Monday, November 20, 2023

UK Teachers so badly paid they struggle to keep up with their household bills, union warns

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2023


TEACHERS in England are so badly paid that they struggle to keep up with their household bills, Britain’s biggest teaching union warns.

In a survey of its members, published today, the National Education Union (NEU) found 85 per cent said they are underpaid, given their skills, qualifications and workload.

Only 7 per cent said that their pay is fair, and 56 per cent were either “very” or “extremely” worried about keeping up with household bills and finances.

Between September 2010 and September 2023, the cost of living as measured by the retail price index (RPI) rose by 68 per cent.

Teachers’ pay outside London rose by just 27 per cent over the same period.

The union said teachers had “suffered deep and lasting real-terms pay cuts on any measure.”

NEU general secretary Daniel Kebede said: “This survey once again highlights the damage done by government attacks on teacher pay since 2010.

“Teachers are right to feel undervalued, given their skills, professionalism and the level of responsibility they bear in educating children and young people.

“Pay levels do not properly value teachers. This creates major recruitment and retention problems. This is no way to value teachers.

“We need an urgent, properly funded and major correction in teacher pay — not only to stop teachers worrying about how to pay their bills, but also to protect our education service by fixing the recruitment and retention crisis.

“This essential correction in pay is therefore in the interests not only of teachers themselves, but also of parents and children.”

The Department for Education was contacted for comment.

UK
How a grassroots women’s network is fighting climate change – one dodgy investment at a time

The world’s 60 largest banks reportedly ploughed $669 billion into the fossil fuel industry in 2022 alone. These women are doing something about it
THE BIG ISSUE
19 Nov 2023

A money movers group, where women help one another divest from dodgy funds. Credit: Money movers

Do you know what your money is doing?

You might swear off flying, attend peace marches and spend your weekends litter picking. Meanwhile, your cash could be building an oil rig, funding the arms trade, or subsidising the tobacco industry.

The world’s 60 largest banks reportedly ploughed $669bn into the fossil fuel industry in 2022 alone – including UK giants like HSBC, NatWest, Barclays and Santander.

Data released last month shows that UK local authority pensions alone are investing at least £12.2bn and perhaps as much as £16bn in coal, oil and gas.

It’s enough to make you want to withdraw all your money and hide it under your mattress. But there’s another way.

Money Movers is a grassroots network helping groups of women move their money out of climate-wrecking financiers. Collectively, participants have already moved £1.9m to greener providers.
Advertisement

“People have the power to make a real difference,” says Anneka Deva, who leads Money Movers.

“The choices we make with our money are 21 times more powerful than stopping flying, going vegetarian, and changing energy supplier combined. So there’s huge potential there.”

Money Movers aim is to reach 30,000 women and move £1bn for climate action by 2030.

“We know it’s a big goal, but we’re confident we can hit it,” Deva says. “And empower women to take control of their finances while doing so.”

Why does Money Movers focus on women?

Research shows that women want to make values-based investments – but many lack confidence when thinking about their long-term finances. More than 62% of women in the UK admit to deferring decisions about long-term finances to their spouse, a study by UBS shows, while women reach retirement age with £145,000 less in pension savings than men on average.

“Female financial empowerment is crucial,” Deva says. “It’s our money. But it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and isolated. That’s where peer-to-peer models come in.”

Originally developed by Friends of the Earth in 2018, Money Movers runs on a collaborative, peer-to-peer model. Volunteer hosts receive training from peer-learning specialist Huddlecraft, then recruit other women into a three-session learning programme.


These Right to Roam activists are fighting landlords to open up UK’s green spaces to all

It’s a friendly, informal model ­– and it’s proved immensely popular with participants.

New mum Chloe Grahame became involved after she started “coming out of the newborn haze”.

“Having a daughter, I started to think about the world she was going to grow up in,” she recalls. “When I saw that Money Movers were recruiting I trained as a host. Loads and loads of people were really interested.”

Grahame ended up hosting a group of eight people – but it was a collaborative endeavour, she stresses.

Get the latest news and insight into how the Big Issue magazine is made by signing up for the Inside Big Issue newsletter

“I’m not an expert, I wasn’t teaching people. We all learnt together, and helped one another with questions. It was flexible, too – some of us were feeding our babies, others had to go and deal with a tantrum. We made it work.”

Does divestment really help the climate crisis?


Stop flying, eat less meat, ride a bike, recycle – in the battle against climate change, these actions are undeniably important. But as corporations continue to profit off mega-polluting fossil fuel projects, individual efforts can feel like a drop in a plastic-filled ocean.

Yet moving your money can make a real difference. Banks and pension funds are under increasing pressure to cease financing for polluters.

According to Stand.Earth, around 1,600 institutions have made public divestment commitments, preventing $40.51tn from going into fossil fuels.

In 2022, Lloyds Bank committed to no longer providing direct financing to fossil fuel projects. Less than a month later, HSBC announced plans to end funding for new oil and gas fields.


“I don’t think most of us are proactive enough with our money,” says Bailey Kursar, who hosted a Money Movers group of eight people. Kursar works in Financial Technology, and is passionate about sustainable investment.

