Tuesday, October 17, 2023

What DSA Can Learn from Organizational Death in the Student Movement

A decades' long right-wing assault on membership organizations led to the collapse of the US Student Association in 2017. What can organizers take away from the last decade of organizational death in the student movement?
October 15, 2023
Source: The Forge


“USSA is dead,” my friend told me over the phone. I felt like I had been punched in the gut, even though for years I had known that I would eventually hear these words.

After seventy years as the nation’s largest student association, the United States Student Association (USSA) failed to elect new leadership in 2017. Years of membership decline, restructuring of grantmaking portfolios in large private foundations, and toxic infighting fueled by shallow but maximalist expressions of identity politics had led to the collapse of USSA, an organization with a membership (on paper) of 1 million students at the very end.

USSA’s collapse was the third time I had experienced organizational death before turning 26. Each one hit hard, but we can learn from each. The Democratic Socialists of America is a vibrant member organization and far from the death spiral of the end years of USSA, but because I see shadows of the dynamics in USSA, I want to share my lessons from the student movement with DSA leaders today.

First, for some context, I was a student leader within USSA from 2010 to 2013 and then staff from 2014 to 2016. As a student, I was an active leader in the United Council of University of Wisconsin Students, a statewide student association affiliated with USSA, from 2010 to 2013. I was staff coordinator of the Student Labor Action Project (SLAP), a joint project between USSA and Jobs With Justice from 2014 to 2016.

USSA’s membership was institutional. Both student governments and statewide student associations could join by paying dues. USSA then represented the total number of students covered by member campuses and within statewide student associations.

Looking back, USSA’s biggest contribution to the left was developing extremely responsive movement leaders, especially among people of color, across the progressive movement. In my cohort of USSA student leaders and staff, our alumni have gone on to elect governors in battleground states, organize every type of worker, run the Iowa caucuses for Bernie Sanders in 2020, ban corporate spending in Minnesota state elections, lay the groundwork for federal student debt cancelation, and build movement organizations across the left.

United Council represented 140,000 students on 23 of the 26 public university campuses in Wisconsin and was a member organization within USSA. A University of Wisconsin Board of Regents governing policy enabled United Council to run referendums that determined affiliation during student government elections every two years. After winning a referendum, students at that campus paid $3 per semester, leaving us with a dues base of about $850,000 and a budget that was 95% dues funded, an anomaly that seems impossible in the student and youth movement today.

United Council provided my understanding for what multiracial working-class mass membership organizations look like. We held four membership conventions and one diversity summit (mostly focusing on students of color and queer students) every year. About 200 students from every corner of the state came to each convention to learn from each other, vote on leadership, and make decisions about the direction of the organization. Hmong students from rural northwestern Wisconsin, Black student organizers from UW-Milwaukee and UW-Parkside (the only Minority Serving Institution in the state), cheesehead donning working-class white students from small college towns, and a few stuck up activists and even more arrogant suit-wearing student government representatives from UW-Madison would hang out in a cheap hotel close to a UW campus, drink until 4am, go to workshops all day, and do it all over again four times per year.

During my senior year of college, from 2012 to 2013, I was the Vice President and Chair of the Board of Directors of United Council. After five years of constant 5.5 percent tuition hikes, we were campaigning for a tuition freeze, or at least a lower cap on tuition. United Council bought the email lists of all 26 University of Wisconsin campuses and used the email software Salsa to get thousands of students to contact their legislators about freezing tuition.

This made United Council very visible during a politically dangerous time, just two years after Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislatures gutted public sector labor unions. Despite only winning 46 percent of the vote in the 2012 election, the Republicans expanded their majority in the legislature in 2013 because of extreme partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin in 2011. They used this strategy to turn the state into an illiberal democracy –– most recently threatening to impeach a Democratic-aligned judge whose 10 point election victory swung the state’s highest court away from the GOP. In the 2013 budget, we won the tuition freeze, but in the omnibus amendment that gave us our greatest victory in several years the GOP eliminated the Board of Regents policy that contained the membership dues structure of United Council. We were easy pickings for the movement conservatives who had hated United Council for the 25 years since their days as students.

We were not alone in facing reactionary attacks. The Goldwater Institute had lobbied state legislatures to decimate the Arizona Student Association’s dues structure just months earlier. In one year, the right-wing destroyed the only two statewide student associations in battleground states in USSA’s membership, but at the time we couldn’t quite grasp these attacks as the death knell that we understand them to be today.

These attacks fit into a larger strategy, dating back to a memo by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1971 which called for purges of left-wing elements from college campuses and outlined a blueprint for the rise of the conservative movement. Long before the legislative attacks on United Council and the Arizona Student Association, right-wing student government leaders often disaffiliated with USSA in their budget cycles. It often took years to bring back USSA membership, which was only $0.25 per student per academic year. Several cohorts of progressive student government leaders at UW-Madison had tried to revive USSA membership from 2009 to 2014, when we were finally successful in spring 2014.

By the time I joined staff in January 2014, USSA only had member campuses in California, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts. With each passing year, leaders of student governments made up a smaller share of students involved in USSA, and more identified as activists, many of whom were students of color who had lost their student government elections at predominantly white campuses and had beef with the student government. The shrinking of student governments affiliated with USSA led to an organizational identity crisis. Was USSA a mass organization that served a membership through affiliated student governments and statewide student associations, or was USSA an affinity group for student activists, particularly students of color, to find political home?

The decline in dues and subsequent identity crisis locked USSA into a death spiral. Decline in membership dues from both student governments and statewide student associations made USSA more dependent on foundation grants. But in 2012, the Open Society Foundation restructured their grantmaking portfolios and did not renew a $250,000 grant to USSA. Weeks before I left staff in June 2016, conversations about cash flow and layoffs dominated our staff meeting agendas, and the USSA president was frantically reaching out to our program officer at the Ford Foundation about when a grant would be paid out.

Years of declines in membership dues and foundation grants continually shrank the USSA budget, and thus our staff, and we were then unable to take advantage of opportunities which could have helped us revive ourselves. For example, USSA had been forced to cut its communications staff in the early 2010s which meant we had a weak digital infrastructure in 2015 when Sen. Bernie Sanders started mainstreaming our long-time demand of free public higher education. If we had had a digital organizing infrastructure we could have recruited new student organizers and started the pipeline for more member campuses.

