I am a political activist who has worked and lived in the West Bank of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This blog chronicles my time in Palestine and also provides news and analysis about Palestine and the situation on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Dear friends, please find below a repost of Michelle Alexanders excellent piece in the New York Times in the lead up to Martin Luther King Day in the USA. Alexander is well respected Black intellectual. She has written extensively on racism in the USA (You can check out her book, The New Jim Crow here). Alexander is just the latest Black activist and intellectual to come out in support of Palestine. It's clear from her article, that this has in part been prompted by the increasing attacks on Black solidarity activists and intellectuals who have come out in support of Palestine. It should come as no surprise than that Alexander has been attacked by Zionists for her article and support of Palestine. I have included an article from the Israeli based +972 magazine, which actively opposes Israel's occupation and apartheid regime. The article by Amjad Iraqi gives a good overview of the commentary from Zionist organisations in opposition to Alexander's article, which basically boil down to Palestinians do not deserve civil or human rights.
It should be noted, that while the American Jewish Congress, complain that MLK's memory should not be used as a "moral cudgel", Zionist and Israel apologist have long wielded MLK as a cudgel against critics of Israel. There are plenty of articles in the Zionist and mainstream press over the years to demonstrate that this is the case. It should be noted, when Zionists wield this moral cudgel against critics of Israel who demand human and civil rights for Palestinians, they often quote a hoax letter attributed to King.
As Electronic Intifada noted in their article on King and the hoax letter, Jewish anti-racism campaigner, Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it
originated from a “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in an August, 1967
edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he
declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four
August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise’s
discovery."
As the EI article notes: The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a
book by Dr. King entitled, “This I Believe: Selections from the
Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” No such book was listed in the
bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs
of several large public and university libraries." (You can read the full article here).
“We
must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited
vision, but we must speak,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared
at Riverside Church in Manhattan in 1967.CreditCreditJohn C. Goodwin
On
April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church
in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam
for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including
some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to
right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members
were in Vietnam, their lives on the line.
Many
of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or
at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the
whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely
labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate
supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights
movement.
King rejected all the
well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of
worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.”
Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he
said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has
come for us in relation to Vietnam.”
It
was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of
what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of
crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or
the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about
when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me
largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the
crisis in Israel-Palestine.
I
have not been alone. Until very recently, the entire Congress has
remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded
in the occupied territories. Our elected representatives, who operate in
a political environment where Israel's political lobby holds
well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected
criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened
in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices
reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the
United States.
Many civil rights
activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because
they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because
they fear loss of funding from foundations, and false charges of
anti-Semitism. They worry, as I once did, that their important social
justice work will be compromised or discredited by smear campaigns.
Similarly,
many students are fearful of expressing support for Palestinian rights
because of the McCarthyite tactics of secret organizations like Canary Mission,
which blacklists those who publicly dare to support boycotts against
Israel, jeopardizing their employment prospects and future careers.
Reading King’s speech
at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that
his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against
the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and
despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of
Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they
often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be
mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is
appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”
And
so, if we are to honor King’s message and not merely the man, we must
condemn Israel’s actions: unrelenting violations of international law,
continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, home
demolitions and land confiscations. We must cry out at the treatment of
Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and
restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to
decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water that many of them
face.
We
must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of
Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United
Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds
that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel.
And
finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster,
speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside
Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center
for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate
against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law
that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of
self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority
that makes up 21 percent of the population.
Of
course, there will be those who say that we can’t know for sure what
King would do or think regarding Israel-Palestine today. That is true.
The evidence regarding King’s views on Israel is complicated and contradictory.
Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee denounced
Israel’s actions against Palestinians, King found himself conflicted.
Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a
persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of
their own, and he wanted to show solidarity with the Jewish community,
which had been a critically important ally in the civil rights movement.
Ultimately, King canceled a pilgrimage
to Israel in 1967 after Israel captured the West Bank. During a phone
call about the visit with his advisers, he said, “I just think that if I
go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter,
would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I
do have questions of doubt.”
He continued to support Israel’s right to exist butalso
said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to
return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and
security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict. There was no way King
could publicly reconcile his commitment to nonviolence and justice for
all people, everywhere, with what had transpired after the 1967 war.
Relatives of a Palestinian nurse, Razan al-Najjar, 21, mourning in June after she was shot dead in Gaza by Israeli soldiers.CreditHosam Salem for The New York Times
Today, we can
only speculate about where King would stand. Yet I find myself in
agreement with the historian Robin D.G. Kelley, who concluded
that, if King had the opportunity to study the current situation in the
same way he had studied Vietnam, “his unequivocal opposition to
violence, colonialism, racism and militarism would have made him an
incisive critic of Israel’s current policies.”
