Sunday, April 14, 2024

Zionism Killed the Jewish-Muslim World

In this interview, filmmaker and academic Ariella Aïsha Azoulay traces how Western powers’ exploitation of Zionism led not just to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine but to the demise of Jewish communities across the Middle East.
April 12, 2024
Source: Jacobin

Jews in the town of Buqei’a, Palestine, circa 1930. 
(Keren Kayemet Leyisrael via Wikimedia Commons)

Born in Israel, Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, a filmmaker, curator, and academic, rejects the identity of Israeli. Before becoming an Israeli at age nineteen, her mother was simply a Palestinian Jew. For much of history, there was nothing unusual in this combination of words. In Palestine, a Jewish minority lived peacefully alongside the Muslim majority for centuries.

This changed with the Zionist movement and the foundation of Israel. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Europe would lead, thanks to European Zionists, not only to that of Muslims from Palestine but of Jews from the rest of the Middle East, with nearly a million fleeing as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, many to Israel.

In an interview with Jacobin, Azoulay contextualizes Israel’s genocide in Gaza in the long history of European and US imperialism. Azoulay is a professor of comparative literature at Brown and the author of Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism (Verso, 2019).


Linda Xheza

You identify as a Palestinian Jew. Could you tell us more about this? To many people these words stand in opposition.


Ariella Aïsha Azoulay

That these terms are understood as mutually exclusive, or in opposition, as you suggest, is a symptom of two centuries of violence. In a lapse of a few generations, diverse Jews who lived all over the world have been deprived of their various attachments to land, languages, communities, occupations, and forms of sharing the world.

The question that should preoccupy us is not how to make sense of the supposed impossibility of Palestinian-Jewish identity but rather the reverse: How it is that the fabricated identity known as Israeli became recognized by many across the globe after the creation of the state in 1948 as an ordinary one? Not only does this identity obscure the history and memory of diverse communities and forms of Jewish life, but it also obscures the history and memory of what Europe did to the Jews in Europe and in Africa and Asia in its colonial projects.

Israel has a shared interest with those imperial powers to obscure the fact that “the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests,” as James Baldwin wrote in 1979 in his “Open Letter to the Born Again.” In his letter, Baldwin lucidly compares the Euro-American colonial project for the Jews with the US project for blacks in Liberia: “The white Americans responsible for sending black slaves to Liberia (where they are still slaving for the Firestone Rubber Plantation) did not do this to set them free. They despised them, and they wanted to get rid of them.”

Prior to the proclamation of the State of Israel and its immediate recognition by the imperial powers, Palestinian-Jewish identity was one of many that existed in Palestine. The term “Palestinian” was not yet connotated with racialized meaning. My maternal ancestors, who were expelled from Spain in the late fifteenth century, ended up in Palestine before the Euro-Zionist movement began its actions there and before the movement gradually began conflating assisting Jews in response to antisemitic attacks in Europe with the imposition of a European-modeled project of colonization for Jews to partake in — a project not only construed as one of Jewish liberation but predicated upon European crusade against Arabs. Decolonization requires recovering the plural identities that once existed in Palestine and other places in the Ottoman Empire, notably ones whereby Jews and Muslims coexisted.


Linda Xheza

In your most recent film, The World Like a Jewel in the Hand, you discuss the destruction of a shared Muslim-Jewish world. You foreground a call by Jews who, in the late 1940s, rejected the European Zionist campaign and urged their fellow Jews to resist the destruction of Palestine. Given the recent destruction of lives, infrastructure, and monuments in Gaza, do you think it is still possible for Jews and Muslims to reclaim their shared world?


Ariella Aïsha Azoulay

First, the historical part. Zionists have sought to forever erase this call by anti-Zionist Jews from our memories. These Jewish elders were part of a Jewish-Muslim world, and they didn’t want to depart from it. They warned against the danger Zionism posed to Jews like them across this world that existed between North Africa and the Middle East, including in Palestine.

We must recall that until the end of World War II, Zionism was a marginal and unimportant movement among Jewish peoples around the world. Hence, until that time, our elders didn’t even have to oppose Zionism; they could simply ignore it. It was only after World War II, when the surviving Jews in Europe — who were mostly not Zionists prior to the war — had almost nowhere to go, that Euro-American imperial powers seized the opportunity to support the Zionist project. For them, it was a viable alternative to having Jews remain in Europe or migrate to the United States, and they used the international organs they created to accelerate its realization.

In so doing, they propagated the lie that their actions constituted a Jewish liberation project, while, in actuality, this project perpetuated the eradication of diverse Jewish communities far beyond Europe. And even worse, Jewish liberation was leveraged as a license and reason to destroy Palestine. This could not have been pursued without a growing number of Jews becoming Europe’s mercenaries: Jews who had migrated to Palestine while fleeing from or after surviving genocide in Europe, the Palestinian Jews who predated the arrival of the Zionists, and those Jews who were lured to come to Palestine or left with no other choice but to depart from the Muslim-Jewish world since Israel was established, with a clear agenda, to be an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab state — all were encouraged by Europe and European Zionists to see Arabs and Muslims as their enemies.

We should not forget that Muslims and Arabs were never the enemies of the Jews and, moreover, that many of these Jews living in the majority-Muslim world were themselves Arabs. It is only with the creation of the State of Israel that these two categories — Jews and Arabs — became mutually exclusive.

The destruction of this Jewish-Muslim world following World War II enabled the invention of a Judeo-Christian tradition, which would become, from that moment on, a reality, since Jews no longer lived outside of the Christian Western world. The survival of a Jewish regime in Israel required more settlers, and thus Jews of the Muslim-Jewish world were forced to leave to become part of this ethnostate. Detached and deprived of their rich and diverse histories, they could be socialized to this role assigned to them by Europe — mercenaries of this settler-colonial regime to restore Western power in the Middle East.

Understanding this historical context doesn’t reduce the Zionist perpetrators’ responsibility for the crimes they committed against Palestinians over the decades; rather, it reminds one of Europe’s role in the destruction and extermination of Jewish communities mainly, but not only, in Europe, and its role in handing over Palestine to the Zionists, the alleged representatives of the survivors of this genocide who formed a Western post for these same European actors in the Middle East.

Paradoxically, the only place in the world where Jews and Arabs — most of whom are Muslims — share the same piece of land today is between the river and the sea. But since 1948, this place has been defined by genocidal violence. The urgent questions now are how to stop the genocide and how to halt the introduction of more arms to this area.

In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt describes the contradictory sentiments felt by Jewish survivors of the Holocaust during the years they spent in camps for displaced persons in Europe. On the one hand, she said, the last thing they could imagine was to live once again with the perpetrators; on the other hand, she said, the thing they wanted most was to return to their places. It should not surprise us that after this genocide in Gaza, Palestinians may not be able to imagine sharing a world with their perpetrators, the Israelis. However, is that a proof that this world, where Arabs and Zionist Jews found themselves together, should also be destroyed to rebuild Palestine out of the ashes? It is only under the Euro-American imperial political imagination that a tragedy on the scale of World War II and the Holocaust could have ended with such brutal solutions as partitions, population transfers, ethno-independence, and the destruction of worlds.