“But I know for a fact that in the more progressive parts of the industry, this is very actively talked about and considered. I think consumers are increasingly aware of what our money is doing.”

Moving your money away from polluting sources is just the first step, she says.

“Choosing a fund which doesn’t invest in any large fossil fuel companies is good. But we can go further. How can we make sure the right investment is put into sustainable energy sources like wind and solar?”

Your support changes lives. Find out how you can help us help more people by signing up for a subscription

There’s still a long way to go. Trillions are still invested into fossil fuels every single year. Top banks are funding two of the world’s most polluting industries far more aggressively than governments are funding solutions, a report from ActionAid revealed in September. They have funnelled €3tn into the expansion of fossil fuels in the Global South since the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was adopted seven years ago.

But with a future to fight for, Graeme says feeling powerless isn’t an option.

“Any tiny change can be a step to a bigger change,” she urges. “People feel overwhelmed, yes. But you can’t let that stop you from doing what’s right.”
Nobel Laureate  Tokarczuk in an interview for "The Guardian": we must stop Poland's degradation into authoritarianism


TVN24 | TVN24 News in English
3 października 2023
Autor:
Źródło:TVN24 News in English, The Guardian

Olga Tokarczuk was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for 2018



"We must put a stop to further degradation that is leading Poland towards authoritarianism; that’s the most important thing now," the Polish Nobel Prize-winning writer Olga Tokarczuk told the Guardian. The British newspaper said Tokarczuk had given a "rare political interview" less than two weeks ahead of Poland's parliamentary election scheduled for October 15.

The Polish Nobel Prize-winning writer Olga Tokarczuk gave a "rare political interview" to the British daily "The Guardian". The convsersation with the writer, published on Tuesday (Oct. 3), pertained mainly to the upcoming parliamentary election in Poland.

"We as citizens will need to be assured that a new government would have faith in democracy, Europeanism and freedom guaranteed by law," Tokarczuk said less than two weeks before Poland goes to the polls in a potentially pivotal election on October 15.

"We need assurances that such a government would listen to us and respond to our needs, and not, like the present one, subordinate the majority of citizens to anachronistic 'traditional values' adhered to only by a 30% minority," the novelist added.



"The Guardian" reminded that Tokarczuk has been facing criticism from nationalists and conservatives for what they see as "anti-Polish" ideas. The British paper also noted the writer is "an avid supporter of women’s rights and attender of marches against Poland’s restrictive abortion laws".

"[If] I refer publicly to anything to do with current Polish social or ecological policies, journalists who depend on the present government will immediately respond by stigmatising my words, and the trolls will start up their hate," the writer said. "It demonstrates that my beliefs are awkward for the present government, not just during an election campaign."

Nevertheless, Tokarczuk does not encourage Poles to vote for any particular political party. In her view, "the most important thing" for any future government would be to stand against current social trends in Poland.

"If the government changes in Poland, then I hope – regardless of what kind of coalition emerges after the vote – that above all it will put a stop to the anti-progressive, anti-civic activities we have been dealing with in recent years, and which have been intensifying from one month to the next," Tokarczuk said.

"We must put a stop to further degradation that is leading Poland towards authoritarianism; that’s the most important thing now."

"The Guardian" wrote that "the illiberal turn of central eastern European states, most notably Hungary and Poland, has often been explained as a rebellion against cosmopolitan and multicultural values championed by the west".

However, the newspaper added, Olga Tokarczuk had recognized Poland's "yearning for cultural diversity in the region that was destroyed during the years of Nazi rule and the Soviet era".

"Homogeneity is not natural in this part of Europe, many people can feel there’s something missing," the author told "The Guardian".

"I notice the areas where a nostalgia for diversity is being felt more and more, being cultivated and restored. I hope these phenomena will put up resistance in the near future to idealized, fictional homogeneity, a concept that, put into effect for nationalist ideas and duly made to serve the demagogues, has already done so much harm in the history of the world," she added.

The Polish Nobel Prize laureate also commented on the dispute over Agnieszka Holland's latest film "Green Border". "In the context of the major problems demanding swift solutions with which the world and Poland are struggling, it is shocking that politicians find the time to make malevolent, mean-spirited comments about movies that they haven’t even seen," she said.

"It is clear that the role of these comments is merely to reinforce the divisions within society and to radicalise public feelings in the run-up to the election."

"Only a government that is playing for all and that does not shy away from violence is capable of treating an artist like an object in such a ruthless way," Olga Tokarczuk added.