Instead, the disinvestment had taken its toll. USSA had active student organizers on many campuses, but years of organizing have taught me that no volunteer or committee could have realistically built out the digital infrastructure. Dedicated staff was needed to build complex systems, which weren’t ready when we needed them. Similarly, when USSA didn’t have the funds to rehire a training director, I took on the work to coordinate 5-6 weekend-long organizing trainings per fall semester in various regions with shorter follow up trainings in the spring semesters. I secured host campuses, prepared student organizers to lead the trainings, and recruited new student activists to these trainings on top of my normal job responsibilities of seeding new SLAP chapters and developing leaders. I found a lot of purpose in this work, but I truly never could work those hours again.

Eventually, Jobs With Justice stopped funding the SLAP Coordinator position, and I became the last SLAP Coordinator, which ended in June 2016. No one gave me a real reason for ending the position, but I assume that Jobs With Justice didn’t want to fund a joint project with a version of USSA that was clearly on life support. I tried merging the 15 chapters first with United Students Against Sweatshops and then with Young Democratic Socialists of America after hearing that College Students for Bernie was merging into YDSA. Ultimately, the leadership of USSA and JWJ blocked the mergers from happening, and I had to move on from student organizing. After I left SLAP, though I had been “organizing to replace myself” all along, it was not enough, in part because high turnover makes the student movement uniquely vulnerable to loss in institutional memory. The chapters teetered for an academic year but then folded, and the trainings mostly ended. With no SLAP chapters and no training program, activity in issue campaigns and campus organizing trainings across USSA both steeply declined within a semester.

Nothing was left in USSA other than factional infighting, often along the lines of identity. When I was still on USSA staff, at the 2015 national convention, the tensions over the identity of USSA, whether we were a mass org or an affinity group, boiled over. Racial identity caucuses, which were always part of USSA’s organizational DNA, split out of the main convention and called for their own space outside of the convention itself. At this point, running a cohesive national campaign rooted in multiracial class solidarity seemed impossible, even when the demand for free public education was gaining momentum. The infighting created easy opportunities for bad faith actors. These bad faith actors took over a sparsely attended convention in 2017 and stopped the election of a new president and vice president.

That’s when my friend called me to share the news that USSA was dead.

Each one of the organizational deaths, United Council in 2013, SLAP in 2016, and USSA in 2017, has left me with an indelible lesson about the fragility of organizations. And I’m familiar with a lot of organizations. Since my six years in the student movement, in addition to being a DSA rank and file member, chapter co-chair, treasurer of a nationally endorsed DSA city councilor’s campaign, and national leader on the Growth and Development Committee, I’ve worked with hundreds of 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(5) organizations in coalitions, as staff, on nonprofit boards, as the executive director of a nonprofit for five years, and now as a funder. As a side note, a 501(c)(5) is a labor union. An organization’s tax status or structure does not alone determine its virtues or vices. Some 501c3s lead politically visionary work, and some labor unions condone sexual harassment.

In large part because of my familiarity with these other organizations, I believe in DSA. DSA is the most unique organization that I’ve encountered in my 14 years in the progressive movement. DSA has a set of strengths that most organizational leaders would salivate over: active members who devote thousands of volunteer hours every week, a base of tens of thousands of small donors who are decades younger than the donor base of most organizations, volunteer-initiated chapters in every state in the country, hundreds of elected officials, and genuine bonds of camaraderie and solidarity across the organization.

But I keep the lessons from the student movement in mind every day as a leader in DSA, knowing that our beautiful, unique organization needs continual reinforcements to be more resilient. That’s why I’m sharing my main lessons for DSA from these three organizational deaths. They include:Campaigns with material demands create leadership ladders while dampening infighting. I saw this all the time during the tuition freeze campaign with United Council. These campaigns were the backbone of SLAP chapters, which eventually became the most actively organizing base within USSA. However, it was rare that I saw a compelling national campaign in USSA, other than a few reactions to federal legislation, whereas the state-level and campus organizing was often inspiring to outsiders and compelling to new activists and seasoned organizers alike. Compared with USSA, DSA has had a much better track record of running national campaigns, such as when we were running the DSA for Bernie campaign and during the PRO Act campaign. Campaigns create a leadership ladder within the organization and allow people to define their politics in relation to each other, rather than in opposition to each other. In USSA, without active campaigns, organizing turned inward and infighting became toxic.
Members are the organizational lifeblood, but staff are the arteries. Some tasks require thousands of people to participate while others need a few people to create and then steward a system so it’s not chaotic and has longevity. As a staff member at a union and then at several nonprofits, I have always seen myself as a facilitator and steward of the communications systems between members, allies, funders, and other stakeholders of the organization. When I was the SLAP Coordinator, my job was to train students to analyze power on their campuses and run campaigns based on this power analysis, but not to run the campaign myself. DSA has a talented staff that creates the infrastructure for thousands of members to participate, from coordinating event space for virtual and in-person gatherings to processing reimbursements and dues share payments to on-boarding new leaders after a chapter has gone in and out of hiatus. DSA is not simply a place where people are employed. The staff of DSA, both those in the union and the middle management and directors outside of the union, provide a cohesive structure that thousands of members use and DSA leaders should not take for granted.
We need to make the case to inactive members about the organization’s impact. While United Council activated thousands of students to email and call their legislators about a tuition freeze, we never were able to get more than 200 students (out of 140,000 students on member campuses) to our conventions on a regular basis. When the Republicans attacked the dues structure, we only had those 200 students (if that) to stand up for United Council. USSA’s leadership to membership ratio was far worse. By the end, only dozens of students were truly involved in USSA, and the organization had no connection to the supposed 1 million members, not even an email list. While DSA has a very different membership model from United Council and USSA, the paper membership of both organizations reminds me every day that we need more than email actions. We need real relationships, including with people who do not currently have the time or resources to be active in DSA. This can be as simple as regular phone banks to check in with at-large members or special programming for parents.