We, on a global scale, have an obligation to claim what I’ve called the right not to be a perpetrator and exercise it in any possible way. Dockworkers who refuse to ship arms to Israel, students who commit themselves to hunger strikes to pressure their universities to divest, Jews who disrupt with their communities and families and reclaim their ancestral rights to be and speak as anti-Zionists, protesters who occupy state buildings and train stations and risk being arrested — they are all motivated by this right even if they do not articulate it in these terms. They understand the role their governments, and more broadly the regimes under which they are governed as citizens, play in the perpetuation of this genocide, and they understand, as the common slogan says, that it is done in their name.


Linda Xheza

Those calling for a cease-fire are also Jewish. But even Jewish voices are being silenced. In Germany, for example, the work of well-established Jewish artists has been canceled. Do you think there is an interest in reinforcing a dominant narrative that has been in place since 1948 by the West and the State of Israel while suppressing Jewish voices that oppose the violence perpetrated in their name?


Ariella Aïsha Azoulay

It is true that Jewish voices are being silenced, but this is hardly anything new. Jewish voices were silenced immediately after World War II, when the survivors were left with no choice but to stay for years in deracinated camps. During that time, properties looted from their communities, rather than being either restituted to the places in Europe from where they were spoiled, were split by the National Library in Jerusalem and the Library of Congress in Washington like trophies. And not only was the collective trauma of the survivors — and us, their descendants — not attended to, we were silenced through this lie of a liberation project premised on a Zionist narrative of liberation through the colonization of Palestine, which would in turn provide Euro-American powers with another colony to service their imperial interests.

The exceptionalization of the suffering of the Jews was not a Jewish discursive project but a Western one, part of the exceptionalization of the genocidal violence of the Nazis. In the grand narrative of Western triumph over this ultimate force of evil, the State of Israel became an emblem of Western fortitude and marked the endurance of the Euro-American imperial project. Within this grand narrative, Jews were forced to transform from traumatized survivors into perpetrators. Jews from all over the world were sent to win a demographic battle, without which the Israeli regime could not last. The second and third generations born to this project were born with no histories or memories of their anti-Zionist or non-Zionist ancestors, let alone memories of the other worlds of which their ancestors were part. What’s more, they were totally dissociated from the history of what Palestine used to be and from its destruction. Thus, they were easy prey for a nation-state marketed by the Zionists and Euro-American powers as the culmination of Jewish liberation.

The Nakba, in this sense, was not only a genocidal campaign against Palestinians but also, at the same time, one against Jews, upon whom Europe forced another “solution” after the final one. Without the massive imperial powers’ funding and arms, the mass killing in Gaza would have ceased after a short while, and the Israelis would have to ask themselves what they were doing, how they arrived to this point, and would be forced to reckon with October 7 and ask themselves why it happened and how to achieve a sustainable life for everyone between the river and the sea.

Jewish voices in places like Germany or France continue to be the first to be silenced in order to maintain both the Zionist colony and the fabricated cohesiveness of one Jewish people who could be represented by forces that sustain the Euro-American project of white supremacy. No more. The genocidal nature of the Israeli regime is exposed and can no longer be hidden from anyone.


Linda Xheza

Do you think there is still a possibility of hope for the Palestinians, and for the rest of us who want to claim a world to share with others?


Ariella Aïsha Azoulay

If there is no hope for Palestinians, there is no hope for any of us. The battle of Palestine exceeds Palestine, and the many who protest all around the world know it.
Five Years At Belmarsh: A Chronicle Of Julian Assange’s Imprisonment

Calls for Assange's freedom are renewed as the WikiLeaks founder marks five years in Belmarsh prison
April 12, 2024Z
Source: The Dissenter

Image by Duncan Cumming via Flickr



At the behest of the United States government, the British government has detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh for five years.

Assange is one of the only journalists to be jailed by a Western country, making the treatment that he has endured extraordinary. He has spent more time in prison than most individuals charged with similar acts.


Since December 2010, Assange has lived under some form of arbitrary detention.

He was expelled from Ecuador’s London embassy on April 11, 2019, and British police immediately arrested him. Police transported Assange to Belmarsh, a maximum-security facility often referred to as “Britain’s Guantanamo.”

Around the same time, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed an indictment that alleged that Assange had conspired with U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to commit a “computer intrusion.” The following month the DOJ issued another indictment with 17 additional Espionage Act charges.
2019

On May 1, Assange was sentenced by a British court to 50 weeks in prison as punishment for seeking political asylum from Ecuador while Sweden was attempting to extradite him. His sentence was longer than the six-month sentence that Jack Shepherd, the “speedboat killer” received for “breaching bail.”

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer visited Assange on May 9. Two medical experts, who specialize in examining potential torture survivors, accompanied Melzer. He reported on May 31 that “Assange showed all [the] symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”

A few weeks after Melzer’s visit, prison administrators moved Assange to the medical ward. A WikiLeaks spokesperson said that their former editor-in-chief’s health had “continued to deteriorate,” and he had “dramatically lost weight.” A defense lawyer indicated that it had become impossible to “conduct a normal conversation with him.”


Australian journalist John Pilger, a friend and supporter of Assange, shared, “When I saw him a couple of weeks ago he wasn’t very well then. But then he’s been in an embassy in a confined space without natural light for almost seven years.”

“He needs a great deal of diagnostic care and rehabilitation. He’s gone through an extraordinary physical and mental ordeal. And now he’s having to go through this,” Pilger added.

Assange completed his prison sentence in September, however, District Judge Vanessa refused to release him on bail because she believed he would “abscond again.”


Former British ambassador Craig Murray attended a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on October 21, 2019, and shared what he witnessed.

“I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated aging. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg [33 pounds] in weight.”

Murray continued, “When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both.”

“I do not understand how this process is equitable,” Assange declared. “This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case, and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.”

According to Murray, it was a “real struggle” to address the court. “[H]is voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them.”

“He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court,” Murray added.

(
Photo: Alisdare Hickson)
2020

Assange remained in Belmarsh prison’s medical ward until mid-January. During that time, he lived in conditions that amounted to solitary confinement. The harsh confinement ended only after his legal team and several prisoners petitioned administrators to move him into a wing with other prisoners.

In February, the first of two hearings on the U.S. extradition request were held. The proceedings focused on matters of extradition law, and Assange’s attorneys complained about alleged abuse after the first day.

SBS Australia reported, “The WikiLeaks founder was stripped naked twice, handcuffed 11 times and had his legal case files confiscated by guards at London’s Belmarsh Prison on Monday, his lawyers told the hearing.”

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser claimed there was nothing that she could do to ensure Assange was treated humanely.

Assange was forced to observed proceedings in his own case from within a glass box. Jen Robinson, one of Assange’s attorneys, said that he was “unable to pass notes in a confidential and secure way. He’s unable to seek clarification from his legal team and give instructions during the course of the proceedings.”

It was difficult for Assange to participate in his defense, and yet, Baraitser denied a request to allow him to sit with his attorneys in the courtroom.

Not long after the week-long hearing, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the majority of the world. It greatly intensified the hardship of imprisonment.

Vaughan Smith, a friend who allowed Assange to live with him under house arrest in 2010, wrote on April 9 that Assange was “confined alone in a cell 23 and a half hours every day. He gets half an hour of exercise and that is in a yard crowded with other prisoners. With over 150 Belmarsh prison staff off work self-isolating, the prison is barely functioning.”