Indeed, King’s views may have evolved alongside many other spiritually grounded thinkers, like Rabbi Brian Walt,
who has spoken publicly about the reasons that he abandoned his faith
in what he viewed as political Zionism. To him, he recently explained to
me, liberal Zionism meant that he believed in the creation of a Jewish
state that would be a desperately needed safe haven and cultural center
for Jewish people around the world, "a state that would reflect as well
as honor the highest ideals of the Jewish tradition.” He said he grew up
in South Africa in a family that shared those views and identified as a
liberal Zionist,until his experiences in the occupied territories forever changed him.
During
more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human
rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people
cried — children's toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw
Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal
settlements subsidized by the Israeli government. He was forced to
reckon with the reality that these demolitions, settlements and acts of
violent dispossession were not rogue moves, but fully supported and
enabled by the Israeli military. For him, the turning point was
witnessing legalized discrimination against Palestinians — including
streets for Jews only — which, he said, was worse in some ways than what
he had witnessed as a boy in South Africa.
Not so long ago, it was fairly rare to hear this perspective. That is no longer the case.
Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, aims to educate the American public
about “the forced displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians
that began with Israel’s establishment and that continues to this day.”
Growing numbers of people of all faiths and backgrounds have spoken out
with more boldness and courage. American organizations such as If Not Now
support young American Jews as they struggle to break the deadly
silence that still exists among too many people regarding the
occupation, and hundreds of secular and faith-based groups have joined
the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
In
view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism
and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as
anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased
understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the
Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic.
This is not to say that anti-Semitism is not real. Neo-Nazism is resurging in Germany within a growing anti-immigrant movement. Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose 57 percent in 2017, and many of us are still mourning what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history. We must be mindful in this climate that, while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, it can slide there.
Fortunately, people like the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II are leading by example, pledging allegiance to the fight against anti-Semitism while also demonstrating unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people struggling to survive under Israeli occupation.
He declared in a riveting speech
last year that we cannot talk about justice without addressing the
displacement of native peoples, the systemic racism of colonialism and
the injustice of government repression. In the same breath he said: “I
want to say, as clearly as I know how, that the humanity and the dignity
of any person or people cannot in any way diminish the humanity and
dignity of another person or another people. To hold fast to the image
of God in every person is to insist that the Palestinian child is as
precious as the Jewish child.”
Guided by this kind of moral clarity, faith groups are taking action. In 2016, the pension board of the United Methodist Church excluded from
its multibillion-dollar pension fund Israeli banks whose loans for
settlement construction violate international law. Similarly, the United
Church of Christ the year before passed a resolution calling for divestments and boycotts of companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
Even
in Congress, change is on the horizon. For the first time, two sitting
members, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Rashida
Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, publicly support
the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In 2017, Representative
Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced a resolution to
ensure that no U.S. military aid went to support Israel’s juvenile
military detention system. Israel regularly prosecutes Palestinian
children detainees in the occupied territories in military court.
None of this is
to say that the tide has turned entirely or that retaliation has ceased
against those who express strong support for Palestinian rights. To the
contrary, just as King received fierce, overwhelming criticism for his
speech condemning the Vietnam War — 168 major newspapers, including The
Times, denounced
the address the following day — those who speak publicly in support of
the liberation of the Palestinian people still risk condemnation and
backlash.
The Said al-Mis'hal cultural center in Gaza was hit by an Israeli airstrike in August.CreditKhalil Hamra/Associated Press
Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated
for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge
stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the
State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for
giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. Canary Mission continues to pose a serious threat to student activists.
And
just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama,
apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community
and others, rescinded an honor
it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a
vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S.
But
that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had
mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well
as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage
at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all.
I
cannot say for certain that King would applaud Birmingham for its
zealous defense of Angela Davis’s solidarity with Palestinian people.
But I do. In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and
conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that
are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for
democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice.
Michelle Alexander became a New York Times columnist in 2018. She is a civil rights lawyer and advocate, legal scholar and author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.”
The uproar by Jewish establishment figures over
Alexander’s New York Times essay in support of Palestinian rights echoes
the reactions of white Americans to the Civil Rights Movement decades
ago.
Michelle Alexander speaks at the Miller Center Forum, December 3, 2010. (Miller Center/CC BY 2.0)
Michelle Alexander’s powerful New York Times essay on Saturday (“Time to Break the Silence on Palestine”), ahead of the commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, was arguably a milestone for the Palestine movement in the U.S.
First, for who wrote it: Alexander, the author of the seminal book The New Jim Crow,
is a renowned lawyer and public intellectual respected for her activism
and scholarship on racism in the U.S., who cannot easily be dismissed
as “fringe.”
Second, for where it was written: in a leading mainstream newspaper, which more frequently features
op-eds by Israel advocates like Bari Weiss, Matti Friedman, Bret
Stephens, Shmuel Rosner, and even officials like Naftali Bennett.