Autor:gf


Źródło: TVN24 News in English, The Guardian


Źródło zdjęcia głównego: Markus Wissmann / Shutterstock.com




Bassem and Ahed Tamimi are in Israeli prison because they stand for Palestinian freedom
I have known the Tamimi family for 13 years and have seen how Israel systematically targets non-violent activist and movements. Ahed and Bassem Tamami are currently being detained because they stand for Palestinian freedom.
MONDOWEISS
A PHOTO AHED TAMIMI (CENTER) WITH FATHER BASSEM AND MOTHER NARIMAN, IN 2018 AFTER AHED WAS RELEASED FROM ISRAELI DETENTION AND THE FAMILY WAS REUNITED. (PHOTO: ALISON AVIGAYIL RAMER)

I am a Jewish American Israeli, and in Palestine, they call me Alison Tamimi, the chosen sister of Bassem Tamimi, whose own sister was killed by an Israeli translator who pushed her down a flight of stairs in an Israeli military court in 1993, and Auntie of Ahed Tamimi, his daughter and one of Palestine’s most internationally renowned young human rights activists. Over the past 13 years I’ve known the family, they have been separated time and again, with all members of the family spending time in prison for their non-violent activism. At the beginning of November, Bassem was arrested and is being held in Ofer Prison under administrative detention with no charges. Two weeks ago, after a campaign online against her using fake social media accounts to post fake content, Ahed was also arrested and is being held in Damon prison. She has appeared in military court twice since her arrest and has been visibly beaten. She has not had access to a lawyer.

I grew up in the United States in a Jewish community and immigrated to Israel after college after a Birthright Israel trip. After living in Tel Aviv for several years, I wanted to witness Israel’s occupation in the West Bank. I went to a Palestinian protest which had just begun and which would carry on for a decade. That is where I met Bassem and Ahed Tamimi. Though many Israelis told me that I would be lynched because I was a Jew and an Israeli, the majority of Palestinians were unwavering in framing the problem as being with Israel’s policies and practices, not with individuals — not Jewish people, or even Israelis. When we met, Bassem and his family welcomed me, telling me that I was “the most important person to come to their village, because I came to remove the occupation from my mind.”
BASSEM TAMIMI AND ALISON AVIGAYIL RAMER IN 2011

Removing the occupation from my mind didn’t take too long once I moved to the West Bank at the invitation of Palestinians. I saw firsthand how the Israeli military provokes violence. One time, I was having a tea party and dancing on the roof of a Palestinian home with two five-year-old girls when Israeli soldiers invaded the village. They watched us dancing on the roof for several minutes, before looking me straight in the eyes and shooting tear gas directly at us. Another time, I was with a group of children drawing chalk peace signs on the road when an army jeep drove up and threw sound grenades at us. When I slept over at a friend’s house, the Israeli military came in the middle of the night and trashed the entire house. They insisted on taking photos of the children, which an Israeli soldier later confessed on This American Life was not for collecting information, but as a tactic to terrorize people in their homes. Thousands of stories like these have been shared by Palestinians, Israelis (including soldiers) and international advocates for decades with the world.

When I first met Ahed Tamimi, she was focused on a Rubik’s cube she was playing with in a field during a violent incursion of the Israeli military in her village. She was eight years old. A few months later, she tagged along to the photography class that I organized for 12-14-year-old children with the international humanitarian organization World Vision. Over the course of the six-week class, every single one of the students was abducted by the Israeli military. Most of them were tortured. It is rare to find a child in the West Bank who has not been arrested by the Israeli military at least once, if not multiple times, during their childhood. While human rights organizations document the number of children in Israeli military and administrative detention, the number of children arrested is too vast for any human rights organization to document.

AHED AND HER BROTHER IN 2011 (PHOTO: ALISON AVIGAYIL RAMER)

Over the course of the fifteen years that I was living and working with Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, I witnessed how Israel targets non-violent movements and activists and systematically robs people of their ability to live peaceful private lives. I watched in 2018, during the Great March of Return, when tens of thousands of young Gazans marched to call for their human rights, how Israel killed 223 of them, including medics and journalists, and injured 29,000 people. Three weeks ago, Israel killed five family members of the Palestinian poet and writer Ahmed Abu Artema, who was widely credited for inspiring the Great March of Return. Since October 7, thousands of Palestinians have been detained by Israel, including journalists, academics, artists, and members of the Palestinian legislative council. When people that I loved were killed and harmed by Israeli military violence, I felt the depth of grief that can transform your love for humanity into hatred. I’m sure that all people are capable of feeling this pain and that Israel intends for Palestinians to feel the pain that sows the seeds of hatred.

If anyone is wondering where the Palestinian Gandhis are, the answer is that they are kidnapped and taken to unknown locations where they are being tortured, sitting in military and administrative detention in Israeli prisons, killed in cold blood on the way home from school, dying of treatable wounds in destroyed hospitals, buried under the rubble of vengeance in Gaza. Despite this, there are many who will continue to grow up in Palestine’s long-standing culture of resistance. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian people have remained steadfast for so long is a miracle of the human spirit. Extensive anti-Palestinian propaganda perpetuated by Israel and racist mainstream media coverage for decades should not rob humanity of knowing about some of the greatest activists in modern history.



Alison Avigayil Ramer

Alison Avigayil Ramer is human rights advocate, advocacy and organizational development strategist. She lived and worked in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel for fifteen years supporting the establishment of several Palestinian human rights organizations and working with international humanitarian and development organizations. She is currently based in the United States where she is a student of psychology, religion and consciousness.


 

Put on a happy face – 

Unmasking the toxic positivity of 

climate gaslighting

November 19, 2023

When I first heard about Just Stop Oil, I was deeply skeptical. Founded in the UK in 2022, the movement uses nonviolent civil disobedience to pressure governments to halt all new fossil-fuel licenses. Protestors have shut down major highways with sit-ins, causing fury amongst commuters on their way to work. They have thrown their trademark orange paint onto historical buildings and corporate headquarters, in addition to interrupting everything from the British Grand Prix to Wimbledon and most recently a performance of the musical Les Miserables in London.