“We know of two COVID-19 deaths in Belmarsh so far, though the [Ministry] of Justice have admitted to only one death. Julian told me that there have been more, and that the virus is ripping through the prison,” Smith said.

On March 25, Assange’s legal team went before Baraitser and asked that he be granted bail. There were widespread calls for the release of detainees and prisoners in order to halt the spread of COVID. But Baraitser denied the request.


Belmarsh did not allow visitors from March 22 to the last week of August. He was unable to see his partner Stella or his two children, Gabriel and Max.

When Stella visited Julian, he was not allowed to hug his children unless he wanted to be in solitary confinement for two weeks.


“Julian said it was the first time he had been given a mask because things are very different behind the doors,” Stella shared. “[H]e looked a lot thinner. He was wearing a yellow armband to indicate his level of prisoner status, and you could see how thin his arms were.”

The U.S. Justice Department issued another indictment in June that added to Julian Assange’s stress by accusing the WikiLeaks founder of conspiring with “hackers” affiliated with “Anonymous,” “LulzSec,” “AntiSec,” and “Gnosis.” Some of the new allegations were sourced to Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson—a serial criminal, lying sociopath, and convicted pedophile.


Although the pandemic impacted public and press access to proceedings, Baraitser went forward with the second part of the extradition hearing in September. Assange’s legal team called several witnesses to help challenge the extradition request. It lasted a month.

Dr. Quinton Deeley, who works for the National Health Service (NHS), conducted an Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) test and interviewed Assange for six hours in July. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.


Assange told Deeley he feared he would be held in isolation in a U.S. prison. He was afraid of the fresh indictment. He was also concerned about the fate of Joshua Schulte, who was held in harsh confinement conditions prior to his trial for disclosing the “Vault 7” materials to WikiLeaks.

If extradited, Deeley determined Assange’s risk of suicide would be high under the circumstances. He said Assange “ruminates about prospective circumstances at length,” and it causes a “sense of horror.” And, “He would find it an unbearable ordeal, and I think his inability to bear that in the context of [an] acute worsening depression would confer high risk of suicide.”

A couple of months later, on November 2, Manoel Santos, a gay Brazilian who was facing deportation to Brazil, killed himself. He was a prisoner who had become Assange’s friend, and his death was incredibly devastating for Assange.

“Julian tells me Manoel was an excellent tenor,” Stella Assange shared. “He helped Julian read letters in Portuguese and he was a friend. He feared deportation to Brazil after 20 years, being gay put him at risk where he was from,” she said. (Jair Bolsonaro, an anti-gay fascist, was president of Brazil.)

There was also a COVID outbreak in Assange’s prison block in November. “I am extremely worried about Julian. Julian’s doctors say that he is vulnerable to the effects of the virus. But it’s not just COVID,” Stella declared.

She added, “Every day that passes is a serious risk to Julian. Belmarsh is an extremely dangerous environment where murders and suicides are commonplace.”


2021

The year at Belmarsh started with a bittersweet victory. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that extraditing Julian Assange to the United States would be “oppressive” for mental health reasons.

Although Baraitser refused to uphold certain protections that would protect Assange’s freedom of expression, the judge acknowledged the cruelty of the U.S. prison system, particularly what would happen to Assange if he was sent to a supermax prison.

But two days later, lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service argued Assange should not be granted bail because he helped NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “flee justice.” Lawyers also singled out Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s asylum offer and insisted that he remain in Belmarsh or else he would go to Mexico’s London embassy to escape prosecution.

The district judge sided with the U.S. government. She agreed that the assistance WikiLeaks provided Snowden demonstrated that Assange would pose a “flight risk.” Baraitser further argued that the “huge support networks” that Assange had would aid him “should he again choose to go to ground.” Supporters would make it easier for the WikiLeaks founder to evade prosecution.

Following President Joe Biden’s election, Stella was cautiously optimistic that his administration would have want to “project a commitment to the First Amendment.” This would force the U.S. Justice Department under Biden to drop the charges. However, the Biden administration would not relent in their pursuit of the case.

Contagious variants of COVID spread throughout the world. For eight months, Belmarsh administrators would not permit Stella or his two children to visit Julian.

Stella told the news media after her prison visit that British authorities needed to bring this case to an end because they were “driving” Julian to “deep depression and into despair.”

“[Julian] shouldn’t be in prison at all, he shouldn’t be prosecuted at all, because he did the right thing: he published the truth,” Stella declared.


His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons made two unannounced visits to Belmarsh in late July 26-27 and early August. A report [PDF] published by the inspector found that “rates of violence” had spiked despite COVID restrictions “limiting the time most prisoners were out of their cells.”

“The prison had not paid sufficient attention to the growing levels of self-harm and there was not enough oversight or care taken of prisoners at risk of suicide. Urgent action needed to be taken in this area to make sure that these prisoners were kept safe,” according to the report.

A hearing on the U.S. government’s appeal was held before the British High Court of Justice at the end of October. Assange had a “mini-stroke” on the first day and was unable to follow proceedings.

On December 10, the High Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government’s appeal and overturned the lower court decision that had momentarily spared Assange. The judges said they were “satisfied” with diplomatic assurances that were offered by the U.S. State Department. The court had no reason to believe that Assange would not be treated appropriately in U.S. custody.

Assange immediately appealed to the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court to reconsider the decision.

“Today is international Human Rights Day,” Stella declared. What a shame. How cynical to have this decision on this day, to have the foremost publisher [and] journalist of the past 50 years in a U.K prison accused of publishing the truth about war crimes, about CIA kill teams.”

“In fact, every time we have a hearing, we know more about the abusive nature, the criminal nature of this case.”
Photo of Julian Assange and Stella Assange that Stella shared when announcing their wedding (Source)


2022

Another bittersweet moment in the case occurred at Belmarsh on March 23. Prison administrators ended their opposition and allowed Julian and Stella to marry each other in a pared-down wedding ceremony.

Stella proclaimed, “This is not a prison wedding, it is a declaration of love and resilience in spite of the prison walls, in spite of the political persecution, in spite of the arbitrary detention, in spite of the harm and harassment inflicted on Julian and our family. Their torment only makes our love grow stronger.”

However, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice refused to allow journalists Craig Murray and Chris Hedges to attend as witnesses because they regularly publish articles about the case. The prison also tried to deny access to the couple’s “proposed photographer” and labeled wedding pictures a “security risk” because the photos could circulate on social media or in the press.

“I am convinced that they fear that people will see Julian as a human being. Not a name, but a person,” Stella responded. “Their fear reveals that they want Julian to remain invisible to the public at all costs, even on his wedding day, and especially on his wedding day,” Stella responded.

Still, as Stella told 60 Minutes Australia, the two exchanged vows and hugged. “It was like we weren’t in a prison. For a moment, the prison walls disappeared. The guards and the prisoners and the visitors were all saying congratulations, and when Julian came in as well, they started clapping.”


Julian Assange’s appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court was rejected days before wedding. The court was unwilling to review any of the issues that his legal team raised. That meant the extradition request was approved by the district court and sent to U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel for approval in June.

A new appeal was filed in July, and as Assange sought an appeal hearing before the High Court, his case was thrust into limbo.

In October, Assange was forced to isolate in the prison for several days after he was infected with COVID. He was locked in his cell for 24 hours a day.

