recent change in April of 2023. In regards to voting, previous amendments have been made to expand rights based on race, gender, and age. It will also not be the only state where noncitizen voting is on the ballot in November: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina also have ballot measures regarding noncitizen voting this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislature, a coalition of members of state legislatures around the U.S.
“This question on the ballot sounds pretty good, but what you have to do as a conscientious voter is look behind the question. Why is it being asked? What could be the unintended consequences?” Cronmiller says. “Our elections are fair, they're safe, they're accountable, only the people who should be getting ballots are getting ballots. There's no problem to fix here and I think we're actually potentially creating a future problem by enacting this particular constitutional change.”
[post_title] => Is Noncitizen Voting Actually a Non-Issue? [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => noncitizen-voting-wisconsin-citizenship-voting-requirement-immigration-local-state-federal-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-23 04:23:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-23 04:23:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7331 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7313 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-22 19:07:12 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-22 19:07:12 [post_content] =>Why you should pay attention to Massachusetts's Question 5 this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.
A contentious ballot question has Massachusetts wait and bar staff fearing a dramatic change in their hourly take home pay following this November. For Corri DePatra, a bartender and server since 2001, the potential industry change is maddening.
“They’re trying to pull on heartstrings,” DePatra says. “I just think it is very emotionally manipulative.”
Question 5 on the Massachusetts ballot this election year is an initiative proposed by One Fair Wage, a national nonprofit and NGO. If the measure passes in the state, it would lead to a gradual rise in the minimum wage base pay for tipped workers from its current $6.75 to $15 an hour in the next five years. Eventually, the change would also allow for a shared tip pool between the front and back of the house to be managed by restaurant owners. But many restaurant workers have come out in opposition to its passing, arguing it would likely actually decrease their take home pay.
“We were all at city hall and I went in to listen to the hearing,” DePatra says, noting that she was particularly outraged by One Fair Wage’s closing arguments, which pointed to discrimination against women as a driving factor for the initiative. As a waitress standing with others at the hearing, DePatra felt they were invalidating her experiences as a woman working as a tipped restaurant worker, and misrepresenting the amount of hard work that goes into being a part of the restaurant industry.
DePatra works at The Kenmore, a Boston pub specializing in fresh pregame eats and draft beers, where signs to “vote no” adorn the walls in hopes of informing customers of how their restaurant workers feel. To learn more, all signs point to a website for a coalition of small and large restaurants known as the Committee to Protect Tips.
The Committee is spearheaded by two of the largest groupings of restaurant leaders in the state: Massachusetts Restaurants United (MRU), a coalition of industry leaders from various sized restaurants and cafes that began after the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association (MRA), a not-for-profit lobbyist group. Their joint mission against Question 5 has so far been endorsed by eight local mayors, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and hundreds of Massachusetts restaurant workers.
“A lot of people are going to lose their jobs if this passes,” says Ryan Lotz, president of MRU and leader at Traveler Street Hospitality. “We’re going to see secondary and incurred costs go up for the restaurant operators and owners.”
Earlier this year, an MRU poll about industry crises noted that 85% of restaurant leaders said they are one surprise expense away from having to close. According to Lotz, restaurants are going to see an increase of over $18,000 per year per employee if the initiative is fully deployed, something most simply can’t afford. Restaurants will be forced to shift to models with fewer servers but quicker service, he argues, implementing functions like QR code menus or counters. And for guests, it will also mean higher menu prices and more fees on their checks when it comes to processing service.
“I think that people don't really understand the restaurant industry, and don't really understand how slim the margins are,” Lotz says.
These profit margins typically fall in the 0-15% range, with the bulk of restaurants falling around the 3-5% mark, according to national restaurant system Toast. Most of those restaurants are only able to stay open, Lotz argues, because of tips.
Currently, Massachusetts, like the majority of the United States, operates on a tip credit across the restaurant industry. This translates to every server or bartender making a base pay and tips filling in the rest of the minimum wage and more. Server Adam Dougherty has been in the industry for seven years and currently works at Fenway sports bar Cask ‘N Flagon. Even on a slow day, he says he already surpasses the $15 bar.
“People will probably tip less,” says Dougherty. “I’m going to be voting no.”
Advocates for the ballot question, meanwhile, argue that tipped wages need to become a thing of the past, and allege that the tip credit model is particularly harmful for women and people of color across the industry. This is because it can allow restaurants to get away with paying staff less than a livable wage without consequence, while putting the burden on customers to make up the difference.
One Fair Wage, which is headquartered in California, champions the initiative across the country via satellite organizing heads which advocate for tipped worker payment changes state-by-state. According to Grace McGovern, one of two Massachusetts full-time state organizers working for One Fair Wage, who has been a tipped worker herself, combating misinformation has been difficult.
“So many people are just so surprised that a subminimum wage is still in place,” says McGovern.
She adds opposition from the Committee to Protect Tips has also weaponized their research.
“Even if 90% of the 300 people that they had completed their survey answered that they want things to stay the same, there are still 124,700 tipped workers in Massachusetts—at least—without their voices heard,” McGovern says.
Massachusetts is one of six active campaign efforts targeted at raising the minimum wage this year, with other states including Rhode Island, Arizona, and Missouri. But in total, One Fair Wage has initiated 16 total targeted campaigns in states or territories, according to their website.
One place where the campaign has been successful is Washington, D.C., where according to McGovern, there has been a positive increase in the earnings of workers. Lotz, on the other hand, sees it as a tragedy.
“This passed recently, and when it did, we saw approximately 6,000 jobs lost and restaurants closing,” Lotz says.
Another hotly debated aspect of the Massachusetts ballot question is the change to the shared tip pool. Currently, Massachusetts does not have comprehensive shared tips legislation. According to McGovern, the initiative would eventually allow for tip sharing with front and back of house, but it is not immediately required. Its ultimate purpose, however, is to move us away from tipping culture as a whole, and instead make a higher minimum wage the norm.
Jay Zagorsky, professor of public policy and law at the Questrom School of Business, agrees that tips should be eliminated, but thinks Question 5 is not the answer.
“Question 5 is poorly written and poorly thought out,” he says.
According to Zagorsky, one of the biggest indicators of Question 5’s failure comes in the form of the legislative committee’s comments in the ballot guide, which states in all capital letters that it "OUGHT NOT TO BE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE AT THIS TIME."
So if Question 5 is not the answer, what is? Those voting no are not quite sure.
“Eliminating the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers on a state-by-state basis is not the right way to go,” says Zagorsky, pointing out how rising labor costs will directly lead to fewer jobs and those that remain will be “worse off.”
For Lotz, fighting the current initiative remains his first priority. He can’t quite think of anything else before that’s resolved.
“I would be more than happy to start working on that if this doesn’t pass,” Lotz says. “What keeps me awake at night is that people are going into the voting booth in November with a lack of knowledge. We need to get as many people to understand the gravity of this question before November.”
[post_title] => The Tipping Point [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Massachusetts's Question 5 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => massachusetts-question-5-minimum-wage-tips-restaurant-workers-initiative-one-fair-wage-state-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-22 19:08:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-22 19:08:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7313 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7316 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-21 11:04:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-21 11:04:00 [post_content] =>Why you should pay attention to California's Proposition 6 this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.
When you’re incarcerated in California and the prison system says you have to work, you can’t say no. It’s the law.
Some prison jobs are basic, like cleaning the showers or the mess hall. Other assignments are more dangerous, such as in 2020, when women at a Chino prison in San Bernardino County said they spent as many as 12 hours a day during the COVID-19 outbreak stitching masks they were forbidden from wearing. Injuries are common, with everything from cuts and bruises and carpal tunnel syndrome all the way up to amputations of fingers and hands. Sometimes, the risks are even higher. When she was incarcerated, Leesa Nomura of Koreatown, Los Angeles, remembers other women crying in fear when ordered to join the prison crews fighting the state’s wildfires, a dangerous and occasionally deadly assignment with pay topping out at $10.24 a day. That’s on the high end. Some prison assignments pay as low as eight cents an hour.