I was skeptical for a simple reason. My approach to raising awareness about climate issues involved promoting bringing joy, inclusivity, and a solutions-oriented mindset to the climate movement. Just Stop Oil’s messaging, with its crudely drawn skull logo, felt overly negative, potentially alienating the public rather than garnering sympathy. The internet was full of videos of angry commuters literally dragging protestors off the road. How was this supposed to inspire people to join the climate movement? What were the constructive proposals? And splashing paint on revered works of art? It felt self-serving and performative.

My views evolved unexpectedly in 2023, a year of broken records and broken promises. The slowing down of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a vital component to Earth’s global ocean circulation. New lows in arctic ice cover. New oil leases granted despite commitments to the Paris Accords. I tried to focus on the positive: Biden’s creation of the American Corps, the EU Nature Restoration Law, the solutions worked on by countless people everywhere. But these felt like wallpaper distractions in the face of a planet dying of a thousand cuts. I was disheartened and full of grief.

But acknowledging that pain was liberating, a sign that I was human. It was also challenging: I had to accept that so much of what we have lost is irrecoverable, and that perhaps everything would not turn out fine, or maybe it would. That was beside the point. Embracing grief became a source of strength. It fueled my commitment to act on my values, regardless of the likelihood of success.

Behind the stunts, I realized that Just Stop Oil was playing a vital role: giving voice to suppressed emotions that government, business, and mainstream media refuse to reckon with. Their tactics are disruptive not just because they make people late for work, but also because they shine light on the elephant in the room: collapsing ecosystems, confused political systems, and the collective trauma of living through the breakdown of the world as we know it. Rupert Read, director the Climate Majority Project, says “people are told to put on a happy face when what they actually need is to be heard in their pain for the world and their fear for the future”.

There is a term for being gaslit for our healthy emotional responses to climate collapse: toxic positivity. Naming it is crucial for awareness, and three cultural narratives empower it.

The first is the belief that recognizing “negative” emotions means denying positive ones and thus giving up on working for a better future. In reality, our emotions are not a zero-sum game. We can give space to grief and anxiety and still feel hopeful. Grief doesn’t cancel out joy; all the opposite, they can reinforce each other. To engage a wider range of emotions as fuel for action, it can be helpful to scrap the negative/positive distinction, and instead reframe all emotions – pleasurable and painful – as healthy signals that our body is responding to its environment. 

The myth of progress is the belief that human history moves forward and tends toward improvement. This is in contrast to much of the world’s indigenous cultures which understand history as moving cyclically or in multiple different directions simultaneously. The myth of progress denies the possibility that the future could be less shiny than the past, and it pathologizes those activists, scientists, and journalists ringing the alarm bells, as abnormal.  

The myth of authority – aka the “we know what we’re doing” myth – is the assumption that those in positions of power know what they’re doing. And whilst we do have the solutions for drawing down carbon and restoring biodiversity, the political reality of how to implement these is no simple wave of the wand. It’s clear that some politicians are clueless and oblivious to those solutions, whilst others are keenly aware and willingly refuse to implement them. A facade of false confidence is maintained that robs people of agency, preventing us from recognizing our own power to analyze issues, voice concerns, and organize movements. Part of recognizing our grief involves accepting that our leaders aren’t going to save us. We have to find a way forward ourselves.

The alternative to toxic positivity is not a pendulum swing to a toxic negativity, the type of negativity I had initially identified in Just Stop Oil. Instead, it is a sane realism, one that recognizes that it is normal and healthy to be alarmed today, and that we can take meaningful action in response.

I do think that Just Stop Oil is an overly simplistic refrain that stops short of looking at the systemic causes of our fossil fuel addiction and thus is weakly positioned to offer a constructive remedy beyond raising alarm bells. But I think we have to give it credit for giving a voice to our emotional landscape, for publicly normalizing what so many of us are feeling, and for being loud and unashamed in a moment where there are a million reasons to put our heads in the sand. Speaking up doesn’t solve our problems, but by clarifying our problems, it offers a more honest ground for action than the big denial of toxic positivity. Lets, in the words of Donna Harraway, “stay with the trouble,” rather than close our eyes to it.




Félix de Rosen
Félix is a California-based author, landscape architect and founder of Studio Polycultura, a design and communication studio focused on nature-based adaptations to ecosystem and social collapse.

 

When populism runs out of road, it blames the road

Populism’s glib ‘solutions’ to its imaginary problems can create real crises – the last thing you need then is more populism

If a problem had a simple solution, it would never become a serious problem. The solution would quickly be applied and the problem would be solved. Populists know how attractive this can sound. They gain power by claiming they have simple solutions to problems that worry people. Often these ‘problems’ are created by the populists themselves, aided and abetted by a client media.