The news was shared a couple days after Stella Assange and supporters formed a human chain around U.K. Parliament in a show of solidarity for the jailed WikiLeaks founder.
Photo: Alisdare Hickson
2023/2024

While the Australian government had consistently declined to advocate for the rights of one of their own citizens, Stephen Smith, who was Australia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom, visited Julian Assange at Belmarsh.

“I’m very keen just to have a conversation with him, check on his health and wellbeing and hopefully see whether regular visits might be a feature of the relationship with Mr Assange going forward,” Smith told the press, as he entered the prison.

The visit was a product of campaigning by Assange supporters in Australia. Finally, the prime minister of Australia—a close U.S. ally—was publicly demanding that the case against Assange end.

A similar visit by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Secretary-General Christophe Deloire and Director of Operations Rebecca Vincent was blocked by Belmarsh administrators on the same day. RSF was stunned because they had coordinated with the prison.

“Prison officials told the RSF representatives that they had ‘received intelligence’ that they were journalists, and would therefore not be allowed in, per a decision of Belmarsh Prison Governor Jenny Louis. The Governor did not respond to urgent requests to meet Deloire and Vincent or to otherwise intervene to allow their access,” RSF shared.

In May, the first public letter from Assange since he was confined at Belmarsh was shared. The jailed WikiLeaks founder satirically welcomed King Charles to the British throne and encouraged Charles to visit his prison.


“As a political prisoner, held at Your Majesty’s pleasure on behalf of an embarrassed foreign sovereign, I am honored to reside within the walls of this world class institution. Truly, your kingdom knows no bounds, Assange wrote.

“During your visit, you will have the opportunity to feast upon the culinary delights prepared for your loyal subjects on a generous budget of two pounds per day. Savor the blended tuna heads and the ubiquitous reconstituted forms that are purportedly made from chicken. And worry not, for unlike lesser institutions such as Alcatraz or San Quentin, there is no communal dining in a mess hall. At Belmarsh, prisoners dine alone in their cells, ensuring the utmost intimacy with their meal.”

“Venture further into the depths of Belmarsh and you will find the most isolated place within its walls: Healthcare, or “Hellcare” as its inhabitants lovingly call it,” Assange added. “Here, you will marvel at sensible rules designed for everyone’s safety, such as the prohibition of chess, whilst permitting the far less dangerous game of checkers.”

Assange described the “Belmarsh End of Life Suite,” where prisoners cry, “Brother, I’m going to die in here,” and the crows nesting on the razor wire along with “the hungry rats that call Belmarsh home.”


“If you come in the spring, you may even catch a glimpse of the ducklings laid by wayward mallards within the prison grounds. But don’t delay, for the ravenous rats ensure their lives are fleeting.”

On June 8, the British High Court of Justice ruled against Assange’s request for an appeal. The court decision, which inexplicably took nearly a year to be issued, was authored by Judge Sir Jonathan Swift and contained little explanation for the denial.

That forced Assange’s legal team into one more phase of limbo as they re-submitted an abbreviated appeal and waited for the court to grant a hearing.


Journalist Charles Glass visited Assange on December 13. He last met with Assange six years ago while he was still in Ecuador’s London embassy.

In a report for The Nation, Glass wrote, “His paleness is best described as deathly,” and the reason he looks so unwell is because he has not seen the sun since he was transported to the prison on April 11, 2019.

“Warders confine him to a cell for 23 out of every 24 hours. His single hour of recreation takes place within four walls, under supervision.”

The food that is available at Belmarsh consists of “porridge for breakfast, thin soup for lunch, and not much else for dinner.”

“Belmarsh’s warders shove the food into the cells for prisoners to eat alone. It is hard to make friends that way. He has been there longer than any other prisoner apart from an old man who had served seven years to his four and a half,” Glass additionally reported.

The prison opposed Assange’s request for a radio until Glass stepped in to help pressure the prison.


One of the few bright spots, however, is that Assange has been allowed to maintain a library with dozens upon dozens of books in his cell. In fact, when Glass visited, he could no longer receive books because he had 232 books.

At the end of December and in early January, Assange was ill. He suffers from osteoporosis and coughing resulted in a broken rib. If prison authorities allowed him some access to sunlight, the 52-year-old publisher may not be so frail.

Assange was still unwell when an appeal hearing was finally held in February and did not attend the proceedings.

The High Court partly ruled in Assange’s favor on March 26, when it recognized that Assange had valid grounds for an appeal. But the High Court stayed the decision and urged the U.S. government to submit “assurances” that would help the government avoid an appeal.

Assange was once again punished by the legal process. He has very few options left to prevent extradition to the U.S. for an unprecedented trial on Espionage Act charges.

Around the fifth anniversary, President Joe Biden was asked by a reporter about the Assange case. Biden said he was “considering” Australia’s request to end the case—whatever that means for one of the best known political prisoners in the world.
State Department Has Seen Historic Amount of Internal Dissent Over Gaza

Even the Iraq War hadn’t prompted nearly this much internal dissent, former officials said.
April 12, 2024
Source: Truthout


Image by Ted Eytan



The State Department is seeing a potentially historic amount of internal defection over the Biden administration’s policies on Gaza, with at least nine dissent memos and two high-profile resignations since October.

According to a report published this week by The Independent, over the course of just two months of Israel’s genocidal assault of Gaza, State Department staff sent at least eight dissent memos, with another confirmed by the publication sent last month.

Dissent memos are a way for State Department staff to express their dissatisfaction with an administration’s policy without fear of retaliation, and are taken seriously within the department, with memos being passed up to senior staff.

It’s rare for such memos to leak and for there to be such a high number of dissent memos over one topic, former staff have said, showing the wide gulf between President Joe Biden’s approach to the genocide and those within his administration. Further, because leaks are rare, it is possible that there have been far more dissent memos over Gaza that have not been uncovered by reporters.

Several sources cited by The Independent say that the nine dissent memos uncovered by the publication represent an unprecedented number in such a short period of time.

“To the best of my knowledge, it is the most on any issue in such a timespan,” said Josh Paul, a former top official overseeing weapons deals in the State Department who resigned in October after 11 years due to the administration’s support of Israel.

Another former top official, Charles Blaha, said that he hadn’t seen that much dissent in his three decades in the department. “I was in the state department for 32 years, including during the Iraq war, and I have never seen this much unhappiness,” Blaha said. “It is even worse than Iraq.”

The former head of the office that oversees the department’s dissent channel, Mitchell Reiss, said that he hadn’t seen a single dissent memo during the first three years of the Iraq War. But Reiss warned that, because the Independent hadn’t seen the content of the memos, they may not all be against Israel’s assault.

Dissent memos whose contents have been leaked, however, have shown that there is strong disagreement with Biden on his support of Israel. A five-page memo sent in November, reported on by Axios, said that Israel is committing “war crimes” and a “genocide” in Gaza and implored Biden to end his complicity and call for a ceasefire. This memo had 100 signatures by employees in the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Another November memo reported by Politico, with an unknown number of signatures, called for a ceasefire and more transparency from the administration around Israel’s brutality toward Palestinians.

Despite the large amount of dissent over Gaza from State Department staff — many of whom are able to access more information about Israel’s genocide than is known to the public — the White House has remained staunch in its support of Israel, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken has fallen in line in public, including with a friendly visit with Israeli officials last month.