“How do you want your neighbor to come home from prison? You want them to come home beaten down and broken by a system that doesn’t care about them?” asks Nomura, a membership organizer for the nonprofit California Coalition for Women Prisoners. “Something that is breaking down their bodies, that is breaking down their internal resolve over time? Involuntary servitude to a system that is totally, 100% benefiting off of them at cents on the dollar?”
The fundamental power of every worker against dangerous or unfair working conditions is the right and the ability to quit. But on the inside, work stoppages are “serious rule violations” on par with trying to escape. To advocates, that’s why prison work has a likeness to an older practice, especially given that a vastly disproportionate share of prisoners are Black.
“Slavery is slavery, whether you are on the plantation picking cotton, or doing work at the CCWF [Central California Women's Facility] or at San Quentin,” says Katie Dixon, Policy & Campaign Coordinator for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners.
On November 5, Golden State voters could complete the unfinished business of 1865, when states like California followed the lead of the U.S. government in banning chattel slavery but not forced prison work under the 13th Amendment after the Civil War. Approval of Proposition 6 would remove the “involuntary servitude” exemption in California’s state constitution and trigger a companion law, AB 628, that requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to develop a voluntary system where prison work can be rewarded, but not punished.
Currently, nearly 60,000 of the roughly 90,000 people incarcerated in California state prisons have work assignments, and “when assigning an individual to work, academic, therapeutic or other institutional programs, the individual’s expressed desires and needs are among the factors that are considered,” Terry Hardy, press secretary for the state prisons, said in an email, declining to comment on the ballot measure. But this doesn’t mean these considerations are without consequences: Saying no to work can mean punishments, such as less time out of your cell, and fewer privileges, including losing out on an early release.
Still, many people who are incarcerated want to work for reasons of their own, and some studies have suggested participation in the California Prison Industry Authority, which runs prison manufacturing and training programs, is associated with lower recidivism. “The alternative to not being out of your cell is being in your cell 24 hours a day,” Donald Hooker, who prefers to be called “C-Note,” says in a phone interview from the Los Angeles County state prison in Lancaster. “You’re in the cell, how far can my thoughts really go? My body, I’m freer. That’s the incentive. Not being cooped up in what is in essence 9 by 15 inches [feet] of cell space, and you’re sharing this with another person. That alone, being in that environment, is incentive enough for many people.”
But when he recently received an assignment for kitchen duty, he refused. “This is intense, intense manual labor, and I’m turning 59 in December,” C-Note says. “I would have been exhausting the remainder of my life force in the service of Gavin Newsom or whoever the governor is. And I can’t see the rest of my limited days on planet Earth exhausting my life force for the state.”
C-Note received corrective action but didn’t realize until later that the notation in his personnel file could have an even bigger impact. “If you have to go to the parole board, as I do, they’ll see that,” he says. “And those could make you stay in prison longer.”
Banning forced prison work altogether has also been a major objective of California’s advocates for reparations to Black Americans. While it would not make prison work illegal, including for pennies an hour, Proposition 6 would allow inmates the option to say no and to have a choice in participating in work.
“People talk about California being a free state [before the Civil War], but we had a law on the books: If someone had slaves when they moved to California, they could continue to own slaves,” says Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, the Democratic chair of the legislature’s Black Caucus, who sponsored the legislation creating the ballot measure. “We, as Californians, have done historic harm.”
It’s a criminal justice issue where often-progressive California is a follower, not a leader. The state is one of 16 with an involuntary servitude provision on the books even as seven have issued repeals since 2018. An initial effort by California lawmakers stalled in 2022 after a provision to mandate minimum wage for prison work was estimated to cost $1.5 billion annually. The wage demand was dropped for the version on this November’s ballot, which has bipartisan support and little official opposition apart from a couple of newspaper editorials.
“Inmates should not be legally empowered to dictate what chores they’re willing to do while behind bars,” the Mercury News and East Bay Times wrote. “The fundamental question here is whether inmates should be required to provide work that contributes toward their room and board. We believe they should, just as the rest of us on the outside who have not committed crimes must also do.” (The cost of incarcerating each person in California is now $132,860, having skyrocketed in recent years.)
Voters are also skeptical. Fifty percent of likely voters said they oppose Proposition 6, while 46% said they would vote yes, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll. Supporters chalk up some voters’ caution to the ballot measure’s adjacency to another, far more hotly contested criminal justice ballot measure, Proposition 36, which would increase penalties for drug and theft crimes.
“Our polling was very similar to PPIC’s,” says Esteban Núñez of the consulting firm Actum, one of the lead campaign consultants on the Anti-Recidivism Coalition’s ballot push. “We knew this from the gate, but nobody knows what the fuck ‘involuntary servitude’ was. It’s a legal term.”
Proposition 6 supporters are still optimistic they can pull out a victory on Nov. 5 by putting in campaign work in the coming weeks. And a win in the nation’s most populous state could add momentum to the national movement to repeal similar policies at the state and federal levels.
“It’s about making the case between now and then. People are getting their ballots,” says Wilson. “I just don’t want to wake up the day after election day and find out California voters said it was okay to have slavery on the books.”
[post_title] => California Voters Can End Forced Prison Labor [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to California's Proposition 6 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => california-proposition-prop-6-indentured-servitude-prison-slave-labor-incarcerated-peoples-rights-state-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-22 16:12:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-22 16:12:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7316 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7261 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-08 21:36:40 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-08 21:36:40 [post_content] =>Why the Abraham Accords could not bring peace to the Middle East.
In its November/December 2023 issue, the political magazine Foreign Affairs published a longform essay titled “The Sources of American Power,” which posited that the United States needs to “lay a new foundation of American strength” in the Middle East “that protects its interests and values and advances the common good.” Written shortly before the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 (but published after), the author argued that “although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges, the region is quieter than it has been for decades” thanks to the Biden administration’s responsible stewardship. This lapse of critical judgment might have been forgivable had its writer not been US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan.1 But he was also not the only American official who had lulled himself into false security.
Since taking office, the Biden administration, with great fanfare, had chosen to double down on the Trump era’s diplomatic coup, the Abraham Accords, in hopes it would become the crown jewel of regional foreign policy: building a new Middle Eastern economic and security architecture between the Gulf and Israel that would successfully confront and contain their mutual regional antagonist, Iran.
The Abraham Accords’ sleight of hand was subverting the Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking paradigm in the process. Instead of normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Middle East in exchange for a Palestinian state, as was the guiding principle of negotiations since the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, the 2020 Abraham Accords dropped the question of establishing a Palestinian state altogether, making instead vague allusions to peace. Its supporters didn’t seem to mind. In Abu Dhabi and other regional capitals, they believed the time was ripe to put aside “tedious” questions of protecting Palestinians or their unrealized sovereignty, and to instead focus on the much more tangible and lucrative questions of trade, defense cooperation, and intelligence-sharing, as well as upgraded strategic relationships with the United States.
In this respect, it worked. Through the Abraham Accords, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan all signed up for normalization agreements with Israel, and a flurry of diplomatic, touristic, and commercial enterprises sprung up in their wake. Israelis partied in Dubai; Bahrainis headed to Tel Aviv. Defense and intelligence sharing accelerated. All the while, the Biden administration continued to pursue Trump’s ultimate goal of bringing Saudi Arabia into the normalized fold. Pundits in the US crowed about a new era of peace.
Today, conditions across the region could hardly be worse. Escalations and counter-escalations in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen threaten to deepen the abyss of violence and suffering for civilians. A year ago, on October 7, 2023, Hamas’s attack killed over 1,300 Israelis. The attack was strategically timed, in part, to disrupt Israeli-Saudi normalization. In the months since, Israel has killed some 42,000 Palestinians. Thousands more lie dead under the rubble of what was Gaza. A hundred thousand Palestinians are wounded. Two million Gazans languish amid devastation under Israeli military occupation. The Israeli apartheid machine continues to destroy lives and cities apace in the West Bank. Palestinians confront ongoing Israeli settler violence under the full imprimatur of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Near 10,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned without pretense of due process. Some 2,000 civilians are already dead in Lebanon just in the last week, as Israel launched yet another invasion to fight Hezbollah. Ninety-seven Israeli hostages remain in Hamas’s custody in Gaza. The Red Sea has become a perilous commercial passage owing to Houthi attacks. And the prospect of a full-blown war between Israel and Iran grows ever more acute as Tehran executes another dramatic but fruitless missile barrage. No ceasefire is in sight on any front.