DSA membership is currently in decline from 95,000 in 2021 to 78,000 today, which is still 16 times larger than when I joined in 2016. Many chapters have become defunct and eventually have been dechartered in the past two years. In some ways, the decline in chapters makes sense. In tandem with the membership boom, members outside of metro areas formed chapters in large but fairly sparse geographic areas. The leadership in most of these chapters turned over three or more times by 2020. While going from in-person to remote was easy for these chapters at the onset of the pandemic, these sprawling but sparse chapters struggled to return to in-person activity, and many leaders gave up. Without hard, maybe even heroic, efforts, reviving these chapters that have limited numbers of members but large geographic areas will be difficult. Organizing statewide formations likely will be key to involving members who were organized into chapters but now are at-large even if it cannot be a substitute for organizing a real base.

But I don’t believe DSA is in crisis. DSA is not locked in the death spirals of USSA, not vulnerable to right-wing attacks on our dues structure like United Council, and is not a project floating away from its anchoring organizations like SLAP. I see the vibrancy of DSA everyday. I’m constantly inspired by the vision of our Socialists in Office on the migrant crisis, the solidarity with striking workers on every picket line from Los Angeles to Detroit and beyond, and the victories on public power that chart the path for a Green New Deal. Every campus that had a SLAP chapter now has a YDSA chapter, and I’m constantly blown away that YDSA has over 150 chapters. At the 2023 DSA convention, I told a University of Oregon YDSAer that they were living out SLAP’s wildest dreams in their campaign to unionize undergraduate student workers. My heart swelled when queer comrades at the national convention shared that DSA was the largest membership organization in the US fighting for trans liberation.

Although DSA is not in imminent crisis, we need leaders who will set a positive vision to raise the funds to meet our budget. DSA is not immune from the hard reality of staff layoffs happening across the broader progressive ecosystem. In just six weeks, the Solidarity Dues drive has raised nearly $400,000 from 600 of the most dedicated members increasing their dues to 1% of our incomes (average $47 per month, substantially higher than the average $12 monthly contribution), and the Recommitment Drive in 2022 raised nearly $200,000 by renewing 6,000 members. While I don’t know if the Solidarity Dues drive will be sufficient in solving the problems that we face and it certainly hasn’t yet even met our 2023 income goal, connecting our membership to our fundraising is our pathway forward.

The biggest challenge facing any dues drive but also DSA itself is making the case for the impact of the national organization. It’s time for us to weave together a cohesive positive vision for how labor solidarity, downballot electoral success, queer liberatory organizing, and material victories for a Green New Deal impact our members’ everyday lives and chart a path for building working-class power. We need to define this vision through action, so that we define our politics in relation to each other, instead of only against each other. It’s time that we truly act like we have a world to win.

Protests in Guatemala Shut Down the Country for More Than a Week

The country continues toward a constitutional crisis as the far-right continues its attempts to subvert the August 20 electoral result.
October 15, 2023
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


The crumbling, pothole-filled highways and roads across Guatemala have been shut down, blocked, and barricaded by protesters for more than a week . These protests in defense of democracy and against the country’s embattled Attorney General María Consuelo Porras, and her anti-impunity prosecutor Rafael Curruchiche, show no sign of slowing down, despite the threats of the deployment of riot police and the violence from groups that have infiltrated the protests.
Communities join the protests offices of the Attorney General on October 11.

Since October 2, roadblocks have exploded, growing from twelve to as many as 140 across the country after Porras and Curruchiche oversaw an intervention into the country’s democratic process, seeking to cast doubt on the historic victory of the progressive anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo in the August 20 presidential run-off election.

Unlike the January 6 riots in the United States and the January 8 riots two years later in Brazil, (which sought to undermine the democratic order) Guatemala’s massive protests have spread in defense of democracy. Protests have remained peaceful and joyous amidst moments of tension.

The leaders of the wave of protests have been the country’s Indigenous communities. The community leaders of the autonomous Indigenous government 48 Cantones of Totonicapán, which represents the 48 communities in the municipality of Totonicpán, called for protests following the fifth raid of the country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The raid, which was issued by Judge Fredy Orellana and led by Curruchiche, resulted in the office of Public Prosecutor seizing the official tallies of the first and second rounds of the elections.
Indigenous Ancestral Authorities raise their varas, a staff that symbolizes their authority, during protests outside the main offices of Guatemala’s Public Prosecutor’s office on October 11.

Indigenous communities across the country quickly joined the protests, launching the first roadblocks and an encampment at the main offices of the Public Prosecutor’s office in Guatemala City. Among those who joined to represent the voices of Indigenous communities was Miguel Ángel Manuel Alvarado, a member of the Mayan Achí Indigenous Ancestral Authorities of Rabinal, Baja Verapaz.

“We came to support our brothers and sisters from the 48 Cantones of Totonicapán,” Manuel Alvarado told The Progressive. “Our delegation came here to demand the resignation of the Attorney General María Consuelo Porras and of Rafael Curruchiche and Judge Fredy Orellana.”

Attorney General Porras has called the protests “illegal” and called for the police to clear the roads.

Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei has refused to acknowledge the demands of the tens of thousands of protesters across the country, suggesting that “foreigners” are responsible for the protests. He also claimed President-elect Arévalo is responsible for the unrest, calling for him to de-escalate the situation.

President Giammattei has a history of lying and misinforming the population. Arévalo has pointed this out in recent interviews.
A man holds up a sign denouncing anti-impunity prosecutor Rafael Curuchiche during protests outside the main offices of Guatemala’s Public Prosecutor’s office on October 6.

“President Giammattei is misinformed or misrepresents the information,” Arévalo said in an interview with the Guatemalan media ConCritaria. “The coups d’état of the twenty-first century are no longer carried out with bayonets but with magistrates and deputies.”

Describing the attacks against the Democratic ordre, he added, “This is a blow against the electoral system and the result at the polls.”

Guatemala’s political crisis exploded after the results of the June 25 election were made public.

Within weeks of the results, which would lead to a second round of voting on August 20, the country’s Public Prosecutor’s office announced the suspension of Arévalo’s Movimiento Semilla Party due to alleged irregularities in the formation of the party. The spurious order came from a lower court judge, who under Guatemalan law has no jurisdiction over electoral issues, however on October 5 the country’s constitutional court superseded that law.
A man flies Guatemala’s flag during protests outside the main offices of Guatemala’s Public Prosecutor’s office on October 9.

Since the first round of voting, investigators have raided the offices of the country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal, illegally opening boxes containing the ballots from both rounds of elections and in another raid, confiscating official vote tallies in crates labeled as “evidence.” The actions of the Public Prosecutor’s office are meant to stoke accusations of fraud in the elections.