Many former State Department officials and those familiar with the department’s structures say that Biden’s strong support for the genocide is, in fact, stifling the department’s ability to properly assess the assault and whether or not it is in line with U.S. and international law to continue sending military aid to Israel. Staff are largely powerless to change policy because of the administration’s stance, experts have said.

“Based on my conversations since October with people at the department, there is a real disconnect between the analysis and policy recommendations of state department personnel relating to Gaza and Israel-Palestine generally and decisions ultimately being made by the White House,” Brian Finucane, another former State Department employee, told The Independent. “The president is the ultimate decider on Gaza and he’s been largely immune to the facts of this disastrous conflict, at least with respect to actual U.S. policy as opposed to rhetoric.”

One official who resigned recently, foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline, said that she did so because it became “impossible” to do any human rights advocacy due to Biden’s “steady stream of weapons to Israel.” She said she had tried to speak up through dissent memos, but they were ultimately ignored.

“It’s truly unconscionable that this administration portrays itself as so superior to the Trump administration, given his flagrant disregard for U.S. laws, but we have laws that are being broken,” Sheline said in an interview last month. “This administration is not following the law.”
TikTok Exposed Youth to Genocide in Gaza — Is That Why Electeds Want It Banned?

Vocal proponents of a TikTok ban are among the top recipients of donations from the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC.
April 12, 2024
Source: Truthout


On March 13, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act by an overwhelming 352 to 65 margin. If legislated, it would ban the hugely popular TikTok social media app in the U.S., where it has 150 million users — unless its owner, the Chinese tech company ByteDance, sells off TikTok within six months to a buyer not “controlled” by a “foreign adversary.” The U.S. Senate could take up the TikTok bill soon, and President Joe Biden has said he’ll sign it into law.

While U.S. geopolitical and economic competition with China is the underlying driver of the ongoing attacks on TikTok, another factor has emerged: its role in spreading news about the plight of Palestinians amid Israel’s monthslong assault on Gaza that has killed over 33,000 people and wounded over 76,000. Key backers of the TikTok ban have, with little evidence, openly criticized the app for being “anti-Israel.”

Truthout spoke to several tech experts and Palestinian organizers about the TikTok bill. They stressed that social media platforms have offered Palestinians the ability to document and share their stories with mass audiences across the world. For younger people in particular who sympathize with Palestinians, apps like TikTok have been ways to gather news and spread information. All this comes even as social media platforms — TikTok included — have been accused of flagging and repressing pro-Palestinian content.

“For so long, a Palestinian narrative has been censored in the mainstream media,” says Sandra Tamari, a Palestinian organizer and the executive director of Adalah Justice Project, a Palestinian-led advocacy organization based in the U.S. Now, amid horrific violence, “it’s Palestinians in Gaza narrating their story.”
The Forces Behind the TikTok Ban

The effort to ban TikTok in the U.S. is not new. Former President Donald Trump, amid years of anti-Chinese racist baiting, issued an executive order in August 2020 to ban “any transaction by any person” in the U.S. with TikTok owner ByteDance. The order invoked the “spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People’s Republic of China” as a “national emergency.” Ultimately, a federal judge blocked Trump’s TikTok ban in December 2020.

Paris Marx, author and host of the popular “Tech Won’t Save Us” podcast, told Truthout that U.S. efforts for global dominance over China in the tech sector are driving the attacks on TikTok as well as other measures, including blocking Huawei telecom technologies and restricting Chinese access to U.S. chip technology.

All this amounts to “a broader approach by the U.S. government to try to restrict the Chinese tech sector” and “reduce its access to international markets and ability to compete with U.S. tech companies,” says Marx. The TikTok ban, says Marx, is part of a broader effort to protect U.S. corporations against “Chinese competitors that, in some cases, are matching or even out-innovating some of the things that American tech companies are doing.”

Marx says alarmist narratives about China accessing Americans’ user data through TikTok or the Chinese Communist Party manipulating algorithms are “based on falsehoods or are inaccurate,” with “very little reporting to suggest any of that is true.” The spread of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok, says Marx, is now being used “as a justification to keep pushing this agenda forward.”

“There’s this idea that exists in the minds of some American lawmakers that China is puppeteering the algorithms and showing people content that goes against American interests,” Marx said.

In recent months, numerous politicians and Zionist groups have expressed alarm over TikTok, alleging that it has an anti-Israel bias and conflating that with antisemitism. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey), cosponsor of the TikTok bill, posted on social media that “China-owned TikTok has been pushing antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-Hamas content” and “is a propaganda machine to influence Americans.” Other members of Congress — such as Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois), Ritchie Torres (D-New York), Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) — have made similar statements supporting the TikTok ban.

In claiming that TikTok is fueling “anti-Israel” and “pro-Hamas” content, elected officials are aligned with major Zionist organizations. Last fall, Jonathan Greenblatt, president of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), was recorded saying, “we really have a TikTok problem, a Gen-Z problem,” and groups like the Jewish Federations of North America and the Republican Jewish Coalition have applauded the TikTok ban.

Notably, some of the most vocal proponents of the TikTok ban — like Gottheimer, Torres and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisconsin), who sponsored the TikTok bill — are among the top recipients of donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), though AIPAC has not made any statements about the TikTok bill.
“A Site of Struggle”

The popularity of pro-Palestinian context on TikTok and other social media platforms isn’t explained by the manipulation of technology, Marx said, but rather the underlying political reality of opposition to Israel’s assault on Gaza.

“Young people have much more empathy and compassion for what is happening in Palestine and in Gaza than lawmakers and many people in the media do,” Marx said, and they’re “sharing the stories that are coming out of Gaza across social media, whether it’s TikTok or [X, formerly known as] Twitter or Instagram.”

Tamari notes that if antisemitism was a driving concern, backers of the TikTok ban would focus on X, which studies show is a hotbed of anti-Jewish conspiracies. X owner Elon Musk regularly attacks George Soros, a common target for coded antisemitism by the far right, and Musk’s recent endorsement of a clearly antisemitic X post provoked outrage. Notably, the ADL’s Greenblatt faced backlash when, just days after the antisemitic post, he praised Musk and his decision to ban phrases like “decolonization” and “from the river to the sea” from X.

The real concern over TikTok, says Tamari, is that it has allowed Palestinian voices to reach a mass audience. “People are hearing directly from Palestinians, and this is not something that they can censor,” she says. “They don’t have control over TikTok. It’s not owned by a U.S. company. It’s not beholden to U.S. interests.”

A 2021 study from an MIT computer science professor found that an “anti-Palestinian bias persisted disproportionately” across 33,000 New York Times articles. One scholar found that “less than 2 percent of the nearly 2,500 opinion pieces that discussed Palestinians since 1970” published in The New York Times “were actually written by Palestinians.”

Tamari notes that Palestinian journalists like Motaz Azaiza, Bisan Owda and Plestia Alaqad have broken through traditional media blackouts with their social media accounts. “They can turn the camera around and show the devastation,” she said. “They can talk to people and bring those stories directly to an American public, without editors that are saying no.”

Tamari says Adalah Justice Project’s social media accounts, including TikTok, have grown substantially during Israel’s war on Gaza. “We think that’s a very important site of struggle for narrative,” she said. “People are hungry for news and hungry to understand the context of why we’re here.”

Iman Abid-Thompson, director of advocacy and organizing at U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, which provides resources and strategic support to the U.S.-based Palestine solidarity movement, says that her organization established a TikTok account a few months ago, particularly to reach younger people.