Populism 101 – get people scared and angry … then sell everything off

A classic example is immigration in the 1980s. The newspapers in particular relentlessly pushed the narrative of foreigners getting social housing and claiming benefits (neither of which was true, because they were not entitled to either) and stealing ‘our jobs’. Eventually this worked with a significant proportion of the population, but the effect varied from place to place. It was weaker in urban areas where there was noticeable migration and people could see and experience the contribution migrants made, but greater in areas with low migration, despite many of the few visible migrants being doctors and nurses in the local NHS.

Until the 1970s, the Conservative Party was centre right, describing itself as ‘One Nation Conservatives’. It sought to look after businesses and investors but maintained public services like the NHS and social care. The mainstream media were far more right wing, and increasingly put pressure on the right to be less benevolent. Margaret Thatcher emerged in a period when trade unions were strident and frequently economically illiterate, and management were entrenched and often incompetent. The polarisation saw the dismantling of union influence and destruction of much manufacturing industry.

In parallel, an ideology took hold, (supported by enough of the population to give Thatcher power), that public services were wasteful and inefficient, and private enterprise could do a better job and cost people less. It is only in the last decade that the illusion of this fallacy has occurred to the greater part of the public, and the scales have fallen to reveal the truth.

The privations of privatisation – how we live now

It is possible to argue that free enterprise and competition are capable of providing a good service, but without genuine competition, the approach is a disaster. Public utilities have soared in price with little to no improvement in service. UK railways, for example, have had to revert to public ownership on several occasions – GNER to National Express East Coast then East Coast (public) followed by Virgin East Coast, and now publicly owned LNER – and as companies take government money then pull out when profits drop.

Railway infrastructure briefly went into private ownership, but was quickly brought back into public control when costs trebled. The UK has the highest rail fares in the world, higher than anywhere else in Europe – 55p per mile in the UK v 30p in Holland and 19p in Germany. An even worse example is an industry where there is no competition at all: water.

The cost of water and sewage has risen astonishingly. As confirmed by Full Fact, “between 1989, when water services were privatised in England and Wales, and 2014/15, average household water bills rose by 40% above inflation”. People accepted that this was the result of companies having to invest in supply lines and replace century-old Victorian sewage infrastructure. The truth, we discover, is that thanks to totally ineffective regulation, the extra money was largely spent on massive dividends for many foreign investors, such as the Canadian Teachers Pension fund, by our largely foreign-owned water companies.

Distraction, distortion … and disintegration

Meanwhile our right-wing press were busy diverting everybody’s attention to supposed benefit scroungers, communist councillors, incompetent council workers, lazy firefighters, anybody they could ‘other’ and blame, but always, always, the horrible nasty immigrants. The right wing always hated the EU, even when Thatcher realised how economically beneficial it was, and achieved the single market. The EU had labour laws, standards, and rules that required broadly liberal democracy. It had to be demonised and opposed. Boris Johnson spent many years as a Telegraph columnist telling lies to do exactly that.

A mixture of malign forces combined to pressure Conservatives Party members to mount a campaign to attack EU membership: funding from far-right influences in the USA, right-wing billionaires in the UK, perhaps covert influence from bad European actors, and social media manipulation funded from unscrupulous influencers.

After years of austerity which saw billionaires multiply their wealth while working people got poorer and services shrank, enough people were convinced that leaving the EU was the answer to their ills. Johnson took the mantle of leader to further his political ambition. He proved to be a consummate populist, and, for a time, a convincing liar, eventually exposed in the inquiry that saw him suspended from the Commons.

Populism, however, offers simple solution to difficult problems. Sometimes excuses come along to blame for the simple solution not working, and the populist can point the finger at forces thwarting the ‘will of the people’, but eventually, the penny drops.

The angry few longing for a home

Some people, however, never get it. I heard a man call a radio station after Suella Braverman was sacked. He was livid, but had the answer. He voted to leave the EU to stop immigration (obviously unaware that non-EU citizens had nothing to do with EU policy). But the answer was simple. Rwanda was ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. Just leave the European Convention on Human Rights and ‘send them all back’.

Clearly the caller was oblivious to the fact that international law (namely the UN 1951 Refugee Convention) prohibits sending people anywhere that might result in harm, and that in any event, airlines will not fly people to countries unless they have a valid passport or visa. Did he imagine the RAF could fly over their country of origin and push them out with a parachute? Perhaps he did.

No doubt our caller favours the push in some Conservative circles for Britain to leave the ECHR. No matter that to do so would put the UK in a European club with only Russia and Belarus as fellow members, and that ignoring the UN could have a devastating effect on our world standing, trade, and investment. And if the Conservative Party fails to deliver what he thinks he wants, what then? Quite possibly he will turn away from them and seek out a more right-wing alternative, and they will welcome him with open, populist arms.