Third, for when it was written: Alexander is the latest prominent Black American in recent months to vocally express — and be targeted for — her solidarity with the Palestinian people, after others like Tamika Mallory, Marc Lamont Hill, and Angela Davis faced similar public outrages and disavowals.
And fourth, for why it was written: to challenge the
widespread fear of backlash, held by many progressive Americans, for
publicly criticizing Israel and speaking up for Palestinian rights.
The uproar over Alexander’s essay came swiftly from Jewish
establishment groups and figures. Some of them are worth reading in
full, if only to witness the hysteria and chutzpah of telling a Black
woman how to remember one of the most significant
African-American leaders in history, or how to interpret her knowledge
of injustice:
The Anti-Defamation League
(ADL): “We have great respect for Michelle Alexander & her
path-breaking civil rights work, but her piece on the complex
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerously flawed, ignoring critical
facts, history & the shared responsibility of both parties to
resolve it.”
The American Jewish Congress
(AJC): “MLK’s memory is not a moral cudgel to wield against any cause
or country you disapprove of. Michelle Alexander’s op-ed is a shameful
appropriation. We all have a long way to go to reach the mountaintop.
There’s no need to take potshots at democratic Israel.”
David Harris,
CEO of AJC: “Michelle Alexander’s piece: in essence, calls for
#Israel’s end / approvingly cites extremists / invokes support of #MLKJr
w/no factual basis / ignores Israel’s search for peace since ’48;
nature of Hamas; terrorism; Jewish refugees from the Arab world.”
David Friedman,
U.S. Ambassador to Israel: “Michelle Alexander has it all wrong in
today’s @NYT. If MLK were alive today I think he would be very proud of
his robust support for the State of Israel. An Arab in the ME [Middle
East] who is gay, a woman, a Christian, or seeking education &
self-improvement can’t do better than living in [Israeli flag].”
Michael Oren,
Kulanu MK and former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.: “Ambassador
Friedman is right but Israel has to take serious steps to defend itself.
By equating support for Israel with support for the Vietnam War and
opposition to MLK, Alexander dangerously deligitmizates [sic] us. It’s a
strategic threat and Israel must treat it as such.”
Predictably, these establishment figures are attempting re-enforce the parameters
of “acceptable” conversation on the conflict. As far as they are
concerned, there is no such thing as a legitimate moral stance in
support of Palestinian rights; the only things Palestinians produce are
rockets and racism, and anyone who associates with their cause are
either misguided or anti-Semitic.
Marc
Lamont Hill, who was fired from CNN for his views on Israel-Palestine,
participates in a panel, August 29, 2014. (Screenshot/CNN)
It is especially ironic that those accusing Alexander of manipulating
King’s legacy are also known for claiming, among other things, that
using nonviolent tactics such as boycotts against Israel is racist,
discriminatory, provocative, and/or unhelpful. King, and the Civil
Rights Movement as a whole, were accused of the same during their
campaigns of civil disobedience in the 1950s-60s.
As Jeanne Theoharis recounted in TIME
this month, the U.S. government, the FBI, and local police forces used
heavy surveillance, brutal force, and criminal indictments to undermine
King and other Black leaders, viewing their activities as “dangerous,”
“demagogic,” and “treasonous.” Polling data and media responses at the
time further show that, far from being revered, the Civil Rights
Movement was in fact “deeply unpopular” among the white American
majority both in the South and the North:
Most
Americans thought it [the movement] was going too far and movement
activists were being too extreme. Some thought its goals were wrong;
others that activists were going about it the wrong way – and most white
Americans were happy with the status quo as it was. And so, they
criticized, monitored, demonized and at times criminalized those who
challenged the way things were, making dissent very costly.
This precisely describes the conditions of the Palestine movement
today. Not only are Palestinian rights demands often viewed as extreme
in the American public discourse (particularly the right of return), but
opposition to Israeli policies face an aggressive political and legal
infrastructure designed to quash it. These include new federal and state
laws aimed at criminalizing BDS and conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
Moreover, the frequent portrayal of Israel as a victim of Palestinian
oppression, or that both sides share equal responsibility, is a fallacy
disguising the gross asymmetry of the conflict. Explaining why it was
disingenuous to tell Black Americans to do more to overcome their
inequality, King once told
a reporter “it’s a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to
lift himself by his own bootstraps.” It is just as disingenuous to say
that Palestinians have bootstraps to lift while they are subjected to
exile, occupation, blockade, discrimination, and silencing of dissent.
As Alexander noted, King was an open supporter of Israel and Zionism
in his time. However, it became increasingly difficult for him to
reconcile that position with the universal values he promoted. Today, it
is even clearer that his belief in justice, equality, and restitution
for people under oppression – demands that are at the heart of the
Palestinian cause – are antithetical to Israel’s goal of preserving
Jewish superiority, and to its view of Palestinian nonviolence as
equivalent to violence.