“You can’t talk about TikTok without talking about Gen Z,” said Abid-Thompson. “Younger people have turned to TikTok in a new way over the last couple of years, and we wanted to ensure that we, as an organization, had a voice there.” The Pew Research Center reports that 32 percent of U.S. adults from 18 to 29 years old “regularly get news from TikTok.”

Abid-Thompson says that “the issue of Palestine is really prominent” among Gen Z, which is now using TikTok and other social media to highlight and oppose the genocide in Gaza. Polls show criticism of Israel and sympathy with Palestinians steadily increased among younger people well before the current war in Gaza.
“A Double-Edged Sword”

However, even as pro-Palestinian content breaks through to a mass audience over TikTok, Abid-Thompson stresses that the social media is a “double-edged sword,” with repression, censorship and surveillance of pro-Palestinian voices and content. “TikTok is a really great platform for folks to share their insights and perspectives on, but people have been repressed on it for using hashtag Gaza or hashtag Rafah,” she said. “We saw the same thing happen on Instagram and [X].”

A December 2023 Human Rights Watch report notes, “Meta’s policies and practices have been silencing voices in support of Palestine and Palestinian human rights” during the war on Gaza, and the group documented “over 1,050 takedowns and other suppression of content” on Instagram and Facebook. Another February 2024 report also found that “Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices have been censored and suppressed across Meta’s platforms.”

Reporting from Al Jazeera and Vice has suggested that censorship and flagging of pro-Palestinian content also occurs on TikTok. Abid-Thompson says she posted a TikTok video with an image of a man carrying his dead son that was flagged for violence. “You have Israeli soldiers who post images of themselves in demolished homes, and they’re holding up lingerie of people that they’ve killed, and those images never get flagged for TikTok,” she said. “Yet on the other hand, we’re trying to post images of bulldozed homes or massacres or genocide, and our videos are getting flagged.”

A February 2024 New York Times investigation documented videos posted on social media by Israeli soldiers that show them “vandalizing local shops and school classrooms, making derogatory comments about Palestinians, bulldozing what appear to be civilian areas and calling for the building of Israeli settlements in Gaza.” TikTok only removed such videos after the Times contacted them; Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, did not respond.

Studies also show that social media platforms ignore Islamophobic content. A 2022 report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that “Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube collectively fail to act on 89% of posts containing anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia” even after these were reported to moderators.

Despite challenges, Tamari stresses the importance of continuing to post about what’s happening in Palestine. “We’re nearly six months into this genocide, and we should use every tool that we have,” says Tamari. “Continue to post and continue to engage with posts that raise the issues that are facing the people of Gaza. We can’t be deterred.”

Ultimately, says Abid-Thompson, the TikTok ban is an intentional derailment and distraction from the conversation we really need to be focusing on: achieving a permanent and total ceasefire and an end to the genocide in Palestine.
PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The Slow Death of a Prison Profiteer: How Activism Brought Securus to the Brink

On the hook to repay $1.3 billion of debt this year, the nation’s largest prison telecom company, Securus, is on the verge of bankruptcy. Its failure would represent a remarkable victory for advocates—and a potential beginning of the end for the industry as we know it.
April 12, 2024
Source: The Appeal

Photo: Rodnae Productions/Pexels via The Appeal

Last week, the nation’s largest prison and jail telecom corporation, Securus, effectively defaulted on more than a billion dollars of debt. After decades of preying on incarcerated people and their loved ones with exploitative call rates and other predatory practices that have driven millions of families into debt, Securus is being crushed under the weight of its own. In March, the company’s creditors gave the corporation an eight-month extension to pay up, urging its sale to a new owner to stave off an otherwise imminent bankruptcy.

Securus is one of two corporations that dominate roughly 80 percent of the U.S. prison telecom industry, forming an effective duopoly that thrives on the captive markets found inside the nation’s lockups. Both companies are owned by private-equity firms: Securus, by Platinum Equity, and ViaPath (previously Global Tel Link), by American Securities.

The slow death of the largest player in this space is not accidental. It follows six years of intense advocacy to expose the vulnerability of the prison telecom industry’s business model on both ethical and economic grounds. Organizers have waged a strategic war against Securus, educating investors and the public about the company’s predatory practices while successfully advocating for legislation and regulation to rein them in.

With Platinum now on the hook to pay $1.3 billion of Securus debt this year following a series of failed attempts to refinance, bankruptcy seems inevitable. The company’s failure would represent a remarkable victory for advocates—and a potential beginning of the end for the prison telecom industry as we know it.
A Predatory Business Model

Together, Securus and ViaPath contract with 43 state prison systems and over 800 county jails. Their dominance of the market allows them to routinely charge incarcerated people and their families egregious rates for rudimentary communications services: A 15-minute phone call can run as high as $8.25; a 25-minute video call up to $15; and basic emails as much as $0.50, or more with attachments. On top of this, telecom companies are raking in new revenue with digital tablets that offer media, including movies, songs, and games, at prices far above market rate.

The nature of agreements between these telecom providers and correctional agencies often further incentivizes the financial exploitation of the incarcerated, creating profit-sharing kickback schemes that provide prisons and jails with a portion of sales revenue. As a result, many agencies award contracts to the vendor with the highest commission, which often translates to the highest prices.

Facing extreme costs and abysmal or nonexistent wages, incarcerated people must often turn to their families to help pay for communication services. Families routinely face an impossible choice between accepting a call from a loved one inside and paying their bills. Many fall into debt due to these costs, and some are forced to cut contact entirely. The collapse of these bonds harms incarcerated people, their families and children, and society as a whole, with research consistently showing that family contact is critical for successful reentry upon release.

For years, corporations like Securus and ViaPath faced little scrutiny as they used this model to generate billions of dollars in revenue. More recently, however, these predatory practices have proven less viable. Despite raking in roughly $700 million in revenues annually, Securus has been in the red for the last few years due in part to huge interest payments on debt taken out by Platinum Equity upon acquiring the corporation, as well as management fees it must pay the firm. ViaPath is facing a similar strain under massive debts that will begin coming due in 2025.
Interrupting Business as Usual

Securus was initially formed in 2004 after the merger of two smaller correctional telecom corporations. The company changed private equity hands several times before Platinum Equity acquired it in 2017. Platinum took out over a billion dollars in debt to put in the winning bid for Securus—a model that is typical for private equity buyouts. Today, Securus has racked up a total of $1.6 billion in debt. While the private equity structure shields Securus from the scrutiny applied to publicly traded corporations, this debt is publicly traded and provides insight into its financial health.

Debt is priced relative to dollar, or par. Debt priced at 100 cents or more suggests lenders are confident that the corporation is doing well, can make interest payments, and will repay every dollar it borrowed. Anything lower indicates the opposite. During the first two years of Platinum Equity’s ownership, Securus’ debt value was steady at par.

Things started to change in 2018 when a coalition led by the New York-based advocacy organization Worth Rises passed first-of-its-kind legislation in New York City to make jail calls free. In 2020, local advocates did the same in San Francisco. In 2021, Connecticut became the first state to pass legislation making prison and jail communication free. These early victories sent a powerful message to the industry: the exploitative status quo upon which Securus’ profits depended was beginning to crumble.