How did the Abraham Accords, heralded as a new paradigm for the Middle East, yield a total collapse of security and stability across the region? The answer lies in the deliberate effort of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his foremost backer, the United States, to sustain Israel’s control over Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza indefinitely. American officials—Republican or Democrat—may be loath to acknowledge this reality, but the central conceit (and consequently the failure) of the Abraham Accords lay in imagining a world where Palestinians did not exist. The status quo, which seemed quiet enough to Mr. Sullivan, was, in reality, deeply toxic. Though US policy formally sustains the fiction of a two-state solution, the Abraham Accords in effect tried to bury the question of when—or whether—Palestinians should ever be free and see an independent state come to fruition.
The desperate charm offensive led by Biden administration officials Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein to convince Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman to accede to the Abraham Accords, dangling offers of a defense pact among other political inducements, has failed. Even authoritarians need to keep their fingers on the pulse of public sentiment—and in Arab states, establishing diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel is deeply unpopular. Mohamed bin Salman has admitted the carnage in Gaza makes the prospect of normalization a political nonstarter in the Kingdom.
The Gulf states are now in an awkward position. On the one hand, states like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had already been working steadily to stabilize relationships with Iran, despite overriding tensions for the past several years. At a strategic level, there’s a clear understanding that diplomatic exchanges can head off the worst types of violent confrontation. We see these ongoing efforts as Saudi Arabia and Iran attempt rapprochement: The Kingdom is unquestionably nervous about the threat on its southern border from a febrile and trigger-happy Houthi movement. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are equally pleased to see the destruction of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which they see as Islamist-Iranian proxies that pose a direct challenge to their visions of a consolidated Gulf hegemony in the Middle East.
Reports that American officials greenlighted the Israeli escalation against Hezbollah after the two sides had agreed to a 21-day ceasefire opens the prospect of a more dangerous phase to this transnational conflict, wherein the US and Israel take this moment as an opportunity to fundamentally reshape the security architecture of the Middle East. The risk is that Israel could continue pursuing “greater strategic objectives” in responding to Iran’s missile attack on October 1, and drawing in American support for what would be a cataclysmic war of regime change in Iran.
None of this is inevitable. It’s possible that the US will be able to convince Israel to deliver a calibrated military response to Iran’s latest attack, tamping down further escalation for a brief window of time. But it feels increasingly likely that the delicate balancing act between security actors in the region that has prevailed over the last decade is about to come crashing down in the face of Israel’s unabashed impunity in both Gaza and Lebanon. This is not just because Arab states are unwilling to undo their peace agreements with Israel (Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi underscored again last week that Arab nations stand ready to ensure Israel’s security), but because it is unlikely that Israel will ever permit the creation of a Palestinian state, and none will emerge short of an internationally-enforced partition of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The stark reality that Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi should grasp is that the fastest means to defanging the “Axis of Resistance” is the establishment of said Palestinian state. That state is not going to be the product of negotiations, if it ever comes. The occupation will end abruptly; there are no piecemeal negotiated solutions to apartheid. For the sake of his own political survival, Netanyahu will continue to foment chaos across the Middle East to retain power for as long as Washington allows him free rein. And in large part, the Abraham Accords are to blame. In saying the lives of Palestinians were less important than normalization, the brokers of the Abraham Accords helped embellish Israel’s fiction that it could sustain the status quo with Palestinians without friction or blowback. They were grievously wrong.
—
[post_title] => Biblical Failure [post_excerpt] => Why the Abraham Accords were never going to bring peace to the Middle East. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => abraham-accords-middle-east-united-states-foreign-policy-peace-israel-palestine-lebanon-uae-sudan-morocco-bahrain-saudi-arabia-war [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-08 21:36:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-08 21:36:42 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7261 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7248 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-09-30 17:57:50 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-30 17:57:50 [post_content] =>Who's taking the biggest hit in the global fast food boycott?
In the proxy war over fast food that’s now enveloping the Muslim world, it’s clear who took the first shot. But unlike the war that triggered it, who exactly is footing the bill is another matter.
In the early days of the War in Gaza, Israel’s McDonald’s franchisee, Alonyal Ltd, set off a tidal wave of controversy when it announced it would give free food to Israeli soldiers. In January, the Israeli franchisee behind Pizza Hut appeared to follow suit, when the Palestinian news source Quds News Network posted screenshots from Pizza Hut Israel’s Instagram account of smiling IDF soldiers holding stacks of pizza boxes which, according to the caption, Pizza Hut had given them for free.
Both Alonyal and Tabasco Holdings, the Israeli Pizza Hut franchisee, appear to have acted alone, without approval from the American companies that own their respective brands. But their decisions to give food to soldiers fighting perhaps the world’s most watched conflicts has led to serious global ramifications. As the news ricocheted around social media, regular McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and KFC customers all over the world, but especially in predominantly Muslim countries, announced plans to boycott all three restaurants. (The KFC and Pizza Hut brands are both owned by the same company, Yum! Brands.)
Attempting to quell the outrage, McDonald’s Corporation, the US company that Alonyal paid to use the Golden Arches logo and menu, released statements insisting McDonald’s was politically neutral and had no ties to either side of the conflict. Soon after, McDonald’s franchisees from Turkey to Oman—all of them unrelated to Alonyal, except in their common relations to the McDonald’s brand—distanced themselves from Alonyal by issuing their own statements of support for the people of Gaza and pledging support for relief efforts in the region.
But for millions of customers, the presumed complicity of any business wearing the brand of a global fast food company was already a foregone conclusion. Either they did not grasp the fact that franchisees were independently owned, or they believed independent ownership did not absolve them from their Israeli counterpart’s choices. The fact that the United States government is the leading international sponsor of the IDF only added fuel to the flames: Regardless of ownership, customers still considered these brands to be inherently American. Franchisees in countries with large Muslim populations in the Middle East and Asia soon reported massive drops in sales. In February, the McDonald’s Corporation announced it had missed sales estimates for the first time since the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Boycott promoters on social media took declining sales as a clear sign they were hitting the intended target. “Let this be a lesson to any company that wants to continue supporting the Zionist entity,” a PhD student in Canada, who goes by the handle @palfolkore, said in a TikTok with over 14 thousand likes, posted the day McDonald’s released its sales figures. “Your stocks will drop. Your earnings will be hit … There is no amount of rebranding you can do to dissuade us … We know what you are. We know what your politics are.” (@palfolkore did not respond to a request for comment.) Their post was one of countless others celebrating the apparent victory, and the boycott continues to this day.
The conceptual simplicity of a boycott, and a fast food boycott in particular, has made it especially easy for activists to get behind: Fast food companies are huge, global, and, unlike arms manufacturers, whose connection to the war is as direct as it is obvious, they depend on money from the general public to keep going. But fast food, like globalization itself, does not easily lend itself to such a straightforward line of attack. Before taking aim at fast food, it helps to understand who’s actually behind it.
~
If you know something about how the fast food industry works, you’re probably familiar with the concept of franchising. It works like this: The fast food company, called the “franchisor,” gives a company or individual, the “franchisee,” the right to use its name, menu, and likeness in a given area. In exchange, the franchisee typically pays the franchisor an annual fee and gives it a cut of its revenue. During the industry’s early rise in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, franchising gave companies like McDonald’s and Burger King a way to expand without staking their own capital. Instead of borrowing money themselves to build new restaurants, they could rely on people with their own savings and lines of credit to underwrite new operations. It would ultimately benefit customers, too: A person could walk into a McDonald’s in Portland, Maine and another three thousand miles away in San Diego, California and expect the same food and service, despite the fact that each was independently owned.
As the industry became larger and richer, the capital advantage of franchising became less important. Many companies backed off the practice, electing the more profitable route of opening their own restaurants. But overseas, franchising still proved critical to the industry’s expansion. First, franchisees knew their own regions more intimately than a large corporation, headquartered on another continent, ever could. Secondly, local ownership allowed the industry to blur the lines around its own national identity. Depending on the mood of its customers, McDonald’s or KFC could be an American brand, a local one, or some indistinct fusion of the two.