The international community has continued to denounce the interventions of the Public Prosecutors office. On October 10, the President of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro called for an end of the political persecution in Guatemala, demanding that the actors seeking to undermine the elections respect the results and that they continue the transition of power.

Almagro also criticized Porras for choosing to carry out the political persecution in place of combating organized crime.

“We have seen at this time how they have investigated the [Semilla] party,” Almagro said. “It is incomprehensible because we have not seen the same capacity for action against organized crime, corruption, and drug traffickers.”

Protests have remained peaceful. But the Giammattei Administration has sought to undermine the protests, suggesting without evidence there had been acts of violence and looting. On Monday, as President Giammattei made a nationally televised speech denouncing “foreign interference” and ignoring the demands of protesters, a group of infiltrators sought to provoke violence.
A tourist center in Guatemala City’s historic center is set on fire by alleged infiltrators on October 9.

The group of masked individuals destroyed an altar in the plaza dedicated to forty-one girls who died in a government safe house fire in 2017 before moving on to destroying the Monument to 200 years of independence. Police responded with tear gas, but not before the tourist centers were on fire and nearly every window had been broken.

This is not the only violence that protesters have faced.

Roadblocks outside the private city of Cayala, which sits within the limits of Guatemala City, were met by heavily armed individuals carrying AR-15 rifles. Days earlier, an impatient driver ran over a motorcycle that was blocking the road, before quickly speeding away.

Misinformation has also spread rampantly across social media, seeking to generate fear and a rejection of protests. Government officials and other opponents of Arévalo have sought to spread misinformation on social media.

Organizers say the protests will continue until their demands are met.

Images of vacant grocery stores spread across X (formerly Twitter) while the head of the country’s main airport suggested that the airport was going to remain without fuel, before later walking back the statement. But Mexican airline Volaris announced that it will suspend flights to Guatemala. President Giammattei also falsely stated a truck carrying oxygen to a hospital was stolen.

However, organizers say the protests will continue until their demands are met.

“We will continue to join the struggle,” Manuel Alvarado says. “We will continue to make the alliance of Indigenous peoples, since the fight will continue if the [Attorney General Porras] does not resign.”


Jeff Abbott is an independent journalist currently based out of Guatemala. “The Other Americans” is a column created by Abbott for The Progressive on human migration in North and Central America.
KURDISH 
Women Fighting Patriarchy and Oppression in Northern Iraq

A photo essay
By Paul Trowbridge
October 15, 2023
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.




In Sinjar, a small town in Northern Iraq, the consequences of genocide and war linger heavy. Nearly a decade ago, in August of 2014, the Islamic State group (ISIS) carried out genocide against the Yazidi religious minority based in, and around, Sinjar. To this day, the town lies in rubble and its people scattered in camps for the displaced. Those who have returned face numerous challenges and obstacles as they struggle with the legacy of genocide. ISIS targeted Yazidis, Christains and Shia Muslims during their campaign of violence, but no other group was targeted as brutally as the Yazidis. During the genocide, ISIS fighters killed approximately 10,000 Yazidi people and enslaved and sex trafficked approximately 10,000 women and girls. More than 3,000 of the enslaved women and girls remain missing. Nearly 10 years on, 350,000 Yazidi people remain displaced living in camps for internally displaced persons (IDP).

Yazidis are a religious minority from northern Iraq, and Sinjar and its surroundings are their ancestral homeland. Yazidism, the religion of the Yazidis, is an ancient syncretic faith that combines elements of Zoroastrianism, Islam and Christianity. Yazidis have faced persecution and discrimination throughout their history because they believe in their own religion. Yazidis count 74 genocides perpetrated against them. However, none of the previous genocides are comparable to the brutality of the atrocities perpetrated against the Yazidis by the Islamic State group.

Against this backdrop of genocide and violence, the Sinjar Resistance Units (abbreviated YBS, and the all-women division abbreviated YJS) organized to fight ISIS and protect the Yazidi community. The YBS-YJS is a Yazidi armed group, based in Sinjar. Initially, the YBS-YJS was trained and armed by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) so that Yazidi people could protect themselves and fight against the Islamic State group. The PKK is a left-wing insurgent group, rooted in the ideology of revolutionary Marxism and decolonial independence struggle. The YBS-YJS also received support and training from the People’s Protections Units/Women’s Protection Units (YPG/YPJ). The YPG/YPJ are armed Kurdish-led opposition groups based in northeast Syria that also share the ideology of the PKK. The YBS-YJS, too, shares the Marxist-based ideology of the leftist Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

The YBS-YJS played a central role in the liberation of Sinjar from ISIS occupation. YBS-YJS fighters then continued into Rojava and finally to Raqqa, where they also played a central role in the liberation of Raqqa. Raqqa, a town in northeast Syria, was the epicenter of ISIS slave markets and sex-trafficking operations. The YBS-YJS does not exclusively work for the Yazidi community. The YBS-YJS provided assistance and humanitarian aid to Arab villages and fought for Arab villagers throughout the Sinjar Region. During the war against ISIS, the YBS-YJS fought side-by-side with Arab tribes to liberate the region from ISIS control.

For YBS-YJS members, the defining characteristic of their organization, and their struggle, is their ideology. During my interviews with women leaders and members of the group, they all told me that the organization’s position on women’s liberation and the role of women in fighting patriarchy and oppression was the key factor for their participation in the group. Women participants told me in interviews that through their participation in the group, they “found their strength.” They told me that through organizing and taking up arms against ISIS, “women [were] protecting women.” They saw that by Yazidi women taking up arms against ISIS, it was also revolution against patriarchy and oppression. They carry these convictions today while they continue their participation in the YBS-YJS. They told me their participation in the YBS-YJS is deeply rooted in them because of the Ideology of the group. While there are other armed groups in the Sinjar region, the pro-minority and pro-woman position of the leftist Kurdish groups drew Yazidis, while at the same time they eschewed other groups because they felt the other group’s ideologies and political positions did not resonate with their lived experience. The women leaders and members I interviewed said they continue to participate in the YBS-YJS because the Yazidi community is constantly under threat of recurrent violence, and the problems facing the Yazidi community in Sinjar continue, and so they continue to struggle. One of the principal conclusions from my interviews with the YBS-YJS was the confluence of their experience with gender-based violence and genocide coincided with an ideology of anti-patriarchy and anti-oppression that was the key factor in organizing and mobilizing Yazidi community and remains the most salient factor in their continued participation in the group.