Geoff Thompson


Geoff is a retired university manager with a media background, former breakfast radio presenter on community radio and current very active volunteer on a Yorkshire heritage railway.
The unforgivable hypocrisy of the American liberal

The heart of the American liberal aches for fairness in all things yet responds to every invocation of Palestinian freedom with excuses. Luckily, progress has never relied on a liberal’s courage to recognize that change is necessary.
MONDOWEISS
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, JOINED BY SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CALIF.) AND CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-N.Y.), PARTICIPATES IN A Q&A AT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ISSUES CONFERENCE, FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2022, AT THE HILTON PHILADELPHIA PENN’S LANDING IN PHILADELPHIA. 
(OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY ADAM SCHULTZ)

The American liberal is defined by political vapidity. He regards himself an independent thinker besieged by absolutists on both the Left and Right, cautioning them to embrace one another’s humanity. In fact, the liberal is perhaps the most predisposed toward groupthink, repeating well-worn moral platitudes that serve little but his own self-image as the lone preacher of peace. That is why he finds it comforting to frame the ongoing brutalization of Gaza by the Israeli settler colonial state as a war between two monolithic identities — the Jew and the Muslim — for only by doing so can he regurgitate his insipid condemnations against “hate.”

Indeed, the liberal hates hate. He demands that everyone condemn Hamas, a now-ritualized act of moral expiation before which no discussion of political violence can begin. And in Zionism he encounters a fabricated moral union between a person, a people, and a state, that brooks no dissent, that resents every critique as hateful, that ultimately leads to totalitarianism. It is, therefore, easier for the liberal to condemn hate than political violence. After all, refusing hate does not test his innately limited empathy for Palestinian lives. If now is “the time of monsters,” then it is from monstrous perpetrators themselves that we hear a more honest assessment of the present crisis: this is a second Nakba, by intent and by design.

It helps in this regard that the American liberal understands very little about politics outside an American-centric frame. He has barely even learnt to question the framing narratives of mainstream U.S. news media. He disapproves of white supremacy at home but is rarely as troubled by the expressly articulated Jewish-supremacist project of the Israeli far right. Instead, he naively takes the Israeli government at its word and pardons its open embrace of genocide as intemperate statements born of grief. He purports to stand against border walls, state surveillance, and militarized policing but turns his gaze away when these forces are weaponized against Palestinians. He complains about the power of dark money but doesn’t challenge the political lobbies that advocate for Israeli state interests in the highest echelons of power. He proudly supports human rights but won’t acknowledge years of reporting by human rights organizations on atrocities perpetrated by the Israeli military. He proclaims that Black lives matter but admonishes radical Black writers, intellectuals, and activists who rally for Palestinian freedom. He solemnly agrees that an irreparable harm was done to Native Americans during the European conquest of the “New World,” but cannot fathom why they — and people from across the postcolonial world — recognize their own history in the Palestinian experience.

Perhaps this is not surprising, for the American liberal is only recently and haltingly educated about the entrenched history of structural racism and white supremacy in the U.S., so he inevitably finds it difficult to apply the lessons of that history to the world around him. He fashions himself a hero who would have stood against Jim Crow, Japanese internment, the Vietnam War, and South African apartheid in their time, but somehow the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” appears too “complicated” to take a moral stand. In his mind, American democracy is an inexorably self-perfecting experiment, even though the institution was founded on genocide, slavery, and apartheid and is incessantly subject to anti-democratic capture today. Indeed, the liberal believes so wholeheartedly in this received concept of democracy that he invariably fails to apprehend how democracy can be democratically suppressed in ethno-majoritarian societies, and doesn’t ask himself whether any country can truly call itself democratic — let alone the “only democracy in the Middle East” — if a significant proportion of its population cannot participate in the democratic process. But then, perhaps he is reassured by the knowledge that democracy eventually comes to those who demonstrate their worthiness by dying in large enough numbers. After all, isn’t that why the Western powers “gifted” Israel to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, so that Palestinians could pay for the West’s guilt?

Historical memory ends with the Holocaust for the American liberal. He does not care very much for remembering how circumstances since then have brought us here. He is quite habituated to waking up when Jews are attacked and commencing his re-reckoning with anti-Semitism. The rest is background noise. Perhaps it is through this evacuation of history that the liberal also learns to speak in clichés. He is careful to warn that he is “not a Middle East expert” and lacks the contextual expertise necessary for condemning the slaughter of Palestinian children. This lack of familiarity does not, however, prevent him from chanting that “Israel has a right to defend itself” while studiously avoiding the thornier question of what legitimately constitutes colonial self-defense. Innocently, he advocates for a “two-state solution,” staying strategically silent on how Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank — aided and abetted by him for years — has now rendered a Palestinian state all but impossible. Having already forgotten the legacies of the War on Terror, he remains convinced that it is possible to eradicate a militant ideology by further destituting and murdering an entire people. What is the alternative, he asks in bewilderment, unwilling to entertain conversations about the only real solution there can be: dismantling the occupation of Gaza, ending ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and initiating a meaningful process toward Palestinian self-determination.