But almost as long as global fast food companies have maintained a presence outside the US, they’ve been the subject of political protest, and even political violence, as was the case in a series of attacks and bombings in Latin American countries, such as El Salvador and Peru, from the late 1970s through the 1980s, and in majority Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Lebanon in the 2000s and the 2010s. In many cases, it was clear the activists, rebels, or terrorists who targeted a particular fast food outlet intended to make it a proxy for something bigger. Often, the United States was the primary target. Other times, it was globalization itself. In his book-length account of his travels in India, The Age of Kali, William Dalrymple recounts how, on the 51st anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in 1999, members of a farmers’ union in Bangalore trashed a KFC in the name of a “second freedom struggle” to stop “the invasion of India by multinationals.”
Drawing a line from India’s independence struggle to KFC may have been a stretch. But it made striking at a locally-owned fast food outlet easier to justify. After all, if multinational corporations were colonial powers, what were franchisees if not their collaborators?
~
A similar question hovers over the current wave of consumer action sweeping the Muslim world. If symbolism is the point, does it matter who among the multitude of people and institutions behind various international fast food brands takes the biggest hit during a boycott? Fast food corporations may be nebulous, but franchised restaurants are their real-world manifestations. They may be independently owned, but they are nothing if not closely affiliated with the corporations whose names they carry. Why not go after them?
We might see the current wave of boycotts as an attempt to apply that same logic on a massive scale. But the result has been that people are going after franchisees with no business in Israel at all. In August, Americana Group, a franchisee that owns more than 2,000 KFCs and other restaurants across the Middle East and Kazakhstan, reported a 40 percent loss in the second quarter of this year compared to the same period in 2023. QSR Group, the leading KFC and Pizza Hut franchisee in Southeast Asia, temporarily closed over one hundred KFCs in Muslim-majority areas.
“Let’s give it up for Malaysia, everybody,” another TikToker going by the handle @anti__mia said of the news. “The Malaysians really know how to boycott.”
Yet the people most affected by these boycotts may not actually be protesters’ intended target: Neither Americana nor QSR Group has any business in Israel. In fact, the largest backers of both franchisees are agencies of governments that have taken positions against Israel. Americana Group’s largest investor is the Public Investment Fund, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—a country which has never recognized Israel and has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. The controlling shareholder of QSR Brands is an investment company owned by the Malaysian state of Johor, and one of its largest minority shareholders is another government entity, a pension fund controlled by the Malaysian Ministry of Finance. The Malaysian government is so at odds with Israel that, last year, it adopted a boycott of its own, banning all Israeli ships from entering its ports.
Fast food ownership might be fuzzy by nature, but the effects of the current boycotts are quite vivid. Earlier this year, QSR Brands intended to put itself up on the local stock exchange, attracting more investors and likely bringing in additional money for the state-owned agencies that control it. But after closing stores and watching profits tumble, those plans are indefinitely on hold. Despite the avowedly pro-Palestinian position of the Malaysian government, to activists and Gaza-watchers on TikTok, the KFC name—and its American ties—speaks louder.
~
Back in Israel, McDonald’s has gone through an even more dramatic transition. In April, McDonald’s Corporation made the drastic choice to buy back all 225 of Alonyal’s restaurants for an undisclosed sum. Owning Israeli McDonald’s outright will expose the company to more risk, but it will also give the company more control, and the local stores more stability during a period of political upheaval. Boycott or not, the fast food industry finds a way.
Ownership also means McDonald’s Corporation gets to capture the profits for itself instead of sharing them with a local partner. Ironically, a boycott of Israeli stores now would do more harm to the US company’s bottom line than it did when the boycott began. Despite the protestations of its corporate masters, the fast food industry—like any global industry—is enmeshed in world politics, after all.
[post_title] => The Proxy Fast Food War [post_excerpt] => Who's taking the biggest hit in the global fast food boycott? [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => global-fast-food-boycott-gaza-palestine-israel-middle-east-mcdonalds-kfc-pizza-hut [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-04 01:41:16 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-04 01:41:16 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://old.conversationalist.org/?p=7248 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7175 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-09-06 23:15:35 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-06 23:15:35 [post_content] =>If we want to restore and preserve abortion rights in the United States, we have to fight harder for the ERA.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s overdue decision to suspend his reelection campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the nomination has given the Democratic Party a decent shot at winning in November. It has also freed the Democrats to emphasize an issue they believe will drive voters to the polls: At its recent national convention, the party put reproductive rights and the “power of women” front and center, hoping to capitalize on voters’ very rational fear of a potential nationwide abortion ban if Trump is reelected.
But while the landscape for abortion rights will be less bleak if Democrats retain the White House next year, electing Harris alone will not be enough to restore these rights or prevent them from being ripped away again. Nor will it keep the far-right Supreme Court from laying the groundwork for the next Republican administration to implement the same reactionary social policies favored by the architects of Project 2025, the so-called blueprint for a second Trump term.
Aside from changing the composition of the Court, many advocates believe that passing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the best and possibly the only way to restore our abortion rights, and, more broadly, to protect the rights of millions of American women and LGBTQ+ people from current and future attacks. First proposed in 1923, the ERA would prohibit gender discrimination and ensure that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”—something our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee. Most crucially, it would also safeguard these rights no matter which political party is in power. Its passage has rarely felt so urgent; in the wake of Dobbs, Americans cannot afford to leave the ERA’s fate up to the leaders of either party. Congress has already repeatedly failed to pass federal legislation to protect abortion rights: With so much at stake, demanding that the Biden administration immediately publish this badly needed amendment, and, to a lesser extent, joining efforts to add gender equality provisions to state constitutions has become far more crucial to preserving our rights than voting alone.
According to the American Bar Association (ABA) and other experts, the ERA has already achieved the number of state ratifications required to add it to the Constitution. (Conservative activists argue that some states’ decisions to rescind their original ratifications means the ERA never met this threshold, but many legal scholars say those rescissions are legally invalid and can be ignored.) But while Biden has repeatedly affirmed his support for the ERA, he has, to the outrage of its proponents, resisted publishing it for years. Why he is so reluctant is anyone’s guess. Perhaps his administration is taking a conservative approach due to perceived legal issues and a general fear of rocking the boat, despite the ERA’s popularity and legal validity. Or maybe they think it’s in their best interest to preserve threats to equality that double as fundraising tools for the Democratic Party and its allies, which help them retain the support of voters who know today’s GOP will do nothing to publish the ERA or protect abortion rights, but still hold out hope that the Democrats might.
It could also be personal: Biden, who is technically pro-choice, is a notably poor advocate with an appalling record on the issue. By contrast, Harris speaks passionately about abortion and, in March, became the first sitting U.S. president or vice president to visit an abortion clinic in an official capacity. In her convention speech, she declared, “We trust women,” and vowed that when “Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom” she would “proudly sign it into law.” Yet she offered no explanation as to why this didn’t happen when Democrats controlled Congress, no strategy for ensuring that it happens in the next Congress, and no reason why the Democratic administration she is currently a part of hasn’t yet published the ERA. There is also no reason to assume that if Harris wins in November, she will honor her 2019 presidential campaign pledge to pass the ERA in her first 100 days in office, either. In fact, she did not mention the ERA in her speech at all, despite the party’s promise in its official 2024 platform that “Democrats will fight to make the Equal Rights Amendment the law of the land.” Notably, this year’s platform also promised that “Democrats will work to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act”—something then President Obama promised to do over a decade ago—and repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal programs like Medicaid from covering the cost of most abortions, and which Biden supported until June 2019. It did not explain how they plan to do so. (Neither the Biden administration nor the Harris campaign responded to my requests for comment by the time this was published.)
Nicole Vorrasi Bates, Executive Director of the pro-ERA organization Shattering Glass, did not mince words in a recent phone call. “Both parties are playing political football with the rights and lives of 187 million women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people,” she said. Regardless of who is in the White House, the Supreme Court will issue rulings in the next year that could further damage women’s legal standing for decades to come by subjecting claims of gender discrimination to a lower standard of judicial review—something that theoretically could not happen if we could point to language in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees sex equality, rather than relying on what many legal scholars consider an implicit guarantee under the 14th Amendment.