It is this realization that has led many Black American activists
today – who have followed, built on, and transformed King’s legacy – to
include Palestinian rights in their struggle
for global justice. As Alexander wrote, Israeli practices have become
inescapably “reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow
segregation in the United States,” and as such, require progressives to
be consistent in the values they claim to uphold. The fact that a person
like Alexander is adding her voice to this growing movement
could further widen the doors for others to follow suit.
Though it is impossible to know what King would believe today, one
could guess that he may have been taken aback by how similar the
reactions to the Palestinian cause are to white America’s reactions to
his own. Despite what Alexander’s critics claim, the real betrayal of
King’s legacy is to think that Palestinians ought to remain subservient
to Israel’s supremacist demands, as if they don’t deserve the same
rights King fought to achieve for his own people.
please find below an Open Letter signed by more than 350 scholars and veterans of civil rights movement speak out in support of
Palestinian rights and in defense of Angela Davis.
I have not listed the full signatories in this blog, but you can see the full list by clicking here.
On
this 2019 Martin Luther King Jr. Day of national observance, over 350
scholars of the Civil Rights and Black Freedom Movements, and veterans
of these historic struggles, along with educators and human rights
advocates, issue a strong statement in support of Palestinian human
rights, and in defense of our colleague and sister, Angela Y. Davis, who
was publicly dishonored three weeks ago by the Birmingham Civil Rights
Institute when it abruptly reversed its decision to recognize her with
its annual award because of her stand on this issue.
The
attached statement represents a broad cross section of scholars from
dozens of colleges and universities, including Pulitzer prize-winning
authors, MacArthur “Genius Grant” Fellows, and some of the most
distinguished Civil Rights historians and African American Studies
scholars in the country. Signees also include many who knew Dr. King and
organized alongside Rev. Shuttlesworth.
Many
of the sentiments expressed in our collective statement were amplified
in an eloquent opinion piece published yesterday, January 20, in The New York Times by one of our signees, Michelle Alexander, entitled “Time to Break the Silence on Palestine.”
This statement is part of a larger movement that is refusing to be
silent on Palestinian rights, refusing to have our words and values
misconstrued and maligned, and refusing to tolerate McCarthy-like
tactics to subvert dissent and debate on this important issue.
This
statement was the initiative of Scholars for Social Justice, a new
national network of progressive scholar-activists, led by scholars of
color. A contingent of our group will travel to Birmingham, Alabama on
February 16th to participate in an alternative ceremony to honor Angela Y. Davis organized by local activists and officials in the city.
Initial
signees of the statement include: Barbara Ransby, Cathy J. Cohen, Beth
E. Richie, Patrick Jones, Premilla Nadasen, Russell Rickford, Ashley
Farmer, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Robin D.G. Kelley, Farah Jasmine Griffin,
Elizabeth Todd-Breland, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Ruth Wilson Gilmore,
Nadine Naber and Robyn Spencer.
OPEN LETTER TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BIRMINGHAM CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE
IN SUPPORT OF DR. ANGELA Y. DAVIS
As scholars and historians of the Black Freedom Movement, and as veteran civil rights and human rights activists, we are appalled and outraged by the decision of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (BCRI) to “dishonor” our colleague and sister, Angela Y. Davis, by rescinding its 2019 Fred Shuttlesworth Award, claiming that she does not meet the criteria for the award. As a daughter of Black Birmingham whose sense of justice was shaped by her community’s organizing tradition, who better than Davis to be honored by such an award.
There are few individuals more admired and beloved in the U.S. Black Freedom struggle, and the global struggle for human rights and justice than Angela Y. Davis. Her status as an international human rights advocate is iconic. Davis has been an unwavering stalwart in the fight for freedom and justice for more than fifty years, speaking out against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, war, settler-colonialism, and imperialism around the world. She has been one of the most ardent advocates for prison abolition and for humane alternatives to the caging of our fellow human beings. She has also been a steadfast supporter of indigenous peoples. And yes, she has spoken out strongly in support of Palestinian rights, as have millions of principled activists around the world, including tens of thousands of Jews, and many Israelis.
In reflecting on the BCRI decision we are reminded of the following quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “The ultimate measure of a man (or woman) is not where he (or she) stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he (or she) stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Sadly, the BCRI leadership has failed to live up to King’s challenge, caving in to pressure to reverse their earlier decision to honor Davis.