A Year of Lying about Nord Stream

The Biden administration has acknowledged neither its responsibility for the pipeline bombing nor the purpose of the sabotage
September 28, 2023
Source: Dissident Voice

Gas emanating from the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea,
 September 28, 2022. / Swedish Coast Guard

I do not know much about covert CIA operations—no outsider can—but I do understand that the essential component of all successful missions is total deniability. The American men and women who moved, under cover, in and out of Norway in the months it took to plan and carry out the destruction of three of the four Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea a year ago left no traces—not a hint of the team’s existence—other than the success of their mission.

Deniability, as an option for President Joe Biden and his foreign policy advisers, was paramount. No significant information about the mission was put on a computer, but instead typed on a Royal or perhaps a Smith Corona typewriter with a carbon copy or two, as if the Internet and the rest of the online world had yet to be invented. The White House was isolated from the goings-on near Oslo; various reports and updates from the field were directly provided to CIA Director Bill Burns, who was the only link between the planners and the president who authorized the mission to take place on September 26, 2022. Once the mission was completed, the typed papers and carbons were destroyed, thus leaving no physical trace—no evidence to be dug up later by a special prosecutor or a presidential historian. You could call it the perfect crime.

There was a flaw—a gap in understanding between those who carried out the mission and President Biden, as to why he ordered the destruction of the pipelines when he did. My initial 5,200-word report, published in early February, ended cryptically by quoting an official with knowledge of the mission telling me: “It was a beautiful cover story.” The official added: “The only flaw was the decision to do it.”

This is the first account of that flaw, on the one-year anniversary of the explosions, and it is one President Biden and his national security team will not like.

Inevitably, my initial story caused a sensation, but the major media emphasized the White House denials and relied on an old canard—my reliance on an unnamed source—to join the administration in debunking the notion that Joe Biden could have had anything to do with such an attack. I must note here that I’ve won literally scores of prizes in my career for stories in the New York Times and the New Yorker that relied on not a single named source. In the past year we’ve seen a series of contrary newspaper stories, with no named first-hand sources, claiming that a dissident Ukrainian group carried out the technical diving operation attack in the Baltic Sea via a 49-foot rented yacht called the Andromeda.

I am now able to write about the unexplained flaw cited by the unnamed official. It goes once again to the classic issue of what the Central Intelligence Agency is all about: an issue raised by Richard Helms, who headed the agency during the tumultuous years of the Vietnam War and the CIA’s secret spying on Americans, as ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and sustained by Richard Nixon. I published an exposé in the Times about that spying in December 1974 that led to unprecedented hearings by the Senate into the role of the agency in its unsuccessful attempts, authorized by President John F. Kennedy, to assassinate Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Helms told the senators that the issue was whether he, as CIA director, worked for the Constitution or for the Crown, in the person of presidents Johnson and Nixon. The Church Committee left the issue unresolved, but Helms made it clear he and his agency worked for the top man in the White House.

Back to the Nord Stream pipelines: It is important to understand that no Russian gas was flowing to Germany through the Nord Stream pipelines when Joe Biden ordered them blown up last September 26. Nord Stream 1 had been supplying vast amounts of low-cost natural gas to Germany since 2011 and helped bolster Germany’s status as a manufacturing and industrial colossus. But it was shut down by Putin by the end of August 2022, as the Ukraine war was, at best, in a stalemate. Nord Stream 2 was completed in September 2021 but was blocked from delivering gas by the German government headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz two days prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Given Russia’s vast stores of natural gas and oil, American presidents since John F. Kennedy have been alert to the potential weaponization of these natural resources for political purposes. That view remains dominant among Biden and his hawkish foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland, now the acting deputy to Blinken.

Sullivan convened a series of high-level national security meetings late in 2021, as Russia was building up its forces along the border of Ukraine, with an invasion seen as almost inevitable. The group, which included representatives from the CIA, was urged to come up with a proposal for action that could serve as a deterrent to Putin. The mission to destroy the pipelines was motivated by the White House’s determination to support Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sullivan’s goal seemed clear. “The White House’s policy was to deter Russia from an attack,” the official told me. “The challenge it gave to the intelligence community was to come up with a way that was powerful enough to do that, and to make a strong statement of American capability.


The major gas pipelines from Russia to Europe. / Map by Samuel Bailey 
/ Wikimedia Commons.

I now know what I did not know then: the real reason why the Biden administration “brought up taking out the Nord Stream pipeline.” The official recently explained to me that at the time Russia was supplying gas and oil throughout the world via more than a dozen pipelines, but Nord Stream 1 and 2 ran directly from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany. “The administration put Nord Stream on the table because it was the only one we could access and it would be totally deniable,” the official said. “We solved the problem within a few weeks—by early January—and told the White House. Our assumption was that the president would use the threat against Nord Stream as a deterrent to avoid the war.”

It was no surprise to the agency’s secret planning group when on January 27, 2022, the assured and confident Nuland, then undersecretary of state for political affairs, stridently warned Putin that if he invaded Ukraine, as he clearly was planning to, that “one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” The line attracted enormous attention, but the words preceding the threat did not. The official State Department transcript shows that she preceded her threat by saying that with regard to the pipeline: “We continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies.”

Asked by a reporter how she could say with certainty that the Germans would go along “because what the Germans have said publicly doesn’t match what you’re saying,” Nuland responded with an astonishing bit of doubletalk: “I would say go back and read the document that we signed in July [of 2021] that made very clear about the consequences for the pipeline if there is further aggression on Ukraine by Russia.” But that agreement, which was briefed to journalists, did not specify threats or consequences, according to reports in the Times, the Washington Post, and Reuters. At the time of the agreement, on July 21, 2021, Biden told the press corps that since the pipeline was 99 percent finished, “the idea that anything was going to be said or done was going to stop it was not possible.” At the time, Republicans, led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, depicted Biden’s decision to permit the Russian gas to flow as a “generational geopolitical win” for Putin and “a catastrophe” for the United States and its allies.