The heart of the American liberal aches for fairness in all things. He responds to every invocation of Palestinian freedom with “to be fair,” and asks why we can’t criticize both an overwhelming military power and the residents of a concentration camp equally. He is deeply concerned about the supposed double standard of people boycotting Israeli institutions when other regimes have done worse, but sees no inconsistency in the disproportionate military aid the U.S. allocates to Israel. He denounces antisemitism—as we all should—but willfully ignores the anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia that have equally poisoned our public sphere. He vociferously defends free speech until the moment Palestinians start speaking and inconvenience his sense of “balance.” He rightly anguishes over the transgenerational trauma of Jews, but expects that Palestinians must endure the bombing of homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, UN compounds, evacuation corridors, and border crossings, with no trauma, anger, or pain. When he acknowledges Palestinian humanity at all, he does so as a perfunctory qualification about the “tragedy of war,” in order to advance an argument in support of further war. Having already decided who falls within his racial ambit of humanity (which fortunately includes Ukrainians) and who does not, the liberal mourns for the Israeli “women and children” killed on October 7 — as we all should — but finds no such symbols of vulnerability in Gaza. He shifts restlessly in his seat every time someone raises the subject of Palestinian death, eager to interrupt, to change the subject, to say “yes, but….” In his mind, Israelis are killed as “babies” and “grandmothers,” their lives grievable in the West, whereas Palestinians die like flies, rarely distinguishable between civilians or terrorists, in numbers that can’t fully be trusted.

The American liberal feels bleak about the future but lacks the imagination to envision it differently. He cannot imagine another lesson from the cry “never again” besides the Zionist right to settle. He cannot imagine solidarity with another kind of Jewish citizen who courageously declares “not in my name,” or a different political project for which the “Holy Land” could stand. Raised on a steady diet of American binaries between red and blue, pro- and anti-, us and them, he cannot imagine a different result to the current game than that one “team” should prevail. And he cannot understand that Israeli safety and Palestinian freedom are mutually intertwined conditions. Ever so slowly, the needle of the liberal’s conscience may eventually be moved. All it takes is time and death, and we have yet to determine the “exchange rate” for Palestinian lives.

But let us not despair. Progress has never relied on a liberal’s courage to recognize that change is necessary. Progress occurs when enough people are moved to reject not only neofascist populism, but liberalism’s racist hypocrisies masquerading as humanism. And there are millions of such people marching for Palestine all over the world. Ultimately, the American liberal will be transcended by his own irrelevance. Palestinians have no need of his allyship; they will secure their own freedom and future. When that day eventually arrives, we can look forward to the liberal’s revisionist memory that he was on the right side of history all along.


U.S. medical and public health institutions are complicit in genocide

Despite their mandate to “do no harm” and advocate for the health of individuals and communities around the world, it is clear that U.S. public health institutions are complicit in the genocide in Gaza.

BY KANAV KATHURIA 
MONDOWEISS
DOCTORS TREAT INJURED CHILDREN INJURED FROM ISRAELI AIRSTRIKES IN A HOSPITAL IN RAFAH, GAZA. OCTOBER 14, 2023. 
(PHOTO: AHMED TAWFEQ/APA IMAGES)

On November 3, 2023, the American Public Health Association — the largest organization of public health professionals in the United States — released a statement on the “public health implications” of what they named the “Israel-Hamas War.” Released almost one month after the escalation of the Israeli settler colonial regime’s relentless attacks on Gaza, the statement’s purpose was to make clear that the organization “condemns the brutal assault by Hamas and recognizes Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.”

A genocide is unfolding before our eyes. Israeli Occupation Forces have murdered over 11,000 Palestinians and injured tens of thousands more as of November 14. Entire generations of families have been wiped out. Parents are inscribing their children’s arms with their names in order for them to be identified in case they are martyred. Bodies lay in the street and under rubble, unable to be buried or recovered. Nowhere and nobody is safe from this horror — not those seeking refuge in schools or refugee camps, not children or the elderly, not medical personnel, not journalists or United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff. Outside of Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians are being arrested or murdered in the West Bank by the Israeli Occupation Forces or by settlers. The sheer scale of violence is unimaginable.

The exact numbers of death and destruction do not matter. What does matter is that in the face of genocide, U.S. medical and public health institutions have chosen to either remain silent or actively endorse Israel’s mass murder of Palestinians. Beyond vague lip service expressing sympathy for the “human suffering happening in the region,” for instance, the APHA made no mention of the horrific public health crisis worsening in Gaza by the day. It was only after sharp backlash to their original statement that the APHA passed another one-sentence policy statement on November 14, demanding “an immediate cease-fire” and a “de-escalation of the current conflict,” again, in the “Hamas-Israel War.” Yet neither of their statements addressed the larger context under which the events of October 7 transpired — 75 years of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and apartheid rule carried out by the Israeli government against the people of Palestine.

American Medical Association


The APHA is not alone in passing such an ahistorical and shameful statement. Other health institutions — including hospitals, academic medical centers, universities, government agencies, and non-profit organizations — have followed suit. On November 11, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates declined to pass a resolution supporting a ceasefire in Gaza. Andrew Gurman — a former AMA president — cited that passing such a resolution would involve the AMA in “geopolitical issues,” which he stated was “in no way the purview of this house.” Yet just last year, the AMA passed a resolute statement calling for an “immediate ceasefire” regarding the Russian military’s attacks on Ukraine. Such attacks, they said, were “unconscionable” — creating a “humanitarian crisis” in the region that could no longer be ignored by physicians across the globe. Further, the AMA went on to state that “it is critical that international humanitarian and human rights laws are upheld and that we protect civilians and medical personnel at all costs.”