We may not all agree on the best way forward in the Middle East but we do share Dr. Davis’ view that the Israeli Occupation is wrong, and that the repressive, discriminatory and often violent policies of the Israeli government vis-à-vis the Palestinian population are wrong and indefensible. This is not a stance against the Jewish people, as is sometimes erroneously suggested, and as evidenced by the increasing number of Jewish people who are a part of the movement for Palestinian rights. Rather it is a stance against the policies of the Israeli government, and our own government’s immoral support of those policies. This is one of the fundamental human rights issues of our time, and we will not be bullied into silence on it. Individuals and institutions that choose to punish, censor, blacklist and dishonor anyone who dares to take a critical stand on this issue are acting in the disgraceful tradition of McCarthyism and furthering the intolerance of dissent.
Finally, we are especially disturbed and angered by the recent targeting of Black supporters of Palestinian rights. Journalist and scholar Marc Lamont Hill was abruptly fired as a CNN contributor for expressing his views on Palestine at the United Nations in December of last year. And now, Angela Davis is publicly disrespected in this way, in her hometown, a site of so many heroic struggles for the values that she, and many of us, uphold. This reminds us of the ways in which liberal supporters of civil rights reforms turned their backs on Dr. King when on April 4, 1967 he dared to speak out condemning the war in Vietnam. This sends a clear message today: how dare independent Black activists express views on international politics that differ with mainstream U.S. policy. This message, was then and is now, paternalistic and insulting. Many others, especially Palestinian and Arab scholars and activists, have also been targeted and attacked for their outspoken stance in support of Palestinian human rights. And we support their right of expression as well.
We stand with Angela Davis and applaud her outstanding and admirable track record as a public intellectual, feminist scholar, and advocate for peace, freedom and justice around the world. The BCRI leadership has refused to recognize or value Dr. Angela Davis’s sterling human rights record. They have instead chosen to pander to conservative critics and the pro-Israel lobby. History will not view this decision kindly.
Angela Davis represents the best of the tradition Black freedom fighters who were uncompromising internationalists, refused to bow to intimidation, and were unafraid to speak truth to power. We thank and honor Angela Davis for her life’s work, her moral courage and her visionary leadership, even if BCRI has chosen not to do so.
Dear friends, as you will be aware, Angela Davis - an icon of the American Black resistance and struggle was to be award the Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award by the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in February. However, the award was hastily rescinded on 4 January, will little concrete explanation as to why. It has since come to light the a key reason is Davis' support for the Palestinian struggle and the BDS movement. (Please see my earlier post here).
A number of commentators and publications have made the argument that Davis is just the lastest Black solidarity activist to be targeted by Zionists for their solidarity with Palestine. I have included an articles addressing the issue from:
Electronic Intifada by Palestinian-American writer and activist Ali Abunimah
Washington Informer by African American political commentator Julianne Malveau
The Nation by Mairav Zonszein, an Israeli-American Jewish political writer and activist.
Other Black commentators and publications have also made the argument that the rescinding of the award to Davis shows by individuals and groups outside the Black community is an attempt to co-opt and control Black decision making and Black narratives.
In solidarity, Kim
The
Birmingham Civil Rights Institute has canceled its annual gala at
which iconic Black scholar and activist Angela Davis was to receive a
prestigious human rights award.
Randall
Woodfin, the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, expressed his “dismay”
at the decision, which he said came “after protests from our local
Jewish community and some of its allies.”
“The reactive
decision of the BCRI did not create an opportunity for necessary
consensus dialogue,” Woodfin added.
Davis is the latest
prominent Black intellectual and outspoken supporter of Palestinian
rights to be targeted by the Israel lobby.
Roy S. Johnson, a
columnist for several Alabama newspapers, revealed Monday that those
demanding the cancellation were “primarily – though not
exclusively – from the city’s Jewish leadership, according to a
source familiar with a decision that transpired quickly, and
stunningly, in a span of just a few days.”
Last month,
Southern Jewish Life, a communal publication serving southern states,
ran an article criticizing the BCRI for honoring Davis, claiming that
she is “an outspoken voice in the boycott-Israel movement, and
advocates extensively on college campuses for the isolation of the
Jewish state, saying Israel engages in ethnic cleansing and is
connected to police violence against African Americans in the United
States.”
While there is vocal and growing opposition to
Israel’s policies among American Jews at large, the leaders of
established Jewish communal groups, including the Birmingham Jewish
Federation, tend to be strongly pro-Israel.
The Birmingham
Jewish Federation was reportedly among the groups that pressured
BCRI.
Others who pressured BCRI to ditch Davis reportedly
included General Charles Krulak, a retired Marine commander and
former president of Birmingham-Southern College.
Support
for Palestinians
Angela
Davis, a Birmingham native, has long been an outspoken supporter of
Palestinian rights and an advocate of the BDS – boycott, divestment
and sanctions – movement to hold Israel accountable for its
violations and crimes against Palestinians. Davis has also stood
up for Rasmea Odeh, the Palestinian activist and torture survivor
deported from the US in 2017 following a conviction for immigration
fraud.