But two weeks after Nuland’s statement, on February 7, 2022, at a joint White House press conference with the visiting Scholz, Biden signaled that he had changed his mind and was joining Nuland and other equally hawkish foreign policy aides in talking about stopping the pipeline. “If Russia invades—that means tanks and troops crossing . . . the border of Ukraine again,” he said, “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” Asked how he could do so since the pipeline was under Germany’s control, he said: “We will, I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”

Scholz, asked the same question, said: “We are acting together. We are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps. We will do the same steps, and they will be very very hard to Russia, and they should understand.” The German leader was considered then—and now—by some members of the CIA team to be fully aware of the secret planning underway to destroy the pipelines.


By this point, the CIA team had made the necessary contacts in Norway, whose navy and special forces commands have a long history of sharing covert-operation duties with the agency. Norwegian sailors and Nasty-class patrol boats helped smuggle American sabotage operatives into North Vietnam in the early 1960s when America, in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was running an undeclared American war there. With Norway’s help, the CIA did its job and found a way to do what the Biden White House wanted done to the pipelines.

At the time, the challenge to the intelligence community was to come up with a plan that would be forceful enough to deter Putin from the attack on Ukraine. The official told me: “We did it. We found an extraordinary deterrent because of its economic impact on Russia. And Putin did it despite the threat.” It took months of research and practice in the churning waters of the Baltic Sea by the two expert US Navy deep sea divers recruited for the mission before it was deemed a go. Norway’s superb seamen found the right spot for planting the bombs that would blow up the pipelines. Senior officials in Sweden and Denmark, who still insist they had no idea what was going on in their shared territorial waters, turned a blind eye to the activities of the American and Norwegian operatives. The American team of divers and support staff on the mission’s mother ship—a Norwegian minesweeper—would be hard to hide while the divers were doing their work. The team would not learn until after the bombing that Nord Stream 2 had been shut down with 750 miles of natural gas in it.

What I did not know then, but was told recently, was that after Biden’s extraordinary public threat to blow up Nord Stream 2, with Scholz standing next to him, the CIA planning group was told by the White House that there would be no immediate attack on the two pipelines, but the group should arrange to plant the necessary bombs and be ready to trigger them “on demand”—after the war began. “It was then that we”—the small planning group that was working in Oslo with the Royal Norwegian Navy and special services on the project—“understood that the attack on the pipelines was not a deterrent because as the war went on we never got the command.”

After Biden’s order to trigger the explosives planted on the pipelines, it took only a short flight with a Norwegian fighter and the dropping of an altered off-the-shelf sonar device at the right spot in the Baltic Sea to get it done. By then the CIA group had long disbanded. By then, too, the official told me: “We realized that the destruction of the two Russian pipelines was not related to the Ukrainian war”—Putin was in the process of annexing the four Ukrainian oblasts he wanted—“but was part of a neocon political agenda to keep Scholz and Germany, with winter coming up and the pipelines shut down, from getting cold feet and opening up” the shuttered Nord Stream 2. “The White House fear was that Putin would get Germany under his thumb and then he was going to get Poland.”

The White House said nothing as the world wondered who committed the sabotage. “So the president struck a blow against the economy of Germany and Western Europe,” the official told me. “He could have done it in June and told Putin: We told you what we would do.” The White House’s silence and denials were, he said, “a betrayal of what we were doing. If you are going to do it, do it when it would have made a difference.”

The leadership of the CIA team viewed Biden’s misleading guidance for its order to destroy the pipelines, the official told me, “as taking a strategic step toward World War III. What if Russia had responded by saying: You blew up our pipelines and I’m going to blow up your pipelines and your communication cables. Nord Stream was not a strategic issue for Putin—it was an economic issue. He wanted to sell gas. He’d already lost his pipelines” when the Nord Stream I and 2 were shut down before the Ukraine war began.

Within days of the bombing, officials in Denmark and Sweden announced they would conduct an investigation. They reported two months later that there had indeed been an explosion and said there would be further inquiries. None has emerged. The German government conducted an inquiry but announced that major parts of its findings would be classified. Last winter German authorities allocated $286 billion in subsidies to major corporations and homeowners who faced higher energy bills to run their business and warm their homes. The impact is still being felt today, with a colder winter expected in Europe.

President Biden waited four days before calling the pipeline bombing “a deliberate act of sabotage.” He said: “now the Russians are pumping out disinformation about it.” Sullivan, who chaired the meetings that led to the proposal to covertly destroy the pipelines, was asked at a later press conference whether the Biden administration “now believes that Russia was likely responsible for the act of sabotage?”


Sullivan’s answer, undoubtedly practiced, was: “Well, first, Russia has done what it frequently does when it is responsible for something, which is make accusations that it was really someone else who did it. We’ve seen this repeatedly over time.

“But the president was also clear today that there is more work to do on the investigation before the United States government is prepared to make an attribution in this case.” He continued: “We will continue to work with our allies and partners to gather all of the facts, and then we will make a determination about where we go from there.”

I could find no instances when Sullivan was subsequently asked by someone in the American press about the results of his “determination.” Nor could I find any evidence that Sullivan, or the president, has been queried since then about the results of the “determination” about where to go.

There is also no evidence that President Biden has required the American intelligence community to conduct a major all-source inquiry into the pipeline bombing. Such requests are known as “Taskings” and are taken seriously inside the government.

All of this explains why a routine question I posed a month or so after the bombings to someone with many years in the American intelligence community led me to a truth that no one in America or Germany seems to want to pursue. My question was simple: “Who did it?”

The Biden administration blew up the pipelines but the action had little to do with winning or stopping the war in Ukraine. It resulted from fears in the White House that Germany would waver and turn on the flow of Russia gas—and that Germany and then NATO, for economic reasons, would fall under the sway of Russia and its extensive and inexpensive natural resources. And thus followed the ultimate fear: that America would lose its long-standing primacy in Western Europe.

A Shot across the Bows of WW3

Anyone else notice a colossal decoupling of old left and new right? Former adversaries allied against COVID have fallen foul to the oldest trick in the book – divide and rule.

On one side, erstwhile defenders of freedom joined forces with establishment mouthpieces in their condemnation of Palestine and endorsement of Netanyahu’s promise to raze Gaza to the ground.

The last time we saw an ideological rift of this magnitude was at the onset of COVID-19. What fresh hell awaits the people of Gaza is anyone’s guess. For the rest of the world, It feels like a shot across the bows of world war.