While advocates continued to organize, the industry was still largely preoccupied with pursuing a strategy of growth through acquisition. In 2018, Securus sought to acquire ICSolutions, the third-largest player in the prison telecom market. But Worth Rises and national partners contested the deal, arguing to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the merger would harm incarcerated people by reducing competition. If approved, the merger would have further consolidated the industry, putting roughly 90 percent of the market under Securus and ViaPath’s control. The FCC agreed in April 2019, leading Securus and ICSolutions to abandon the deal.

The next step for advocates was to convince major investors to ditch Platinum Equity over its ties to Securus. In meetings over the next six months, they explained that Platinum’s investment in the prison telecom giant presented substantial reputational and financial risks, especially as policymakers and regulators turned their attention to the industry. The strategy paid off. In September, the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System denied Platinum Equity a $150 million investment, citing the extensive negative press surrounding Securus.

In the wake of this campaign, Securus’ debt dropped to distressed levels as low as 47 cents on the dollar. The corporation still had its contracts and enough cash flow to stay in business, but investors were showing little confidence that it would survive long enough to pay back its debts.
No Easy Exits

The COVID-19 pandemic rescued Securus, at least temporarily. With prisons and jails across the country locking down and banning visits, skyrocketing call volume and expanded digital tablet programs provided new fuel to the industry. While families struggled to stay healthy, financially afloat, and connected, Securus notched a 10 percent increase in revenue year-over-year from 2019 to 2020, significantly higher than the year before. Its debt pricing reflected this grim success, bouncing back to more than 90 cents on the dollar.

Advocates refused to back down, this time targeting Platinum Equity founder and CEO Tom Gores. In the fall of 2020, Worth Rises and the racial justice organization Color of Change called for his removal from the prestigious, mostly-billionaire board of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art over his ties to Securus. Hundreds of artists, curators, and collectors joined the campaign, and in less than a month, Gores was forced to resign. Two months later, Worth Rises took out a full-page ad in the sports section of the New York Times calling on the NBA to force Gores to sell the Detroit Pistons.

Platinum Equity and Gores were desperate to offload Securus and saw the company’s pandemic-boosted financials as an opportunity to do so profitably. They planned to sell Securus to a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), a public shell corporation formed solely to acquire and take a private corporation public without the scrutiny of an initial public offering.

With broad mandates, SPAC investors pony up millions without knowing much about what they’re buying. Advocates quickly moved to change that, informing the SPAC’s management and investors that the sale would make them the not-so-proud shareholders of an ethically bankrupt and financially unstable prison profiteer. In late 2022, the deal failed, forcing Platinum back to the drawing board.

“After endlessly pillaging impacted communities, we did not want Platinum to walk out the winner,” said Bianca Tylek, the executive director at Worth Rises. “They refused real change for years, so now, we weren’t going to allow them any easy exits.”

The deal’s collapse came as expiring prison restrictions and successful prison telecom regulations began to cut into the industry’s pandemic windfalls. In September 2022, California passed a bill to make calls free in state prisons. By the fall of 2023, Colorado and Minnesota had also mandated free phone calls for people in prison, and Massachusetts had become the first state to make all prison communication free in both prisons and local jails.

Around the same time, a decades-long fight in Congress finally led to the passage of the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act. The legislation—named after Martha Wright-Reed, who first filed an FCC petition to reduce the price of prison calls so that she could stay in touch with her incarcerated grandson—secured the FCC’s authority to regulate rates for in-state calls from correctional facilities, which make up 80% of all prison and jail calls, and granted it regulatory authority over video calls for the first time.

The enactment of that legislation sent Securus’ debt prices tumbling once more.
The Looming Debt Wall

With its debt prices sinking, Securus faced newfound urgency: $1.3 billion in debt was set to come due in 2024. Hundreds of millions more would follow in 2025. In May 2023, Platinum Equity announced a plan to go to the public debt market to refinance Securus’ debt with new bonds. As a show of confidence for investors, Platinum promised to inject another $400 million of equity into Securus.

The corporation’s debt value improved after the announcement, but investor excitement fizzled after Securus failed to secure a refinancing deal even with the sweetener. Banks and lenders, it turned out, were not eager to jump on a toxic prison industry asset that had become the focus of so much negative attention and pressure.

With the clock ticking on Securus’ debt, Worth Rises reached out to credit rating agencies to share information about the state of the prison telecom industry, including the legislative, regulatory, and contract pressures it increasingly faced. In October, S&P Global downgraded Aventiv, Securus’ parent company, to a CCC- credit rating with a negative outlook—a highly speculative, junk bond grade. Analysts explained that the growth of legislation making jail and prison calls free threatened the corporation’s model because “profits could shrink if [Securus] is forced to negotiate with entities that have more negotiating leverage.”

In November, credit rating agency Moody’s followed suit, downgrading Aventiv to “junk” status. Analysts noted that neither the corporation’s cost-savings efforts—including the firing of nearly 300 employees—nor its revenue expansion efforts had meaningfully changed this outlook.

With less than a year before the first tranche of loans came due, Securus made a last-ditch effort to avoid bankruptcy. The corporation coerced its creditors into a distressed debt exchange to delay its maturity dates and interest payments. The distressed deal gave Securus some immediate relief from its debt obligations but cost Platinum Equity $20 million and sparked last week’s credit ratings downgrade to default. Today, the company’s debt is trading as low as 8 cents on the dollar.
What Comes Next

As financial institutions have soured on Securus, their reasoning has reaffirmed an argument advocates have been making for years.

The success of the prison telecom industry depends entirely on investors, who only recently began to question the ethics of the business, and government complicity from local jails all the way up to Congress. When correctional agencies—rather than incarcerated people and their families—are required to cover costs associated with these services, this predatory scheme collapses, as states finally have an incentive to demand lower prices from their prison telecom vendors.

And telecom services don’t need to be made entirely free to destabilize the industry’s business model. Any movement to lower exorbitant rates can threaten the bottom line of corporations that have built an empire around price-gouging the incarcerated. In the wake of recent reforms, phone revenues have declined sharply, while sales of new products like digital tablets have not made up the difference.

All of this spells bad news for cash-strapped Securus and similarly debt-burdened ViaPath. For years, ViaPath’s owner, American Securities, has followed the same playbook as Platinum Equity, including trying and failing to offload ViaPath in a SPAC deal. When it comes time to refinance the company’s debt next year, investors will be even less likely to take a risk on ViaPath if Securus fails to repay its debts later this year.

While much remains uncertain about how Securus or other prison telecom providers will manage the hard road ahead, the destabilization of this industry could have implications for the hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people who are currently forced to rely on these companies to communicate with the outside world.

Advocates note that even if a major provider like Securus were to declare bankruptcy, this would not necessarily lead to a disruption in prison telecom services. Bankruptcy alone would not fully put these corporations out of business, at least not immediately.

Instead, they hope Securus’ downfall would spur a broader reckoning that right-sizes the industry, stopping the growth of prison telecom corporations, reducing their profit margins, and driving private equity and other financiers out. Even modest changes could break the industry’s current stranglehold on prisons and jails, opening the field up to creative new solutions like in-house telecom services or nonprofit providers that can offer the same service at a fraction of the cost. All of this bodes well for future efforts to make prison and jail communication free nationwide.