Adam Milstein, a major financier of anti-Palestinian
groups, took note of the BCRI’s decision on Twitter:
st
Milstein
was named in a censored Al Jazeera documentary about the Israel lobby
leaked by The Electronic Intifada in November, as a founder and
financier of the anti-Palestinian smear website Canary Mission. That
same film, The Lobby–USA, also identified how Israel and its agents
are targeting and attempting to co-opt Black leaders and activists in
order to disrupt growing Black identification and solidarity with the
Palestinian struggle.
Affiliated with the Smithsonian
Institution, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute was founded in
1992 to commemorate the city’s role in the struggle against
institutionalized American racism.
In a statement Saturday,
BCRI noted that in September its board “selected Angela Davis to
receive the prestigious Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award at its
annual gala in February 2019.”
“In
late December, supporters and other concerned individuals and
organizations, both inside and outside of our local community, began
to make requests that we reconsider our decision,” BCRI added,
without naming or further characterizing the groups or their
objections.
“Upon
closer examination of Ms. Davis’ statements and public record, we
concluded that she unfortunately does not meet all of the criteria on
which the award is based,” BCRI stated.
“Therefore,
on 4 January, BCRI’s Board voted to rescind its invitation to Ms.
Davis to honor her with the Shuttlesworth Award.”
Targeting
Black voices
Davis
is the second high-profile Black intellectual to be targeted by
pro-Israel lobby pressure in recent weeks.
In
November, Marc Lamont Hill was dismissed from his role as a CNN
political commentator following an Israel lobby campaign of lies and
smears misrepresenting a speech he made at the United Nations in
support of Palestinian rights and BDS.
Temple
University also faced pressure from the Zionist Organization of
America to dismiss Hill as a professor – a step it has not taken
amid warnings that this would violate Hill’s First Amendment
rights.
Hill called BCRI’s decision to withdraw its award
from Davis “shameful.”
Hill is one of many
people expressing consternation at BCRI’s decision to
disinvite Davis who is widely recognized as a groundbreaking Black
radical theorist, prison abolitionist and anti-racism activist who
throughout her life has faced institutional pressure and persecution
for her stances.
Alabama
columnist Roy S. Johnson also condemned the decision as an insult to
the memory of Fred Shuttlesworth, the preacher and leader in the
struggle against segregation for whom the BCRI award is
named.
Shuttlesworth, Johnson wrote, “would not have bowed
to anyone trying to dissuade him from honoring someone who fought the
same fight – even if they fought with a different fervor, even if
they were decidedly more revolutionary.”
But by disinviting
Davis, Johnson added, “one of our most venerable cultural
institutions, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, did just that –
it crumbled.”
If
anyone deserves a civil rights award, Angela Davis certainly does.
The activist and scholar has been on the front lines of the civil
rights movement all of her life. She has been especially active in
prison reform matters, but she has also been involved in other civil
and human rights issues.
When
I learned in October that she would get the Fred Shuttlesworth Human
Rights Award from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, I was
absolutely delighted. I imagined the wide smile the daughter of
Birmingham must have flashed when she learned that she would be
honored.
Everyone
in Birmingham wasn’t thrilled, though. Some people in the
conservative Southern town seemed disturbed that she had been a
member of both the Black Panther Party and the Communist Party.
Others were concerned about her support of the BDS (Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the Israeli occupation.
She has said that she stands in solidarity with the Palestinian
people, and advocates for their fair treatment in Israel.
Some
ill-informed people consider the BDS movement to be anti-Semitic.
They suggest that any questions that one raises about Israel shows a
bias against Jewish people. But Davis, a lifelong human rights
activist, is concerned about the humanity of Palestinian people, as
well as other people.
And
she is rightfully concerned, as many of us are, about the spate of
laws recently passed that downright outlaw the BDS movement.
According to the Middle East Monitor, a teacher in Texas, Bahia
Amawl, refused to sign an oath that required her to pledge that she
“does not currently boycott Israel,” that she will not boycott
Israel and that she will “refrain from any action that is intended
to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations
with Israel.”
Texas
is among some 25 states that have passed laws forbidding the state
from doing business with companies that boycott Israel! It will also
not invest pension funds in companies that support BDS. Thirteen more
states as well as Washington, D.C., have similar laws to the Texas
law pending, pitting people’s First Amendment rights of free speech
against support for Israel. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in the
middle of a government shutdown, had the nerve to introduce national
legislation that mirrors the Texas law (actually, Illinois was the
first state to pass this discriminatory law).
Lots
of people in Birmingham aren’t having it. Though the Civil Rights
Institute has rescinded its award to Davis, there has been
significant protest about the decision. Birmingham Mayor Randall
Woodfin, who is a nonvoting member of the institute’s board and did
not participate in the decision to rescind the award (the city
provides the institute with about $1 million year in operating funds)
has expressed his dismay about the decision. Three board members have
resigned from the board. And Alabama columnist Roy S. Johnson has
written a fiery column accusing the Civil Rights Institute of
insulting Rev. Shuttlesworth and staining its own legacy. Johnson
says the Birmingham Jewish community may have been the loudest folks
pushing for Davis’ award to be rescinded, but not the only ones.