When it comes to Palestine, the AMA’s supposed care and concern for civilians, medical personnel, and international law grinds to a halt. We need not rehash a detailed list of the public health crises that have emerged from Israel’s attacks nor the litany of international humanitarian and human rights laws that have been shattered. Hospitals are being bombedone after the other. A group of Israeli doctors have openly advocated for these bombings in an open letter, published just two days after the APHA statement. As I write this, Al-Shifa is actively under siege by Israel. Doctors, patients, and others are being shot and killed as they try to leave the hospital. Those inside are being massacred. Ambulances have been targeted. The sounds of gunfire fill the halls. Individuals lucky enough to survive gunshots and artillery blasts are dying due to power outages and shortages of medical supplies. Food, water, oxygen, and fuel are non-existent. Newborn babies have been killed, and others are being moved out of incubators and wrapped in foil in a desperate attempt to save their lives. Doctors are digging mass graves. As one health official stated, “[Israel] is sentencing everyone inside Al-Shifa hospital to death.”

Gaza’s public health crises extend beyond attacks on hospitals and medical personnel. The “true” number of Palestinians killed — the “true” extent of the violence — is much higher than the people directly martyred by Israeli Occupation Forces’ bullets and airstrikes. People are being starved and are dying from dehydration. Clean water in Gaza has always been scarce, given Israel’s blockade, de facto occupation, and enactment of water apartheid. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, “100%” of the 2.3 million people in Gaza are currently food insecure and face the risk of malnutrition. With more hospitals on the brink of collapse, people who are pregnant are experiencing greater numbers of miscarriages, premature births, and are undergoing Cesarean sections without anesthesia. People with periods are using period-delaying pills in the absence of water and menstrual hygiene products. Individuals with disabilities such as hearing loss and physical impairments have been trapped in their homes or in hospitals during bombings, unable to flee or access life-giving assistive services. And the psychological terror and trauma of Israel’s attacks for survivors cannot even be comprehended.

Without water, food, fuel, sanitation, and medical care, cases of infectious diseases such as diarrhea and respiratory infections have skyrocketed alongside the risk of contracting an infection in health facilities. Human Rights Watch has verified that Israel is using white phosphorous against people in Gaza and Lebanon — a substance with severe short and long-term health impacts, and the use of which is considered a war crime under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. As Amal Zaqout, an aid worker with Medical Aid for Palestinians put it in a heart-wrenching statement: “We are waiting for death and nothing more, as the silence from the world around us reflects that they do not consider us human beings.”
Ignoring root causes

What accounts for this silence by public health institutions in the United States amidst a genocide financially and ideologically supported by their own government? For one, despite its emphasis on the social determinants of health, the field of public health fails to address the root causes of poor health. Understanding the health of populations today requires an analysis of the ways in which colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism structure our healthcare systems and produce vast health disparities across the world. For example, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — which has at least acknowledged that there exists a public health crisis in Gaza — goes only as far as to call Israel’s genocide a “humanitarian” issue stemming from “one of the longest unresolved conflicts in the world.” The language of “humanitarianism” deliberately obfuscates and misrepresents responsibility and power — transforming ​​Israel’s decades-long project of settler colonialism into a two-sided “conflict.”

But the truth of their silence runs deeper. U.S. medical and public health institutions serve as tools of empire. The histories of medical involvement in perpetuating harm against predominantly Black and brown bodies, minds, and spirits are long — from contributing to the genocide and forced sterilization of Indigenous peoples, to the use of scientific racism as a justification for chattel slavery, to the development of “colonial” and “tropical” medicine to legitimize and implement European imperial projects. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, medical professionals sanctioned by the United States C.I.A. and Department of Defense designed and conducted programs to torture individuals held captive by the state — a practice routinely undertaken by Israeli doctors against Palestinian prisoners. Indeed, the first person to be abducted and tortured under the United States’ so-called “War on Terror” was a Palestinian man named Abu Zubaydah, who still remains in bondage at Guantánamo Bay detention camp.

Further, medical institutions are invested in the same systems of oppression that worsen communities’ health in the first place. On November 9, students at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) staged a die-in to protest Columbia’s collusion with the Israeli settler colonial regime. As a neoliberal academic institution, a portion of Columbia’s $13.6 billion endowment is invested in weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Elbit, and Boeing — companies that are actively contributing to Israel’s massacres of Palestinians. Instead of divesting from its economic stakes in Israel, Columbia responded to weeks of pro-Palestinian campus actions by outright suspending student groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace. When faced with speaking out against public health atrocities in Gaza or maintaining their allegiances to capital, CUIMC made its choice clear.

In the face of silence from medical and public health institutions, health professionals, workers, students, and public health and medical faculty across the country have organized mass protests, walk-outs, rallies, vigils, demonstrations, teach-ins, and statements of support to stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine. Despite their mandate to “do no harm” and advocate for the health of individuals and communities around the world, it is abundantly clear that medical and public health institutions are complicit in genocide. The AMA, the APHA, and all others that either support Israel’s war crimes or remain silent at this moment have lost all moral and ethical authority and credibility. To these institutions — your hypocrisy is on full display, and your actions now speak volumes. If you continue to choose silence, your complicity will never be forgotten.