The quickest and most straightforward path to achieving that guarantee is to publish the ERA. As Mrinalini Sisodia Wadhwa explained in a 2020 Columbia Undergraduate Law Review article, “the Court has continually changed the test it uses to evaluate claims of sex-discrimination…Without [the ERA], the Court will continue to evaluate sex-discrimination cases without a steady metric, thereby leaving problems of inequality unsolved.” The fact that sex equality is not clearly guaranteed in the Constitution, Wadhwa wrote, gives the Court “a blank check to decide what test to use” and “how seriously to take challenges against statutes that discriminate on the basis of sex.”
Today, the vast majority of pro-ERA politicians are Democrats. But the ERA continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support among voters. A 2016 poll found that 90% of Republicans support it, which suggests that most non-elite Republicans favor basic equality—and GOP leaders are, on this issue, profoundly out of step with their base. A more recent 2022 poll shows that the vast majority of Americans still support the amendment—and gender equality—across party lines. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly derailed the ERA in the 1970s and left it for dead at the dawn of the Reagan era; decades later, fury at Trump resurrected it. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020, bringing the total number of state ratifications to the 38 required to make it part of the Constitution.
Twenty-nine states already explicitly guarantee sex or gender equality in their constitutions, which offers stronger and more durable protections for abortion rights than state laws banning discrimination. The ERA would guarantee these protections at the federal level. Such protections are necessary even in blue states with strong anti-discrimination laws for two main reasons: (1) laws are much easier to change and/or repeal than constitutional text and (2) gender discrimination claims are usually subject to intermediate scrutiny, which is a lower standard than the one applied in cases involving explicitly protected categories like race. This is because a minority of Americans with outsized power do not consider abortion a right and do not want U.S. courts to treat gender discrimination as seriously as other forms of prejudice. Once courts are required to apply the same standard to sex-discrimination cases, abortion restrictions, which apply almost exclusively to women, will be much harder to defend.
This is already clear at the state level. In Connecticut and New Mexico, the constitutions of which prohibit sex discrimination, courts have upheld public funding of abortion. The New Mexico Supreme Court is considering striking down abortion restrictions passed by conservative localities because they violate the state’s constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that abortion providers can challenge Pennsylvania’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion as sex discrimination under the state’s Equal Rights Amendment and constitutional equal protection provisions. Even in blood-red Utah, the state Supreme Court recently upheld a suspension of the state’s abortion ban, keeping the procedure legal while the ban is being challenged in court. In suing to block the Utah ban, Utah Planned Parenthood argued that it violated several provisions in the state’s constitution, including the right to gender equality.
But as Wendy J. Murphy explained in a recent law review article, amending state constitutions is an imperfect strategy for reasons similar to those put forth by Wadhwa. According to Murphy, only thirteen states enforce their own constitutional gender equity provisions under the highest standard of judicial review. In Texas, for example, the state constitution’s sex equality provision failed to protect Texas women when the state Supreme Court concluded that abortion-related funding restrictions do not deny equality “‘because of’ sex, even though only women [can] become pregnant.” As Murphy argued, “without the ERA, States are free to apply their State constitutional equality guarantees unequally to women.”
This doesn’t mean that states’ efforts are futile. A year ago, abortion rights supporters had reason for cautious optimism: Ballot measures designed to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions passed, and those intended to restrict such rights failed in all seven of the states, including red states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio, that voted on these measures in the aftermath of Dobbs. In November, New Yorkers will vote on whether their constitution should guarantee equality regardless of gender and reproductive status. (New York’s constitution currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, creed or religion,” but not “sex.”) Floridians, too, will have the opportunity to enshrine abortion rights in their constitution. Abortion-related state constitutional amendments are also on the ballot or under consideration in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota.
Yet some recent efforts to protect abortion and other rights via state constitutions have stalled. Despite having approved a resolution calling on Congress to ratify the federal ERA in 2023, Minnesota was unable to pass a state ERA in 2024. Minnesota’s proposed amendment did not include the word “abortion,” but it would have protected Minnesotans’ right to make “decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant.” An effort to enshrine abortion rights in Maine’s constitution similarly failed in April after lawmakers voted against putting the proposal on the November ballot. The Maine proposal, which would have asked whether Mainers wanted their state constitution “to declare that every person has a right to reproductive autonomy,” also omitted the word “abortion,” though supporters did not avoid the word in promoting it.
Even states that have managed to get reproductive rights on the ballot have had to fight to include the word “abortion.” In New York, pro-choice advocates and legislators attempted to revise the language of the upcoming ballot measure to make its primary purpose—protecting abortion rights—clear, after the state board of elections voted to exclude the word “abortion” from the initiative’s description. Democrats challenged that decision on the grounds that the state is obligated to provide easy-to-understand explanations of ballot proposals to voters. A judge recently upheld the vague language, and state Democrats are now squabbling over whether to keep fighting for the broadly popular initiative or retreat in hopes of neutralizing bad-faith GOP attacks on Democrats in swing districts. But allowing an abortion-rights initiative to fail in deep-blue New York would have serious implications for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights nationwide.
Gender equality as a concept is broadly popular in the United States, whether or not it always exists in fact. And as we’ve seen many times in the wake of Dobbs, abortion rights are popular and restricting them is not. That’s why the GOP is working so hard to keep abortion off of state ballots and overrule the will of the voters, and why New York Democrats belatedly tried to tie the word “abortion” to the state’s upcoming ballot proposal: Both parties know that opportunities to defend abortion rights drive voter turnout. But whatever happens in November, our rights would be better protected if Biden simply published the ERA today.
Despite her frustration with the two major parties, Bates remains hopeful that the tide is beginning to turn. “In light of recent events, and given all that’s at stake, the momentum for ERA publication is growing exponentially,” she recently said. Whoever our next president is, one thing is clear: Actions speak louder than words, and we will need to do more than vote to take back our rights.
[post_title] => Voting Isn't Going to Be Enough [post_excerpt] => If we want to restore and preserve abortion rights in the United States, we have to fight harder for the ERA. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2024-election-abortion-rights-reproductive-justice-equal-rights-amendment-kamala-harris-dnc [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-09-06 23:19:38 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-09-06 23:19:38 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7175 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7088 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-08-01 08:20:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-08-01 08:20:26 [post_content] =>A decade later, activist and politician Feleknas Uca is still seeking justice for her community.
At the broad, gray steps of the entrance to the European Parliament in Brussels, a group of women circle around one in particular. Most are dressed in traditional Yazidi attire—long, white dresses with short lilac or black vests, and white headscarves—but the woman they’ve assembled around is dressed inconspicuously, her long, dark hair tied in a loose knot. Everybody knows who she is: Feleknas Uca, a long-time advocate for the rights of her Yazidi community. Looking at the women around her, she calls out their names one by one, handing each a badge. With these badges, the women will be able to enter the colossal building before them, where their voices are desperately needed inside. Uca has organized this gathering, a one-day conference, to demand justice for the Yazidi genocide, ten years ago this August.
"Yazidis need to be able to protect themselves,” she says.
Those who remember the Yazidi genocide, which started on August 3, 2014, likely recall the haunting footage of Iraqi and US helicopters throwing water and food down to the bone-dry, scorching hot mountain below, where Yazidi refugees had gathered in a panic. Down the hill, ISIS, the fundamentalist jihadist group that had quickly occupied large swaths of Iraq and Syria, had begun an ethnic cleansing of their people.
Mount Sinjar (or Shingal, in Kurdish) is the center of the historic homeland of the Yazidis, and was, at the time, their last hope for salvation. As some of the helicopters touched ground, they prioritized pulling women, children, and the elderly to safety. Those left behind on the mountain either succumbed to the heat, thirst, or exhaustion; the rest were brought across the border after Kurdish militias opened a corridor to Kurdish-controlled land in Syria.
The fate of those who never made it to the mountain would become clearer in the weeks and months thereafter. Thousands of men were instantly massacred by ISIS, and thousands of women and children were abducted. Girls and women were forced into ISIS “marriages,” sold on markets, and used as domestic and sex slaves, while boys became “cubs of the caliphate,” fighters-in-training. All were forcibly converted to Islam.