What remains conspicuously absent from most talking points is background, history, context, and nuance. It’s as if the weekend’s events existe entirely in a vacuum, mRNA immunised against decades of occupation, apartheid, besiegement, and displacement.

I am not for one minute defending the horrific scenes coming out of Israel yesterday. Civilians being brutalised and murdered is indefensible. I would question, however, the veracity of some of these images, and why in one day, we have seen more from Isreal than 20 months of war in Ukraine. As one astute commenter observed:

In the spirit of a well-deserved reality check, it’s important to remember that social media was flooded with a deluge of propaganda eliciting similar powerful emotions on the precipice of the first lockdowns.

As I remarked in this article last year: “COVID largely happened on social media where our social networks were weaponised as echo chambers of the fear-narrative. It wasn’t so much a pandemic, but the social contagion experiment playing out in real time.”

In similar terms, the weekend’s events represent a new watershed in the power of social media to evoke powerful emotions with graphic imagery that in some cases have transformed people’s perceptions and driven a wedge between former allied communities – all in the space of 24 hours. As a rule of thumb, it’s important to remember the information war of the past few years and the weapons of propaganda and PSYOPs used to divide and indoctrinate.

Let’s also remember that social media played a crucial role in the Arab Spring. Many consider this an example of U.S. backed Black Op’s, with many activist groups sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation funded by the Department of State and USAID.

If the lessons of the past few decades are anything to go by, painting Palestinians as the bad guys and Israel as the victims, is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

What’s for certain is that retaliation from Israel will result in genocide and human rights atrocities in orders of magnitude greater than the hundreds of Israeli fatalities.

Even Jordan Peterson of ‘just get the damned vaccine’ fame, encouraged Netanyahu to “give ‘em hell”, like many others, in spectacular ignorance of the context, nuance and background to these events.

Namely, that the Gaza Strip is the world’s largest open-air prison at 25 miles long and 5 miles wide. With 2 million inhabitants, half of whom are children, it’s one of the most densely populated places on earth. What Israel euphemistically calls a border is a heavily fortified and patrolled barbed wire fence, akin to the prison wall separating Guantanamo Bay from Southwest Cuba.

Even the most cursory look at the reporting of fatalities and injuries from the region since 2008 paints a very different picture to the idea these events were unprovoked.

According to the United Nations, for every Israeli murdered, twenty one Palestinians are slain; for every Israeli injured, there’s twenty four Palestinians casualties. It’s not so much an uneven playing field as it is a story of David and Goliath. At one end of the battlefield, you have one of the most militarised states on earth, on the other a bunch of goat-herders-come terrorists (or freedom fighters), depending on which side of the fence you’re on.

For those rallying around the self-defence card, even Wikipedia places the number of civilian to combatant deaths during, for example, the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict at almost 3:1.

Others with inimitable experience reporting on these events for decades suggest that the number of Palestinians killed and maimed, day after day, goes largely unreported.

War is an abomination, granted. The killing of civilians, indefensible. The brutal scenes out of Israel this weekend, reprehensible. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s context and nuance as to why these events happen. The same folks emphatically defending Ukraine’s right to defend itself against Russia, will not grant Palestinians similar concessions against their occupiers.

What many talking heads fail to acknowledge is that Israeli settlements are built on stolen land very often confiscated violently by an apartheid state leaving a trail of dead, maimed and displaced Palestinians in its wake. It could be argued by Palestinians personally affiliated by this conflict that Israeli civilian settlers are in fact colonisers with as much blood on their hands as the IDF and Mossad.

Until you have boots on the ground breathing in the gunpowder drenched putrid air from both sides of Israel’s contested and militarised boundary line, then you don’t really have a point of view, you have content curated by the very interests benefitting from your ignorance.

And irrespective of the degrading scenes we witnessed on Saturday, the degradation goes both ways:

An important point of reference to how the Israeli army controls every vector of Palestinian life in the occupied territories is this interview with former Israeli soldier Ori Givati.

Givati is involved with an organisation called Breaking the Silence that raises awareness of the dire consequences of prolonged military occupation.

The Israeli government may have just declared war, with the western establishment supporting its permissibility, but others closer to the occupation, including The Jewish Voice for Peace believe that the war on Palestine has been in full swing for 75-years:

“Israeli apartheid and occupation – and United States complicity in that oppression – are the source of all this violence. Reality is shaped by when you start the clock.

For the past year, the most racist, fundamentalist, far-right government in Israeli history has ruthlessly escalated its military occupation over Palestinians in the name of Jewish supremacy with violent expulsions and home demolitions, mass killings, military raids on refugee camps, unrelenting siege, and daily humiliation. In recent weeks, Israeli forces repeatedly stormed the holiest Muslim sites in Jerusalem.”

With a unified media campaign attempting to promote these events as Israel’s 9/11, it’s important for right thinking folks who would ordinarily be mistrustful of corporate media consensus to validate their sources and ensure as much impartiality as possible.

A good starting point for context is former IDF soldier turned journalist and peace activist Efrat Fenigson, commenting on events live from Israel on Saturday:

“Israel has one of the most advanced and high-tech armies. How come there was zero response to the border breaches?…Something is very wrong … There’s no way that Israel did not know of what’s coming. This surprise attack seems like a planned operation on all fronts….If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say this feels like the work of the deep state”

These sentiments were echoed by other former IDF and special forces soldiers:

Putting this into context, Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world with a multi-tiered missile defence system, including: David’s Sling, Arrow 2, Arrow 3, Iron Dome, and Iron Beam.

Stretching along the entire boundary between Israel and the Gaza Strip, Israel’s $1.1bn Iron Wall fence, considered “only one of its kind in the world,” is equipped with some of the most advanced technologies and sensors, so effective that a mouse can’t get across the border without the military knowing about it. Then there’s Mossad the world’s second or third most powerful intelligence agencies with literally eyes and ears everywhere.

How Hamas managed to achieve all of this without some assistance from on-high beggars belief.

Amongst other important question being asked on Twitter concerns the number of historic buildings from New York to Miami and Prague to Baku lit up this weekend in solidarity with Israel:

In times of world changing geopolitical events it’s important to recall the extremities which governments and other bad actors will go to in order to elicit public opinion using propaganda and disinformation.

And there’s many examples the past 48 hours, including this widely shared video of female Israeli soldiers held hostage by Hamas apparently still in possession of their cell phones.