Through a yearslong campaign of strategic actions, Worth Rises and its partners have brought the largest correctional telecom operator to the brink of insolvency while exposing the industry’s underlying vulnerability. Many of the corporations that have profited off this predatory business model are private equity-owned, debt-laden, and facing serious financial challenges. Advocates argue that the same tactics that brought Securus down—narrative change, policy campaigns, regulatory efforts, and investor activism—offer a roadmap for tackling exploitative corporate profiteers across the prison industry.

After decades of exerting nearly unfettered power and influence over carceral policies and practices, the prison industry racket could finally be coming to an end.

“Powerful prison profiteers are upholding mass incarceration so they can take home billions every year, but they are not unstoppable,” said Tylek of Worth Rises. “This is a warning to all those with no scruples about how they make their money: hands off our communities.”

Dana Floberg is the director of corporate campaigns at Worth Rises, where they lead strategic efforts to end corporate exploitation of incarcerated people across prison industry sectors. They graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and have nearly a decade of experience advocating for media and telecommunications justice issues.

Morgan Duckett is the corporate campaigns associate at Worth Rises, where he has helped carry out the organization’s mission since 2021. He attended Auburn University, where he founded an abolitionist student organization instrumental in diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from the private prison industry, and holds a certificate in product design from Shu-Te University.
Why Are Politicians Still Courting the Nefarious Fossil Fuel Lobby?

High-level government participation in an oil and gas industry conference shows official disdain for the public interest; it’s time to make fossil fuels politically toxic.
April 12, 2024
Source: Common Dreams


Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm delivers the keynote address at CERAWeek by S&P Global on Monday, March 18, 2024 at Hilton Americas-Houston in Houston, Texas. | Image credit: @SecGranholm



From March 18 to 22, 2024, the oil and gas industry held its major annual conference, CERAWeek, in Houston, Texas.

The conference speakers included the usual rogues’ gallery of fossil fuel CEOs from the U.S. and worldwide, including the heads of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Occidental, ConocoPhillips, Saudi Aramco, and Total. These corporations have covered up their responsibility for climate change, poisoned communities, and violated human rights in collusion with repressive governments, from the U.S. to Ecuador to Uganda and beyond.

But the egregious social, environmental, and human rights record of Big Oil did not deter high-level officials from the federal government and some state governments, from both major political parties, from attending and speaking at this event, giving it a stamp of official approval and legitimacy it didn’t deserve.

Our public officials need to get the message that the fossil fuel industry is politically toxic as well as literally toxic—and that they will pay a price for associating with the industry, taking its money, and serving its agenda.

CERAWeek 2024 speakers from the federal executive branch included U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who heads the lead energy policy agency of the U.S. government; John Podesta, senior adviser to the president for international climate policy, who will be the public face of the U.S. in international climate negotiations; and John Kerry, who held Podesta’s position until recently.

Speakers also included Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska). At least one governor, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, was a speaker as well, as were other senior officials with the White House and the Department of Energy.

Exporting Climate Chaos

It’s bad enough that they went, but the content of some of their speeches was even worse. Senators Manchin and Sullivan criticized the modest recent step by the Biden administration to pause new export licenses for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in order to complete a new set of criteria for determining public interest.

Meanwhile, Secretary Granholm appeared to undermine her own agency’s review of the public interest test for LNG exports, by characterizing the review as a routine study (instead of an extraordinary study necessitated by the climate crisis), and saying the pause would be “in the rearview mirror” within a year. If the study has any integrity, an outcome that would end the pause and resume exports (implied by Granholm’s phrasing) should be far from assured.

On the contrary, a study aligned with the global scientific consensus, shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Program, and others, would conclude that there should be no more expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, period, and that the pause should be permanent. Granholm’s statements raise serious questions about whether the Department of Energy can be trusted to do this study.

If the U.S. were really concerned about the long-term energy security of lower income countries who import U.S. LNG, such as Bangladesh, Colombia, and Jamaica, we would be paying our fair share for climate mitigation and a just transition from fossil fuels in these countries instead of selling them our poisons.

The only real beneficiaries of LNG exports are the oil and gas industry. LNG exports are the main driver of growth in U.S. natural gas production, since domestic demand is growing only very slowly. According to government data, U.S. gas production grew about 96% between 2008 (the approximate start year of the shale gas, or “fracking,” boom) and 2023. Over the same period, U.S. gas exports grew by a whopping 690% while consumption grew by less than 40%. Clearly, the gas industry is looking at exports as their growth engine.

While industry makes its profits, communities are left to face serious climate change impacts, such as the recent Texas wildfires. Communities in the vicinity of the gas production supply chain, from fracking to pipelines to export terminals—disproportionately Indigenous, Black, brown, or low-income white communities—pay the price for industry’s profits with serious air and water pollution, as well as fire and explosion risks.

Another group harmed by LNG exports are U.S. utility consumers writ large, who face higher gas bills and become more vulnerable to price volatility as a consequence of increased exports.

What of the destination countries for U.S. LNG exports? Many of the leading importers of U.S. LNG, such as the Netherlands, U.K., France, Japan, and Germany, are affluent countries who can very well afford to transition their electric generation, home heating, and other sectors to renewables and electrification.

If the U.S. were really concerned about the long-term energy security of lower income countries who import U.S. LNG, such as Bangladesh, Colombia, and Jamaica, we would be paying our fair share for climate mitigation and a just transition from fossil fuels in these countries instead of selling them our poisons. Concern for “global energy security,” often cited as a justification for LNG exports, is a smokescreen for facilitating fossil fuel profits.

Ulterior Motives

Since LNG exports benefit no one but an irresponsible, polluting industry, why are public officials so eager to cozy up to them?

For some, the answer is obvious. Sen. Manchin (who isn’t running for reelection) received more campaign money from the fossil fuel industry in the previous election cycle than any other candidate for federal office, and owns a coal company himself. Sen. Sullivan has also received sizable campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

In other words, they have been bribed and have obvious conflicts of interest that motivate them to side with polluters over people.

In her comments at CERAWeek, Granholm said that “the world will need secure supplies of both traditional and new energy for the foreseeable future,” underscoring the administration’s outdated thinking on energy policy.

With executive branch officials such as Secretary Granholm and John Podesta, the motive is a little less obvious, but can be discerned regardless. Their participation in CERAWeek is certainly consistent with the Biden administration’s record, which is likely being driven by a number of powerful appointees with industry ties in key positions.

Under Biden, the Department of the Interior has issued more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than under former President Donald Trump, including a deeply unpopular “carbon bomb” oil drilling project in Alaska. The Department of Energy has issued export licenses to a number of controversial LNG terminals in Alaska and on the Gulf Coast.

These backwards actions are being driven by flawed thinking. In her comments at CERAWeek, Granholm said that “the world will need secure supplies of both traditional and new energy for the foreseeable future,” underscoring the administration’s outdated thinking on energy policy. This is merely a restatement of the Obama administration’s infamous “all of the above” energy policy, and is in direct conflict with the global scientific consensus that we need a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels.

The Way Forward

Our public officials need to get the message that the fossil fuel industry is politically toxic as well as literally toxic—and that they will pay a price for associating with the industry, taking its money, and serving its agenda.

To do that successfully, our movements need to deepen popular understanding of the malfeasance of this industry, escalate our messaging against it, and make it clear to public officials that we are monitoring their ties with the industry closely. Cutting the ties between fossil fuels and the government will be immensely helpful in shifting U.S. government policy on climate and energy in a positive direction.