Ethnically, Yazidis are considered Kurdish, and their mother tongue is the eponymous language; although some in the Yazidi community consider it an ethnic identity of its own. Others contend all Kurds used to be Yazidis, until the emergence of Islam, when many Kurds converted. ISIS considered the Yazidis to be devil worshippers, as most adhere to a centuries-old pre-Christian and pre-Islamic faith.
Uca was visiting Germany when the genocide started to unfold, receiving the news in real time on the day the tragedy began. ISIS had been approaching, but the Kurdish peshmerga forces present in the Shingal region had promised to protect the Yazidis from harm. They withdrew just as ISIS began their attack.
“A call came from a man I knew who was there,” she says. “His sister wanted to kill herself because she was about to fall into ISIS’ hands. She had a weapon. We tried to talk to her but then I heard a shot. I will never forget that moment.”
The daughter of a Yazidi family that migrated to Germany in the 1970s, Uca was born in the north-central town of Celle, which has a large Yazidi community. In 1999, at age 22, she became the youngest-ever member of European Parliament (MEP) as a German representative of the Party for Democratic Socialism, and later for Die Linke (The Left), where she remained an MEP until 2009, when she didn’t seek re-election. When the genocide began, she had just recently moved from Germany to Turkey, where her family was originally from: The Yazidis are indigenous to Kurdistan, which geographically includes regions of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. She’d chosen to live in Diyarbakır, the largest Kurdish city in Turkey’s southeast region, and had become a candidate in the parliamentary elections for the Peoples’ Democratic Party, or HDP. Founded in 2012, HDP is a leftist party rooted in the Kurdish political movement; their main objective is to democratize Turkey and give regions and communities the opportunity to govern themselves. In the June 2015 elections, Uca was elected MP and became the first Yazidi in Turkish parliament.
From the start of her time as an HDP MP, Uca was in a delicate position. While advocating for Kurds and for Yazidis specifically, the HDP claimed that the Turkish government had been aiding ISIS, and consequently held it co-responsible for the genocide—something the government vehemently denied. The HDP, including Uca, also supported the armed Kurdish groups that fought against ISIS, including those the Turkish government considered to be terrorists because of their adherence to the same leftist ideology as the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, which has been waging an armed struggle for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey since the 1980s. Because of this overlap, HDP MPs, like Uca, became victims of a government campaign that accused them of supporting terrorism.
Uca was undeterred by it. The author of this piece, herself based in Diyarbakır during those years, got to know Uca as a parliamentarian who was often found among her community, listening to their needs and trying to forge solutions for them in her capacity as MP. For example, many Yazidis who fled to Turkey to escape ISIS were left in refugee camps with tents that did not protect them during harsh winters and hot summers. They also lacked adequate medical care and were not receiving substantial education. As MP, Uca made attempts to increase the budget for the camps, and while she only had limited success, her presence and care endeared her to the community.
Having witnessed the Yazidis’ struggles over the years while advocating for them at high levels of government, Uca has a profound understanding of her community’s needs, wants, and fears. Today, she believes what’s most important is ensuring they are able to return to their homeland. In the aftermath of the genocide, thousands of Yazidis left their home as refugees, resettling in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. While they may be physically safe in these places, Uca tells me, their displacement is still a continuation of the genocide.
“What ISIS wanted to do, is not only to kill and enslave the Yazidis, but also remove them from their ancestral lands. One of the problems we face now is that the community is still not able to return to Shingal because it remains too unsafe,” she says.
In Shingal, where the Iraqi army and Iran-backed militias are now stationed, the Yazidi self-defense force—the Shingal Resistance Units (YBŞ)—founded by the PKK in the weeks after August 3, 2014, is under pressure to be dismantled. Like the PKK, Turkey considers the YBŞ a terrorist group, and regularly bombs them, killing fighters; in addition to targeting local medical clinics, according to reports by Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group. Consequently, Yazidis can’t always return to their homeland, even if they wish to do so. Uca believes that Europe and the US have a responsibility to step in.
“Many Western countries have recognized the Yazidi genocide, but they don’t take any action to assist the community in building a future again in Shingal,” she says. “They don’t visit the region, they don’t help rebuilding it, they don’t hold Turkey responsible for assisting ISIS then, and letting it attack Shingal now.”
Among her many grievances are the centers that were opened in several European countries—mostly in Germany—where Yazidi women who were rescued from ISIS could process their trauma. These same services remain unavailable in Shingal.
“I have always said that if we really want to help these women, we will have to build trauma centers in Shingal, so they can process their trauma and rebuild their future and live their culture and religion in their homeland, where they were born and raised,” Uca says. “But the therapy has been transferred abroad, and with that, the future of the Yazidis. While the community can only really survive at home.”
The continued plight of the Yazidis could cause Uca great despair, but she is adamant that there are also victories, large and small. She has heard countless stories of Yazidi women, in particular, overcoming horrific circumstances and fighting back. She was able to get a visa for one of these women, Hêza Shengalî, so that she could speak at the one-day conference in Brussels. Shengalî was taken captive by ISIS in 2014 and remained in their custody for a year. After she escaped, she joined the Şengal Women’s Units, or YJŞ—the armed women’s wing of the YBŞ—and requested to be sent to Syria to join the forces fighting ISIS there.
“For me, and for other Yazidi women who have joined the YBŞ, fighting back against ISIS is a way to heal,” Shengalî says.
As a commander, she contributed to their eventual victory in the city of Raqqa, which ISIS had deemed their “capital.” When Raqqa was liberated, many Yazidi women and girls were liberated, too. After returning to Shingal, Hêza was even a part of a small delegation that handed over a newly liberated young Yazidi woman back to her family.
In large part because of the YBŞ, despite the Yazidi community’s past gender conservatism, things have started to change in the last decade, including its expectations of women.
“Hêza is normative for what Yazidi women can accomplish,” Uca says. “In 2014, and after that, even 70-year-old women have taken up a weapon to defend themselves. The community has transformed itself.”
Of course, there is still a long way to go. In early 2018, after ISIS lost the last territory they occupied, the women and their children were locked up in camps in northeast Syria and guarded by Kurdish forces. Amongst them were Yazidi women who were once held captive by ISIS. They were (and are) afraid to reveal themselves as such because ISIS ideology is still prevalent amongst the prisoners there. For others, it’s because they’ve had children with ISIS members and are afraid to lose them, as the Yazidi community does not accept these children as legitimate.
Periodically, Yazidi women and girls have been discovered within the camps and rescued by the Kurdish armed forces, but currently, some 2700 remain missing, and are believed to still be in the camps or abroad with ISIS members who managed to flee to neighboring countries, including Turkey. Others may be dead, and their remains are unlikely to ever be found.
Thousands of boys and men remain missing, as well. In cooperation with the United Nations, mass graves in different locations in the Shingal region have been opened since early 2019. Some remains have been identified by Iraqi authorities in cooperation with the UN and have gone on to be reburied with dignity. However, many mass graves remain untouched, leaving families in anguish over the exact fate of their loved ones and unable to give them a proper burial or grave. Other boys may have died in battle as “cubs of the caliphate,” although occasionally, some are found in Turkey, staying with families who belonged to ISIS, who may have distanced themselves from their ideology or who may quietly still support it. Some Yazidi boys have also been reunited with their families in exchange for a ransom.
Having visited Shingal multiple times since the genocide, Uca has been present to witness some of these reunions. She’s also spent a lot of time talking to the women, men, girls, and boys who have been liberated.
“I remember one boy whose first question was: ‘How is Shingal? Is it liberated?’ I saw hope in his eyes. ‘Yes, it has been liberated,’” she says. “And I see that hope in the eyes of the liberated women, too. They have gone through so much, but their resilience is impressive. This is what makes me feel hopeful.”
Uca knows she still has much work to do. In 2018, she was re-elected to the Turkish parliament and visited Shingal with an HDP delegation after Turkey targeted a clinic with a drone, killing eight. She gave a speech about it in parliament, demanding answers from her fellow MPs—answers she didn’t get.