Who
rescinds an award after it has been granted for statements that were
not recently made, but are a matter of record? Angela Davis has long
been an outspoken activist, just like Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth was.
Nothing had been changed from the time Davis was notified of the
award and Jan. 4, when it was rescinded. The BCRI did not have to
honor Davis, but their canceling the award is a special kind of
insult. Fortunately, Davis has a thick skin, and she knows exactly
who she is. She didn’t cringe when then-California Gov. Ronald
Reagan had her fired from UCLA for her membership in the Communist
Party. She didn’t flinch when she was incarcerated for a crime she
did not commit. And she will not tremble because the BCRI rescinded
the award.
Indeed,
demonstrating the indomitable spirit that she is known for, Angela
Davis will travel to Birmingham in February for an alternative event.
And the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum has egg on its face. That city
showed a young Angela Davis who they were when the Four Little Girls,
some of whom she knew, were killed at the 16 Street Baptist Church in
Birmingham. And they are showing her who they are once again. Shame
and shade!
Unfortunately,
I’m not surprised. One of the founders of the Women’s March has
demanded the resignations of Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour because
they attended one of Minister Louis Farrakhan’s Savior’s Days.
Marc Lamont Hill lost his CNN commentary gig because he spoke up for
Palestinian rights. Alice Walker has been criticized because she
supports BDS. Now Angela Davis is being denied an award. When is
enough going to be enough?
For
the record, I support Palestinian rights. And I support Israel’s
right to exist. Are the two incompatible? I think not. The one-state
solution, with a right to return, and full citizenship rights for
Palestinians makes sense. But Israel is not about to budge, and BDS
as an attempt to influence it. States passing laws to outlaw free
speech erodes the first principle of our Constitution and undercut
the actions at the very foundation of our nation. Remember the folks
who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor because of an unfair tax? Today
that action might be against the law!
Scholars,
activists, and grassroots organizers have flocked to her defense, a
testament to the growing strength of intersectional solidarity for
Palestinian rights.
It
has been nearly two weeks since the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
walked back its decision to honor renowned scholar, civil-rights
activist, and Birmingham, Alabama, native Angela Davis with its
annual Fred L. Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award, and yet the BCRI
remains embarrassingly silent over what led to the withdrawal. It
issued a statement on January 14 through an external PR firm, which
is apparently handling all further media inquiries, in which it
assumed responsibility and apologized for the poor handling of the
award and its aftermath. “In hindsight, more time, conversation and
consideration of diverse viewpoints should have informed our decision
to rescind our nomination, and we were silent for too long
afterward.”
Davis,
Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, and local reports all indicate the
decision was largely, though not exclusively, due to pressure from
Jewish individuals and organizations over Davis’s outspokenness on
Palestinian human rights and vocal support for boycott, divestment,
and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
“It’s
actually quite exciting.… The issue of Palestinian human rights,
and its relation to the struggle for civil rights for people of
African descent in this country, is finally being discussed in an
open way,” Davis told Democracy
Now! on January 11, adding that the
BCRI’s decision appears to be an effort to sabotage black
solidarity with Palestine. “This was not primarily an assault
against me as an individual; it was an assault against a whole
generation of activists who have come to recognize how important
internationalism is,” Davis said.
In
its cryptic announcement on Saturday, January 5, the BCRI stated
that individuals and organizations from “both inside and outside of
our local community” had requested that the award to Davis be
reconsidered. “Upon closer examination of Ms. Davis’ statements
and public record, we concluded that she unfortunately does not meet
all of the criteria on which the award is based,” but the BCRI did
not specify what those criteria are. Several attempts to reach BCRI
CEO Andrea Taylor were met with an initial willingness and then a
drawn-out refusal to comment, as the story quickly became much more
explosive than the BCRI likely anticipated.
Davis
and others have cited an article
in the Birmingham-based outlet Southern
Jewish Life
from December 23 criticizing the choice to honor Davis, penned by its
editor, Larry Brook—who told The
Nation
he has been careful not to call her an anti-Semite. It outlines
aspects of Davis’s activism and political opinions that are common
knowledge, including her support for Palestinian-American Rasmea
Odeh, her incarceration nearly 50 years ago, and her former
membership in the Communist Party. Reports in the Alabama outlet
AL.com named the Birmingham
Jewish Federation as one of the organizations expressing dismay
at the choice of Davis, along with the Birmingham
Holocaust Education Center, which sent a letter
to BCRI on January 2 specifying Davis’s support for BDS, which is
“very troubling as it targets the Jewish people exclusively.”