What is particularly striking is that since Israel began to retaliate on Sunday 8th October, there appears to be a fraction of social media content showing Israeli strikes versus content shared only a day before portraying terrorist attacks by Hamas. We can therefore speculate as to which side big tech platforms such as Twitter are on, irrespective of Elon Musk’s apparent neutrality.

Much of the sentiment driving support for Israel’s unimpeded right to level Palestine comes from two particularly brutal and shameful videos. The first is the graphic footage of a bloodied and distressed female hostage unverified at this stage as civilian or soldier. The second is that of the mangled and desecrated body of a young female Instagram influencer, Shani Llouk – a German citizen and the poster child for innocence.

Harrowing and tragic as these graphic images are, we must ask ourselves – what are the chances of all the thousands of possible hostages and victims paraded graphically as trophies of the atrocities committed by Hamas, that it would be an innocent, young German woman? Not only making this an international event, but feeding much of the hatred of Hamas which in turn fuels support for unrestrained Israeli retribution, not just against Hamas but anyone deemed to be in collusion, not least of all Iran?

With respect, this single event is not dissimilar to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by forces looking to bring about World War 1.

According to Donald Trump, Hamas operations were funded by $6 billion in unfrozen assets provided to Iran by the Biden administration. Although in denial of this assertion, the Whitehouse has announced there was “no doubt that Tehran provided support for Hamas in the form of funding and arms.”

Meanwhile an unverified video has emerged online purported to be the military wing of Hamas, Izzuddin Al-Qassam Brigades, alleging that the Islamic Republic of Iran provided the weapons, money and other equipment, used to destroy Zionist fortresses. A quick glance over Izzuddin Al-Qassam Brigades official website and at the time of writing this, there’s no references to this video, making it highly suspicious.

If indeed things escalates beyond the occupied territories and Israel strikes Iran as Netanyahu has threatened on numerous occasions, there could be global repercussions, particularly amongst BRICs countries such as Russia and China who might rally in defence of Iran.

Irrespective, war is a racket and none more lucrative than the forever war that is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Western politicians’ forever pledges to broker a peace deal aside, Gaza is a soft target, with every conflict in the Middle East incredibly profitable for US arms giants, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.


Dustin Broadbery is a writer and researcher from London trying to make sense of the New Normal these past three years. Particularly the ethical and legal issues around lockdowns and mandates, the history and roadmap to today’s biosecurity state, and the key players and institutions involved in the globalised takeover of our commons. You can find his work at www.thecogent.org, or follow him on twitter @TheCogent1. Read other articles by Dustin.

 

Stop Nakba 2.0!

Words cannot express our worry and fear for the two million civilians of Gaza.  Over the weekend, Israel has ordered half the population of Gaza to move to the south of the territory, and has taken actions that suggest they plan to dispossess millions of Palestinians from Gaza – literally a Nakba 2.0.  Seemingly indifferent, the Trudeau government refuses to push for a ceasefire even after more than 2500 Palestinians have been killed. Let it be said that you did not sit idly by while our political leaders watched Israel turn Gaza to dust, slaughter its people, and commit another mass atrocity.   

This provides 1) an option for political action for Gaza, 2) an option for humanitarian aid to Gaza, 3) an option for media action for Gaza, 4) an option to ramp up your knowledge on the situation, and 5) an option to express your anger and frustration with the government and media.

1. STOP NAKBA 2.0

Be on record to show that you did all you could to stop Israel from committing another mass atrocity agains Palestinians.  Even if you’ve already sent our indifferent leaders emails in the past, send another!  Show them we will not be silent!

2. Send humanitarian aid for Gaza

As we all know, Israel has ignored international law and is preventing food, water, fuel, medicines and other supplies from entering Gaza this past week.  Nevertheless, the CJPME Foundation has been communicating with its partners, and is in a position to pass aid to Gaza as soon as the territory is open again.  Please donate to its Gaza Emergency Appeal: the money will be used to provide 1) food aid, in the form of rations and vouchers, 2) fuel, and 3) medical supplies, in the form of medical consumables and medicines.  For Canadians, these gifts are tax deductible, and 100% of the gift gets to the field.

3. Join our fight against media bias

Earlier today, we sent a 3-page statement highlighting the many ways the media is disserving Canadians, especially Palestinian-Canadians.  We hightlight the many problems we have observed as they interview Palestinians and present the events.  Our task is to fight against the bias and expand the story.  CJPME, its reps and its statements have been quoted or cited by media in well over 100 media spots since Oct. 7, including CBC, CTV, Global News, TVA, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and the Canadian Press.  Many of our friends and allies have also been articulate with the media. Many media outlets have been forced to update and edit their coverage as a result of our media advocacy.  Since Saturday, we have contacted media about poor coverage in over 60 different instances. But we need your help!

  • We need greater participation on our media alerts, so please sign up as a CJPME Media Responders if you can.
  • And if you’re Palestinian and are willing to talk to the media about your experiences and feelings, please get in touch.  We’re constantly contacted by media who want to hear from Palestinians.
  • Email or send us links to articles with poor journalistic coverage.  We’ll try to incorporate them into our media response if we can.
  • Send us letters or articles that you’ve written that were never published.

4. Ramp up your ability to speak to the issues

CJPME recently published some key talking points about the current crisis, with supporting principles. See our points 1) on Hamas’ recent violence, 2) on Israel’s recent violence, 3) on Canada’s response, and 4) on the ongoing conflict. But there’s more:

5. Share your frustration and anger

Last week, hundreds of our supporters shared their anger and frustration with us.  We are reviewing the feedback, and hope to present much of it to media and politicians as a reflection of how upset and anxious many Canadians are.  It’s not too late to participate.  We need to help the media and politicians understand how Palestinians and their allies are struggling in the current climate.

  • Please use this form to write a few sentences about your frustration, anger, or worries, whether about the escalating violence in Gaza or the response in Canada. Use the form’s checkbox to control permission over how the feedback may be used.
  • Protect yourself emotionally.  Take a break from the news if you’re feeling overwhelmed or overly frustrated.  Don’t get pulled into political discussions with friends or co-workers unless you’ve decided ahead of time that you’re comfortable and ready.

CJPME’s mission is to enable Canadians of all backgrounds to promote justice, development and peace in the Middle East, and here at home in Canada. Read other articles by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, or visit Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East's website.