In last year’s general elections, Uca wasn’t on the ballot, due to the party’s two-term limit for all parliamentarians. The end of her mandate also meant the end of her parliamentary immunity, compelling her to leave Turkey instantly because state prosecutors had opened investigations against her for “propaganda for a terrorist organization,” as it had done to dozens of Kurdish MPs, many of whom have been imprisoned. She returned to Germany, and from there, continued her political work in Europe, including organizing conferences, undertaking diplomacy work in the EU, and networking and cooperating with a wide range of Yazidi, Kurdish, and other women’s groups. She’s still keen to solve her legal problems in Turkey, however, and is also planning a new journey to Shingal; it’s been a year since she was last able to visit. And while there is still much to resolve and to heal in the aftermath of what the Yazidis have endured, for Uca, hope is alive and ahead.
“You know what comes to mind when I think of hope? I remember just walking in Shingal and suddenly seeing a lilac flower. Shingal, too, will bloom again and be the hope of humanity,” she says. “Of course, I can do a lot of work in Europe, but my heart is in Shingal. Only when I am there, working in my community, I know that I am Feleknas.”
[post_title] => The Story of the Yazidi Genocide Isn't Over [post_excerpt] => A decade later, activist and politician Feleknas Uca is still seeking justice for her community. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => yazidi-genocide-isis-feleknas-uca-parliament-justice-kurdish-liberation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-09-13 19:22:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-09-13 19:22:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7088 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7086 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-07-29 07:42:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-07-29 07:42:52 [post_content] =>Now that the Democrats have chosen a nominee, it's time to focus on reversing the damage done by the Supreme Court.
Corrupted by years of dark money, political attacks, and propaganda, the United States' democratic institutions aren't holding, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the protracted lead-up to the 2024 election. In the last couple weeks alone, Donald Trump was shot at, Hillbilly Elegy’s JD Vance was announced as his running mate at the Republican National Convention, and President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for reelection after a geriatric debate performance led to weeks of bullying from media, donors, and party leadership, all demanding he drop out. What's worse, all of it happened under the backdrop of the extremist, unaccountable Supreme Court taking a sledgehammer to rule of law right before summer recess.
Despite a bleak election year thus far, there’s been a surge of new hope and enthusiasm amongst Democrats after Biden immediately endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the nomination, spurring a flurry of endorsements from party leaders and potential opponents, and a record-setting $81 million spike in small donations in the first 24 hours. By Monday night, Harris had garnered enough delegates to clinch the nomination—and thank fuck she did. Contested conventions are good for ratings, but historically, they’re also election losers, and it was far from obvious we’d avoid the chaos of a mini-primary, which was supported by heavy hitters like Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, and the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards, plus a slate of pundits with inflated egos and billionaires with their own personal preferences. (Obama has since given Harris his endorsement.)
Safely on the other side, the party will inevitably face questions about how this went down come November, but for now, time is precious, and the looming, ongoing threat to democracy remains. Biden's withdrawal was, for all the rifts it created, the right move, and seemingly, a calculated one. For a man alleged to be incompetent, he deftly outplayed Republicans and the media by timing his announcement after the RNC and Sunday morning talk shows, depriving them of a splashy platform to respond. In one afternoon, he orchestrated his succession, neutralized GOP and media attacks against him, and reinforced the most fundamental of democratic norms—the peaceful transition of power. Coup-loving Republicans are furious and scrambling, having wasted their convention trashing a candidate that's no longer running. They have also recommitted to a convicted felon who, with Biden out of the race, is now the oldest candidate in history, with zero plans for how to face an energetic, younger, Black and South Asian woman who intends to run on protecting abortion. Trump, hilariously, has asked for his money back.
It comes as a huge relief that the public infighting among Democrats is largely over, because it allows us to focus on the bigger story of the past few weeks, which is the far-right entrenching itself via the judiciary and gutting the state from within. What the extremist hacks on the Supreme Court have accomplished at the behest of their fascist mega-donors this summer has virtually remade our government overnight: The Federalist Society just delivered a judicial coup, and didn't even need the executive branch to do it.
Thankfully, there's fresh hope now that with a Harris candidacy, various factions on the left and center will align, as France just did, to rebuke the far-right. But even if the Democrats win in November, and Republicans don't start a civil war in response, it’ll be a long road to undo all the damage that’s been done in the last couple months alone. The decisions in Trump v. United States and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in particular, are two of the worst opinions in Supreme Court history—which is wild considering the Roberts era already has so many doozies to choose from, like Dobbs, Shelby v. Holder, and Citizens United, along with more recent disgraces like Grants Pass v. Johnson or Snyder v. United States.
I've been raising the alarm about plutocrat-funded Christian nationalism for close to a decade, but there's no satisfaction in being right, only sorrow that we're here. Political instability is an eater of dreams and a threat to people's lives. The uncertainty of this moment is overwhelming, the losses too large to digest, and it's created a rush to prophesize and pronounce definitive outcomes. Deniers, doomers, and accelerationists have all entered the chat, and all of them risk self-fulfillment. Our only option is to form a unified front against them and get to work.
In Trump v. United States, a case most legal experts thought the Court would dismiss outright, the far-right majority delivered their delayed decision on Trump's coup, inventing presidential immunity from criminal liability for official acts, while retaining the right to decide what counts as "official." It's a self-destructive move that undermines the most basic tenet of rule of law, which is that everyone is subject to it. The majority's reasoning focused entirely on hypotheticals, deliberately ignoring the very real January 6th coup attempt that precipitated the charges, and greasing the way for more far-right political violence, particularly as trigger-happy Republicans warn in advance of the 2024 election that they won't accept a loss.
Years spent reading Soviet legal documents prepared me for the smug, dishonest, means-to-an-end mindfuck that is Trump v. US, though we don't have to look outside American legal tradition for our own authoritarianism. The United States is infamous for treating people as property and corporations as people: We're seeing the active legacies of the Fugitive Slave Act, Jim Crow, and the Comstock Act in the GOP's endless voter suppression efforts, attempts to ban abortion medication by mail, and tracking of people seeking abortions across state lines. And still, Trump v. US lowers the bar. The opinion is a grotesque power grab that fundamentally upends the Constitution by magically bestowing criminal immunity on a criminal president, effectively making it legal for a (Republican) president to stay in power by any means “officially” necessary. (Richard "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal" Nixon was ahead of his time.)
It's a curious feature of American exceptionalism that headlines on the decision jumped immediately to monarchy, not autocracy. It suggests a romanticism about domestic authoritarianism as something British we defeated in the 18th century—a period piece rather than a contemporary dystopia. In reality, we're poised to elect an autocrat for the second time, not crown a king or queen for the first.
As I've written about before, the US brand of white Christian fascism is both unique and on trend: Demonizing migrants, trapping women, and persecuting the LGBTQ community is the glue binding the global anti-rights movement. Republicans have been open about their desire to emulate far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban's success at purging Hungarian universities, media, and business sectors. The people who wrote Project 2025, the 900-page Heritage Foundation manual for dismantling the country, looked explicitly to other autocrats for strategic advice on how to better end democracy.
King George is certainly self-referential, but he's far less relevant to our situation than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress to a standing ovation with Elon Musk as his guest, Orban visiting Mar a Lago earlier this month, or Jared Kushner promoting ethnic cleansing while drooling over Gaza's "waterfront property." President Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov are openly celebrating Trump's pick of JD Vance for VP because Vance has loudly advocated for letting Russia devour Ukraine and, relatedly, letting husbands abuse their wives. Former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Sherrilyn Ifill recently posted on Threads about the formative influence of apartheid South Africa on the grievance-driven tech billionaires Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and, again, Elon Musk—all of whom have thrown in for Trump, not that Musk's support lasted long. Trump himself has been the least subtle of all, shouting out President Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un at rallies, and ominously referencing Nazi talking points about Weimar Germany's inflation in his acceptance speech at the RNC.