Both organizations were approached and refused to provide comment.
Maybe
even more egregious than the BCRI decision itself is the fact that,
as a museum dedicated to the heritage of the civil-rights movement
and which honors figures who have spoken truth to power, it has left
the matter shrouded in secrecy, dodging accountability and leaving
plenty of room for speculation.
“The
outrage has come from lack of transparency behind the decision,”
DeJuana Thompson, a political organizer in Birmingham who grew up
around the corner from Davis’s family, told The
Nation.
Thompson, who is part of the reconstituted Birmingham Committee for
Truth and Reconciliation (it had been active at the height of the
civil-rights movement in the 1960s), which is organizing an
alternative
event in February to honor Davis, said the news impacted her
personally. “The BCRI has always held a significant place in my
heart. It helped craft my activism learning about our leaders.…
This is not the BCRI that I have known.”
For
Thompson, the priority is honoring Davis in her hometown and showing
that the BCRI decision does not speak for the community. “What I
know to be true is that the silencing of black leaders and black
women has been a perpetual thing—particularly in the South—for
decades.” She says there is a diverse and inclusive group involved
in organizing the alternative event, including Jewish residents.
Some
media coverage, specifically reacting to Birmingham Mayor Woodfin’s
initial statement
attributing the decision to pressure from the “local Jewish
community and some of its allies,” has presented a narrative in
which Jews were collectively blamed for the decision.
The
Forward,
for example, had a short news item with the misleading and
inflammatory headline, “Birmingham Mayor Blames Only Some Jews for
Angela Davis Controversy.” The mayor, who is also an ex-officio
member of the BCRI board, issued another statement
in which he clarified that he was not suggesting that the entire
Jewish community pressured the BCRI, as it is “not monolithic in
thought,” and emphasized that this is not a “clash of cultures,
ethnic groups, or races” but rather a crisis in the BCRI
leadership. He requested that BCRI release to the public the minutes
of its board meetings from September to January 5, and also issue an
apology to the community-at-large for its poor handling of the
situation. (The City of Birmingham is the BCRI’s largest donor.)
Three
of the BCRI’s top board members resigned on January 9, following
protests from local activists who have called on the entire BCRI
leadership to resign. The alternative, free, and open event to honor
Davis—which she confirmed she will attend—has already been
scheduled for February 16, the same date as the canceled BCRI gala.
The Birmingham City Council unanimously approved
a resolution of support for “the civil rights icon.”
The
pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace circulated a letter
of support for Davis signed by over 500 academics that specifies,
“The decision seems to stem from a misinformed view that to
advocate for Palestinian human rights is somehow offensive to the
Jewish community.” The Jewish anti-occupation group IfNotNow, which
does not endorse BDS, announced that it will award Davis a symbolic
medal of honor, stating, “We cannot let the Jewish
establishment and Christian Zionists use her support for Palestinian
human rights as a reason to deny her the recognition she deserves.”
Even
without all the facts out in the open, this incident is not occurring
in a vacuum. It is the latest in a long-standing and widespread
campaign to shut down those who are critical of Israeli policies and,
specifically, those who promote Palestinian equal rights and BDS.
Between 2014 and 2017, the nonprofit organization
Palestine Legal dealt with nearly 1,000 incidents of censorship,
intimidation, and suppression targeting speech supportive of
Palestinian rights. “The Klan used to try and terrorize people who
spoke out against racial terror and racial segregation, and
unfortunately, the same tactics are being used here,” says Alicia
Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter and strategy and partnerships
director with the National Domestic Workers Alliance.
n Sunday, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute announced that it was rescinding the 2019 Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award it previously planned to grant to Black Power icon Angela Davis, and cancelling the annual fundraising gala where it is presented. While the BCRI did not give a specific reason for the decision, local reporting and a statement from Davis herself suggests that the decision was made in response to complaints about Davis’ broad history of revolutionary politics — specifically opposition to her advocacy for Palestinian human rights. While statements from BCRI claim opposition to Davis’ award came from all sides, local coverage of the decision and a statement from Birmingham’s Mayor (who sits on a governing body of BCRI), indicate that the pressure to rescind the award may have come in part from within the Birmingham Jewish community, as well as from white Christians conservatives, some of whom position themselves as “allies” of the Jewish community. Many in the Jewish community are rightfully shocked and embarrassed at the idea that groups claiming to speak for us could have played a role in a prestigious and well-earned award being stripped from a Black icon like Angela Davis. Read more: https://forward.com/opinion/417289/why-jewish-organizations-should-not-be-tearing-down-angela-davis/
Why Jewish Organizations Should Not Be Tearing Down Angela Davis
Michelle Alexander speaks at the Miller Center Forum, December 3, 2010. (Miller Center/CC BY 2.0)