The influence of oligarchs like Harlon Crow and Peter Thiel—who personally nurtured Vance—is especially insidious within the judiciary. If the immunity case demonstrates the Supreme Court's open alliance with Trump, they similarly delivered for their billionaire backers with the end of Chevron deference last month and the corruption of our federal regulatory system. Loper Bright covers less sexy subject matter, but its impact on the functioning of our government is arguably as tremendous as the immunity case. Decided in 1984, Chevron created a separation of powers between the judiciary and federal agencies, who employ thousands of career civil servants to administer the vast majority of federal rules that affect our lives, whether related to food and drug safety, air quality, or any number of rules that prevent corporations from preying on people. Under Chevron, courts deferred to agency interpretations of statutes for policymaking purposes. Now, thanks to Loper Bright, the judiciary has the last word on even the most minute agency rules, and any schmuck with enough money can sue and ask a judge with limited staff and zero technical expertise to veto federal regulation. If you think the US is scammy now, just wait.
The challenges we face from Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo and Justice Sam Alito wouldn’t feel so daunting if corporate media weren't also on their side. David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros Discovery, the parent company to CNN, was recently quoted saying that what mattered most in this election is that the next president is friendly to business. "We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate," Zaslav told reporters in Sun Valley, Idaho. How embarrassingly short-sighted to throw away the rule of law, and to treat press freedom as a nice to have, not a necessity. Does he expect to survive autocracy intact?
The hypocrisy is not new. At the same time that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was sentenced to another 16 years in Russian prison for doing his job, the WSJ editorial board was copying Putin's playbook and accusing Democrats who pointed out Trump's dictatorial ambitions of being responsible for his getting shot by a fellow Republican. It's hard to trust that the same corporate media that has soft-pedaled fascism and developed tunnel vision a la Hillary's emails over Biden's debate performance won't also find new ways to tear down Harris, who will face horrifying levels of misogynoir and disinformation that, for obvious reasons, other candidates will not. Media coverage of Harris’ campaign launch has so far been positive, but already there are rumblings of people who "just don't like her for some reason," not to mention a birther campaign, reviving all the greatest hits from Clinton ‘16 and Obama ‘08 and ‘12, respectively. The conservative mediasphere is taking the cheapest shots, accusing her of being a DEI candidate, of sleeping her way to the top, and, horror of all horrors, of laughing too much.
It's generally bad news for democracy when the far-right captures essential institutions, staffs them with loyalists, and threatens political violence, all while aligning with big business and media for profit. Republicans are also itching to make legal trouble over any changes to the ballot, with Rep. Andy Ogles filing articles of impeachment against Harris, and Speaker Mike Johnson threatening to sue to keep Biden in the race. Considering the switch happened before the convention and before state deadlines have passed, this seems to be mostly posturing. That said, there's still real concern that any case arising from this election ends up before a corrupt SCOTUS, giving them another opportunity to hand down a breathtakingly bad decision. The last thing we need is another Bush v. Gore, but on steroids.
So what can be done? A lot, actually. The goal in drawing attention to rising fascism has always been to catalyze opposition, precisely because resignation is so tempting. Harris, who is already walking off to Beyonce's "FREEDOM" at her rallies, has provided a much needed contrast to the gerontocracy, and is generating the excitement American voters look for. Her campaign has moved quickly to calling out her opponents as creepy losers, delighting Democrats who've longed for the party to stop pulling their punches. And she’s gaining momentum. The Divine Nine Black frats and sororities are mobilizing for their AKA sister. Singer Charli XCX tweeted "Kamala IS brat." Zoom's Indian American COO, Aparna Bawa, made it possible for 44,000 Black women to join an organizing call the night Harris announced. Young people are signing up to vote for the first time, and the campaign has already seen an influx of over 100,000 volunteers. With Harris set to secure her party’s nomination at the DNC, the future feels less grim today, which is good because the fight is so far from over.
The Democrats’ sudden return to life brings to mind Miracle Max from The Princess Bride: "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead… Mostly dead is slightly alive." The boring truth is: Harris can win if people vote for her. She has a lot going for her as the incumbent VP, and as the prosecutor taking on an aging gangster, and as a woman running on reproductive rights against a rapist. Crucially, she and Biden both take court reform and expansion seriously—a necessity for us reversing the damage wrought by an extremist Supreme Court, and for preventing it from happening again in the future. She can also take credit for Biden's strong legislative record, low unemployment, rising wages, and record-low violent crime rates—conditions that get incumbent administrations re-elected.
Harris is, like any political candidate, an imperfect one; her prosecutorial record has earned her the leftist badge of "imperialist cop," and uncommitted voters who’d been boycotting Biden for Gaza have vocalized outrage with Harris following her meeting with Netanyahu this week. Others are concerned that she's been set up to fail via the so-called "glass cliff," where women are only given responsibility in a crisis after men have made a mess of things. Because we are still a democracy, voters can and should be able to vocalize these concerns without fear, and to hold our representatives to account. But as even some of her critics have pointed out, Harris has the chance to not just be a strong candidate, but a genuinely decent one, simply by addressing voters’ concerns directly, righting the wrongs she can, calling out the far-right’s bullshit, and delivering on her campaign’s promises in order to preserve our democracy. Our job is to support her in these efforts and get us through November. Then we can fall apart.
The far-right is taking a victory lap, but it’s premature. Republicans are overplaying their hand after their court victories, with the Heritage Foundation president announcing a second American revolution and threatening violence unless the left rolls over. How quickly the creators of Project 2025 forget how much they’ve relied on plausible deniability, credulous institutionalists, and media normalization to get this far. As Harris said of Project 2025 in Milwaukee last week, "Can you believe they put that in writing?"
Let them mistake arrogance for invincibility. Abortion bans have been destroying Republicans electorally, including in red states. Trump is now saddled with an unpopular, brutish, 900-page manifesto that is penetrating popular consciousness across generations—on TV, social media, in conversation—and a thirsty VP "with the integrity of a Boeing 737" whose primary contribution to his campaign is more white male resentment and unpopular views on ending no-fault divorce. Even Appalachia doesn't claim him. As Kentucky Governor and VP hopeful Andy Beshear said of Vance, "He ain't from here." And let's never forget that Trump needed a new VP because he tried to have the last one murdered. Even Kim Jong Un won't be his friend. Nobody especially cared that Trump almost got assassinated, either.
The bigger issue is not that Trump is poised to win, but that Republicans are unwilling to lose. They've already shown their support for coups and stochastic terror, and they've captured the court. If we're going to have any shot at undoing their grip and saving what's left, court reform and expansion have to be the highest priority. And to have any hope of that, we have to vote our people in while we still have the chance, because with democracy on the line, the right to vote itself is on the ballot, too. So is bodily autonomy, and LGBTQ+ rights, and concealed carry laws, and Obamacare, and countless other policies that people depend on to live. We already exist in a violently racist status quo: Sonya Massey's murder by police is a heavy reminder that Black people and other communities of color are especially vulnerable to state violence. A second Trump administration would further politicize the Justice Department to target prosecutors who investigate police abuse. Trump himself is personally promising to deport 20 million people who are "poisoning" the country via expulsions and camps.
When I saw Masha Gessen speak several months ago, they described people lining up for Alexei Navalny's funeral with power banks, water, and food, expecting to be arrested for expressing condolences. It was a bleak reminder that things can always be worse. We don't have to end up that way, but that requires us to not be fucking stupid about dictatorship. Look at French voters who turned against Marine Le Pen once the threat of a far-right government sunk in. Last year in Poland, voters ousted the Law and Justice party and began trying to heal the damage, including plans to restore independence to a stacked judiciary. It's harder to rebuild the rule of law once it's gone, so it's essential we prevent further backsliding. It’s doable for us to stave off fascism and reinforce our democracy, but only if we can keep the presidency, regain the House, and expand the Supreme Court. We have no choice but to aim big—and to demand that our representatives deliver on what they’ve promised.
So gather your courage, your rage, your despair, and channel it into something for your community. Don't be scared of good news, or to feel hopeful about the future. It's in imagining better that we grow and move forward. Get active locally when national politics feel like too much. Sign people up to vote, knock on doors, and tell your people about the dangers of Project 2025. We have momentum against the threat of autocracy. Let's get this done.
[post_title] => The United States v. The Rule of Law [post_excerpt] => Now that the Democrats have chosen a nominee, it's time to focus on reversing the damage done by the Supreme Court. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => kamala-harris-2024-election-nominee-democrats-republicans-supreme-court-rule-of-law-trump-loper-bright-autocracy-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:27 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:27 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7086 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )