Tidbits - June 15, 2017 - Reader Comments: Impeachment, Not McCarthyism - Differing Views; Who Were Trump Voters; Bernie Sanders, and Working Families Party; United and Popular Front Lessons; Why Corbyn Won; Healthcare for All God's Children; and more...

Reader Comments: Impeachment, Not McCarthyism - Differing Reader Views; Who Were Trump Voters; Bernie Sanders, Our Revolution and the Working Families Party; United Front, Popular Front Lessons; Why Corbyn Won; Healthcare for All God's Children; California Single-Payer; A Message to Our Community on 50 Years of Occupation; Resources: When Black Women Succeed, All Women Succeed; Iran 1953: State Department Finally Releases Updated Official History of Mosaddeq Coup; more..
June 15, 2017
Tidbits - Reader Comments, Resources and Announcements - June 15, 2017
Portside

 

Resources:
Announcements:
 
 
 
 
Thank you for reprinting Katha Pollitt's excellent Nation article on why demands for an independent investigation into the Trump-Russia connection have nothing to do with McCarthyism or the 1950's-1960's era of red-baiting. I refer to those who use such terms as red-baiting in today's context as members of a sclerotic left -- people who still view Russia as the inheritor of some kind of glorious if incomplete socialist utopia. Ironically, they themselves are the real reactionaries, desperately holding on to some fantasy ideal of Russia that never existed in the past and certainly does not exist in the era of Putin. And in their misguided zeal, they attempt to tarnish the rest of us, including those of us on the left, as misguided at best or nefarious at worst.
 
Nathan Weber
 
     ====
 
The answer to your questions, Katha Pollitt about why Russophobia is "crazy" etc is that originates with Hillary's explanation for why she lost the election. What will you say when the NYT et al are unable to prove their "hysterical" case that Trump colluded with Russia and therefore won.
 
Mike Munk
 
     ====
 
What "impeachment process"? No president has ever been impeached by his own party, and there is no indication that this one will be an exception to that rule. But while progressives are distracted by this chimera, Republicans are implementing their horrific agenda with almost no organized opposition.
 
The revival of Russophobia as a defining feature of American politics can accurately be described as the return of a variety of McCarthyism. Seeing Portside embrace this New Cold War is particularly disturbing. And following the lead of a Clintonite like Katha Pollitt is no way to build the left.
 
Alan Hart
 
     ====
 
Only idiots and willfully blind Trumpanzees refuse to accept that this needs to happen. The damage he's done to America's Democracy is significant and is going to take decades to fix.
 
Shawn Winnie
 
     ====
 
Kudos to your recalling the McCarthy period in contrast to now....
 
I too feel there's something a bit wrong here, on both sides. Wanting to ease tensions with Russia may be one of Donald Trump's few good, sensible ideas. Russians and Belarusians I spoke with in Minsk and Moscow last June-July and October-November (I actually spoke from the stage of the University for the Humanities, where Lenin had spoken, after my wife Helene Williams & I re-enacted his argument with Emma Goldman over human right - see here) were a lot more scared of Hillary's & NATO's war-mongering and blatant interference in their elections than in the corrupt businessman now in the White House, whom they saw as similar to their own leaders, notwithstanding my calling attention to his more than a few fascistic tendencies and aspects.
 
But is it always, as T.S. Eliot implied in MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL, "the greatest treason  To do the right deed for the wrong reason"? While Gandhi and Dr. King argued, in contrast to Machiavelli, that the end does not justify the means, in our present situation, the Left really does need unity more than ever to rid the country and the world of the nepotistic, misogynistic, xenophobic bigots now in power in Washington DC and to stop the lying and abuses which, Allan Lichtman has pointed out, are rampant on the part of both the President and the Vice-President.
 
And if that means joining forces with "the intelligence community" which seems to have evidence of Trump-Russian collusion that could really be treasonous, then by all means let us get that evidence out where all can see it, grant Assange and Snowden (though probably not Flynn and Manafort) immunity from prosecution, paralyze the current US administration as much as possible, and slow walk it to impeachment by a Democratic Congress in 2019.
 
The Russia investigation may indeed be a red herring, but so was Whitewater. No one knows where it will lead, but if it leads us to conquering and pulverizing the current cancer on the presidency, then "Lay on, MacDuff"!
 
Leonard J. Lehrman
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rob Rogers
June 11, 2017
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
 
 
 
 
 
The big problem is all this crap just distracts from the real trouble. While Comey was on the stand the house pass a bill giving the banks free reign again. Claiming regulations were hurting the community banks. They got us looking the wrong way as they press their agenda!
 
Howie Leveton
 
 
 
 
(posting on Portside Labor)
 
 
Great job America
 
Ivette Hernandez
 
  
 
 
 
 
This is such bull  -  Portside disgraces itself in denial
 
The left has lost the working class
 
Admit it
 
Imagine supporting hillary clinton - no wonder we are losers
 
David Makofsky
 
     ====
 
This article, and a similar one in The Nation, miss the point, in my opinion. Of course most people who voted for Trump were relatively affluent. Look at it this way: There are three groups of 2016 Trump Voters:
 
1. Regular Republicans, people who always vote and always vote Republican (and weren't put off by Trump's character). These folks are mostly median income and above, and are the vast majority of Trump voters.
 
2. Flat-out racists, immigrant haters, and gummint foes who cottoned to Trumps dog-whistle speeches. A substantial minority of Trump voters, these "deplorables" range all across the class spectrum.
 
3. People who normally vote Democratic when they vote, even union members, who felt that the federal government was ignoring their very real concerns about job loss and downward mobility and perhaps thought that any change would be for the better. Mostly "white working class", there were just enough of these folks to put Trump over in the electoral college.
 
That the 3s could do so was the big surprise for the Dems and the MSM, so they got most of the attention, to the point where some commentators said they were the majority, which is indeed nonsense.
 
Ted Cloak
Albuquerque, NM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lalo Alcaraz
June 14, 2017
 
[Lalo Alcaraz -- award-winning editorial cartoonist and Latino journalist -- captures the essence of the country’s changing cultural and political landscape. Alcaraz has produced editorial cartoons for LA Weekly since 1992 and also creates cartoons in Spanish for La Opinion, the United States’ oldest Spanish-language newspaper. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Village Voice, Los Angeles Times, Variety, Hispanic Magazine, Latina magazine, La Jornada in Mexico City, BUNTE, (Germany’s People magazine) and many other publications.]
 
 
 
 
 
Adam Gabbatt's article in The Guardian June 9 was welcome in publicizing the energetic People's Summit which the Establishment media ignores. But it only got part of the story in discussing Christine Pellegrino's amazingly successful campaign she won to be our new NY State Assemblywoman from AD 9 in Long Island.  Yes, the Nassau Democrats turned out for her and were one component of what helped her flip a Republican district. But the richer Suffolk Democrats were perfectly happy being in bed with the Republicans.
 
This is where the Working Families Party proved its worth.  She got their line on the ballot and made some noise.  The Democrats wanted to race right (a la Hillary) but they had to cover their left flank and gave her the nomination.  My statewide Bernie organization NYPAN (NY Progressive Action Network) and my chapter Grassroots Action NY did fundraisers for her, organized carpools for her with BPAN from Brooklyn to knock on doors for her. I personally went to Long Island many times knocking on doors.  Her group Ling Island Progressives turned out for her as did her amazing campaign staff.  When the Democrats didn't come thru with a promised $10,000 at GOTV time, NYPAN sent out a call and we raised more than twice that much. The unions held canvasses for her two Saturdays in a row, one at NYSUT, her teachers' union, and one at IVT (Teamsters) at which we spoke to our fellow union members.  At one home I saw a C for Conservative Party and was all set for an argument. The woman saw Christine's button, told me she is a teacher and all the teachers in her school were voting for Christine.
 
Lew Grupper
 
 
 
 
 
Paul Krehbiel ignores the fact that the USSR tried to build an alliance with Great Britain and France during the 1930s against Hitler but that it was turned down. Stalin gave a speech ("The Tasks of Economic Executives") on February 4, 1931, in which he warned, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us." Ten years later, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.  The details of this failed diplomatic effort can be found in the Preface to Alexander Werth's magisterial Russia at War. Werth was the BBC correspondent to the USSR during World War II.
 
Anthony Gronowicz
 
     ====
 
This mostly useful article has a gaping hole: the total absence of any criticism of the Communist Party in the years after 1935. The argument for a popular front against fascism would be much more convincing if it were tempered by some realistic criticism of how the CP applied these ideas in the decades since. For instance, why the CP made the inaccurate estimate in the early 1950's that the US was on the verge of Fascism and sent much of its leadership underground? Another is why the CP made the strategic decision, through nearly all of this period up to the present, of having the vast majority of their cadres (members) be secret in their affiliation from most of those they worked with in various struggles and organizations. This opened the CP and the left in general to even worse repression, and popular support for it, since most people who had worked productively with Communists did not know they were Communists at the time. So, when the government and the right told people, Communists and other leftists could be painted as secretive conspirators rather than the best leaders of the people.
 
Thanks for running this article and my response.
 
Joe Berry,
also a member of CCDS, since its founding conference, as well as other socialist organizations.
 
     ====
 
Paul Krehbiel neglects to mention that the Communist Party USA's devotion to a Popular Front strategy led to the Party becoming, essentially, cheerleaders for FDR and opponents of the creation of an independent labor party in the United States. This was a disastrous decision which we are all still paying for. Reaching back to the Popular Front today, when the dominant wing of the Democratic Party isn't even as quasi-social democratic as the New Deal Democrats, is nonsensical. Hillary Clinton in particular is no New Deal Democrat supporting "many social programs" and "helping children"! Doug Henwood's book on Clinton makes this quite clear.
 
Furthermore, no country "overthrew fascism and established socialism." At least for terribly orthodox Marxists such as myself, "socialism" means the classless society. The classless society has yet to be created -- and Stalinism, a term absent from Paul's article, was in no way socialist or even working-class in character. (Moreover, "socialism" in Eastern Europe was achieved via Russian tanks, not through popular revolution.)
 
Paul also doesn't mention that the CPUSA put its forthright opposition to Jim Crow "on hold" for the duration of the Second World War, which is why black socialists like Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph either left the party or simply wanted nothing to do with it.
 
If one wants to argue that under current conditions there's often no choice in the U.S. but to merely *vote* for Democrats against Republicans (Cadets versus the Black Hundreds, as Lenin might have put it) then one can do that without invoking Dimitrov's discredited pamphlet, which IN PRACTICE led to the end of criticism of the "left" bourgeois and social-democratic parties that the Communist Parties aligned themselves with, IN GOVERNMENT, which helped lead to the disasters of the Popular Front in Spain, Chile, Indonesia...not to mention the "Salerno Turn" which led Palmiro Togliatti's PCI to give up the possibility of socialist revolution for a "government of national unity" after the overthrow of Italian fascism.
 
Let's bury Dimitrov -- and Stalin -- for good.
 
Jason Schulman
 
     ====
 
The popular front didn't do to well in many places, but it won in Yugoslavia, Albania, China and the 'August Revolution' in Vietnam.
 
Carl Davidson
 
 
 
 
 
Little do these journalists realize this political work is not new.
 
Amy Claire Schneidhorst
 
     ====
 
Jim Wallis with Sojourners' Magazine / Ministry has been active for decades - don't generalize.
 
Jerry Steele
 
 
 
 
 
"For the last generation, progressives have organized themselves into issue silos, each with its own agenda. Survival depends on fundraising (largely from private foundations) based on the uniqueness of one's own silo. Each group must develop its own expertise and activities which distinguish it from other groups. Each needs to proclaim that its issue is the existential threat, be it climate change, police violence, abortion rights or health care. The net result of this Darwinian struggle is a fractured landscape of activity. The creativity, talent and skill are there in abundance, but the coherence and common purpose among groups is not."
 
Carol Spooner
 
 
 
 
 
Not least because young people are on his side A seismic shift is clearly taking place in British politics and although we didn't quite cross the line on this occasion the momentum is with the surge to the left. June 8th was only one battle in the bigger war for transformative change. Even had we crossed the line on June 8th it would have only been the early stages in the much bigger battle. We need to regroup and unify our forces for the battles ahead. Unity in struggle has always been the fertile political terrain for the development of ideological clarity and a necessary prerequisite for revolutionary change. Ditch the egos, unite our forces and sink the class enemy.
 
Jim Whyte
 
     ====
 
Corbyn was a superb campaigner in this election--which reinforces the complaints about his lackluster campaign against Brexit when that was the clear position of the Labour Party where he was accused to effectively sabotaging the campaign.  That is not leadership, it is factionalism.
 
Stan Nadel
 
 
 
 
 
The pendulum has swung: Labour's left has gained sufficient ground to come closer to shifting control to a more equitable distribution of wealth for its people; but, yet, still short of taking command of its country's steering. And, unfortunately, there still remain outside the left's formula important elements to guarantee a less bumpy ride. The complexity and magnitude of the changes needed to achieve a more humane distribution of wealth will need to address the world's economic and social forces outside Great Britain and its historic dependence on parasitic/symbiotic institutions (religious, to name one) that are traditionally conservative.
 
Elizabeth Viverito
 
 
 
 
 
$400 Billion!!!??? What is the GDP for California??? Can they even PAY $400 Billion??? and then there is the cost of everything else!!!
 
Stuart Welch
 
     ====
 
California is the 6th largest economy in the world. $400 billion is a lot less than what is paid out in insurance premiums by California working people.
 
Jn Hiesfelter
 
 
 
 
 
I was struck by the analysis of the Wall Street Journal Outlook column of May 27 2017 about California’s Single-Payer - Dreaming plan for medical coverage for all, which the legislators in Sacramento were offering prior to their full 2020 platform. Why can’t people be treated based on what their needs are? Why does the writer assume that when people have access they will demand services that are not really beneficial or required  because it’s “free” care and they will have the opportunity. I think it’s a real denigration of people to say that we should not have a program everybody can get access to because they will then look for more than what they require and service providers will exploit the opportunity. Where’s the evidence that proves this? Does the writer believe that  is who we are as a people? I wonder if the writer was looking in the mirror. Where is the evidence that health care providers  will just do things for financial reasons, providing services that may not be needed ? Is that why TV ads suggest you “ask your doctor”
 
What’s the writer’s view of the  trillions we are spending on unnecessary weapons to take people’s lives? Can someone tell me why we are doing that and then have a problem spending money for healthcare for people...and the political ‘lynch mobs’ who take three 23 million people off of their healthcare prevail. I'm not sure what went on when the president met with the pope. I don't know how the pope could silent with someone who is opposed to the standard that Jesus Christ set -  which is implicit in providing healthcare for all.
 
That the clergy across the country are not rallying for the single-payer health coverage is amazing. I want someone to give me some good answers about why it's okay to put money into weapons of destruction and not into healthcare for all.
 
It is not dreaming that the California single-payer plan is about providing for the needs of people in a way that says it's a value that we all share, that we can use our resources to provide excellent healthcare for all - along with the education that is required so that people understand the correct health care practices. Universal care  will increase longevity. In the long run the cost for maintaining a viable health care program will be more important than the belief that we must bomb people with the money. Jesus didn't ask for payments. He said something about  “have all children that come into me” and what he meant by that is looking out for all God’s children.
 
Mel King
 
 
 
 
 
Since the 1970s, the US has seen a 700 percent increase in the number of people imprisoned, a result of the growth in "tough on crime" and "war on drugs" policies, as well as a concerted effort to control and minimize the power of social movements and other forms of resistance from within communities of color, says David Naguib Pellow, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who's writing a book on prisons and environmental justice. The rate at which we lock people up today is some five-times higher than most countries, even though the crime rate in the US is comparable to that of other stable, industrialized nations.
 
Felecia Heywood
 
     ====
 
As if the dehumanizing facts about our massive prison-industrial complex were not enough, come to find out how literally toxic are so many of these prisons.
 
"The US locks up more people per capita than any other nation in the world. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, currently some 2.3 million people are confined in more than 6,000 prisons, jails and detention centers operated by multiple federal, state, county and private actors. That's about the population of Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the nation.
 
Since the 1970s, the US has seen a 700 percent increase in the number of people imprisoned, a result of the growth in "tough on crime" and "war on drugs" policies, as well as a concerted effort to control and minimize the power of social movements and other forms of resistance from within communities of color, says David Naguib Pellow, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who's writing a book on prisons and environmental justice. The rate at which we lock people up today is some five-times higher than most countries, even though the crime rate in the US is comparable to that of other stable, industrialized nations.
 
Holding large groups of people in closed facilities brings with it a host of associated civil and human rights problems -- problems that have been well documented. But until recently, not much thought or research had been expended on the connections between mass incarceration and environmental issues, that is, problems that arise when prisons are sited on or near toxic sites, as well as when prisons themselves becomes sources of toxic contamination."
 
Larry Aaronson
 
 
 
 
 
This is especially important since the primary use of things like the Stingray are to spy on activists who are fighting for us all. They will wave around the boogeyman of terrorism, but most of the spying will be directed against US citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights.
 
Jon Lubar
 
 
 
 
 
"Inequality is not inevitable and it is not the fault of the individual actions and choices of those most marginalized. Inequality in all its forms is a choice made by the most powerful and privileged among us, who write the rules in ways that specifically benefit themselves at the expense of the majority."
 
Lorenzo Canizares
 
 
 
 
 
Mattingly and his model will have their day in court this summer. Even if his algorithms don't become the standard, Mattingly hopes that the judicial system will find a way to curb gerrymandering and restore his faith in the electoral system. "I'm a citizen, too," he says.
 
Devin Lentz
 
 
 
 
 
"...the new U.S. foreign policy in the region defies any understanding beyond its adoption of a cynical and unworkable geopolitical stance, which certainly does not engender any sympathy from the victimized peoples of the region, but rather fear and loathing."
 
"...if Washington pursued national interests in the spirit of political realism, it would regard Iran as a potential ally, and put a large question mark next to its two distorting `special relationships,' with Saudi Arabia and Israel,...in effect revers[ing] its regional alignments in a way that could replace turmoil with stability, but this is not about to happen. The American media, and thoughtful citizens, should at least be wondering `why?' rather than staring into [the] darkness of a starless nighttime sky."
 
Paula Mayer
 
     ====
 
You favorite President, Donald Trump, went to Saudi Arabia and met in a grand conference with Saudi led Sunni oil rich oligarchs, rulers, monarch and tyrants. There are also in secret collision with Israel and Turkish governments. WTF???? Now Trump wants to make fools to believe that the sudden assault boycott and blockade of Qatar by this alliance was some deal of his own making. Trump is now in bed with the worst of them. (And dontcha know most of whom have much bigger D-ks than he) All these rich Sunni state leaders pretend they have formed an anti-ISIS coalition supplied with 100's of billions if not trillions of US tax dollars for military supplies. (Offensive? Defensive?) They will together put all their forces behind a final assault on ISIS terrorism. BULLSHIT !!!!!
 
This Portside article make clear that this anti-Qatar has little to do with combating ISIS terrorists, and everything to do with countering the growing prestige of Iranian Shia. Truth be told, something that intelligence sources and academic expert investigators have long know, and have well documented, namely that it is in fact billions of Saudi coin that have been covertly funding Al Qaeda, ISIS and other extreme terrorist organizations, going all the way back to 9/11. The Trump administration is choosing some God awful bedfellows. Read on:
 
"The main contention of the anti-Qatar Arab governments, led by Saudi Arabia, is that this coordinated diplomatic pushback is motivated by anti-terrorist priorities. On its face this seems to be a ridiculous claim to come from the Saudis, and can only make some sense as part of a calculated effort to throw pursuing dogs in the hunt for ISIS off a course that if followed would inevitably implicate the Riyadh government. It has long been known by intelligence services and academic experts that it is Saudi Arabia, including members of its royal family, that have been funding Jihadi extremism in the Middle East and has for many years been spending billions to spread Salifist extremism throughout the Islamic world.
 
By comparison, although far from innocent or consistent of terrorist linkages, as well as being internally oppressive, especially toward its migrant foreign workers, Qatar is a minor player in this high stakes political imbroglio. For the Saudis to take the lead in this crusade against Qatar may play well in Washington, Tel Aviv, and London, but fools few in the region. Trump has with characteristic ill-informed bravado taken ill-advised credit for this turn against Qatar, claiming it to be an immediate payoff of his recent visit to the Kingdom, ramping up still further the provocative buildup of pressure on Iran. To claim a political victory given the circumstances rather than admit a geopolitical faux pas might seem strange for any leader other than Trump. It is almost perverse considering that the al-Udeid Air Base is in Qatar, which is the largest American military facility in the Middle East, operated as a regional command center actively used in bombing raids against Iraq and Afghanistan, and serviced by upwards of 10,000 American military personnel.
 
Netanyahu warmongers will certainly be cheered by this course of events and Israel has not hidden its support for the anti-Qatar moves of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). It achieves two Israeli goals: its longtime undertaken to encourage splits and disorder in the Arab world and its campaign to maximize pressures on Iran."
 
Larry
 
 
 
 
 
I read about this 10-15 years ago. It was carefully thought out and relentlessly and dangerously carried out...I agree with Patrick - what is the solution? By preventing the one you undermine the other.
 
Karen Schneck Malaret
 
     ====
 
The point that jumps out at me, is that there is an asymmetrical dimension of power when it comes to corporate free speech versus, allowing the voices of the dispossessed to be herd. If the right wish genuine free speech then it should also argue for genuine economic symmetry.
 
Thomas Meyers
 
 
 
 

 
 
50 years of occupation is an occasion to mourn and to fight for justice — not an occasion to celebrate.
 
This weekend IfNotNow members from coast-to-coast participated in a week of action that shows our community that our movement, and our generation, is only growing stronger. Will you join us? IfNotNow is sending an open letter to our community about the 50th anniversary of the occupation. We want as many of our friends in the movement to co-sign -- the more people who add their names, the more our message will be taken seriously in the halls of the Establishment.
 
This must be the year that the American Jewish community chooses the side of freedom and dignity for all. Click here to co-sign the open letter, and then share it with your friends
 
This is what it looks like when young Jews rise up to fight for justice in our community. Here are some photos from the amazing actions from the past few days:
 
In Boston, IfNotNow members demonstrated both inside and outside the city’s “Celebrate Israel” festival to make it clear that increasing numbers of young American Jews reject unequivocal support of Israel that ignores or justifies the violence of occupation.
 
 
 
In Boston, IfNotNow members demonstrated both inside and outside the city’s “Celebrate Israel” festival to make it clear that increasing numbers of young American Jews reject unequivocal support of Israel that ignores or justifies the violence of occupation.
 
 
Add your voice to the powerful actions around the country by signing our open letter today
 
In Solidarity,
Yonah Lieberman
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Black women make essential contributions to the productivity, wealth, and success of our nation. We care for and support our families while serving as leaders in our communities and society at large.
 
Black women care for others, and yet who cares for us? Black women make up nearly 30% of the direct caregiver workforce in the United States, and yet face significant barriers to getting the support we need to care for our own families – from health care to child care. We vote at higher rates than any other racial or ethnic group, but we remain underrepresented in all branches of government. Our labor powers our economy, but Black women face the highest poverty rates in the nation, second only to indigenous women. Black women are working hard, but hard work doesn’t pay off for Black women.
 
That’s why we’ve partnered with the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Institute for Policy Studies to release a report on the Status of Black Women in the United States – to help identify the challenges specifically facing Black women, and to come together to generate solutions that address those problems.
 
This report is offers important data on the status of Black women in every state across America, and includes statistics on Black domestic workers specifically and the care sector as a whole. It offers recommendations for how to improve Black women’s lives. It highlights why we started We Dream in Black in 2014. For an industry rooted in the legacy of slavery, it’s important that the experiences of Black women in the care industry shape the possibilities for a better future for all of us.
 
Download the report and executive summary here.
 
 
The American Dream should belong to all of us. The challenges facing Black women in the economy and in our democracy are complex, yet the possibilities for building better systems that support the health and wellbeing of Black women are endless.
 
When Black women succeed, we all succeed.
 
In solidarity,
 
Alicia Garza, Special Projects Director
 
 
 
 
Formerly Secret Documents from State, CIA Provide New Information about Covert Operations Planning and Implementation Plus Contemporaneous Analyses
 
Long-Awaited Volume Supplements Earlier Publication that Whitewashed U.S., British Roles
 
June 15, 2017
Edited by Malcolm Byrne
 
The State Department today released a long-awaited “retrospective” volume of declassified U.S. government documents on the 1953 coup in Iran, including records describing planning and implementation of the covert operation.  The publication is the culmination of decades of internal debates and public controversy after a previous official collection omitted all references to the role of American and British intelligence in the ouster of Iran’s then-prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq.  The volume is part of the Department’s venerable Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series.
 
 
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, (undated photo).
 
 
For decades, neither the U.S. nor the British governments would acknowledge their part in Mosaddeq’s overthrow, even though a detailed account appeared as early as 1954 in The Saturday Evening Post, and since then CIA and MI6 veterans of the coup have published memoirs detailing their activities.  Kermit Roosevelt’s Countercoup is the best known and most detailed such account, although highly controversial because of its selective rendering of events.  In 2000, The New York Times posted a 200-page classified internal CIA history of the operation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
We are excited to announce our first webinar of the series: No Bans on Stolen Lands: Refugee Resistance from the U.S. to Palestine. 
 
In January, outraged liberals and progressives nationwide took to the streets and airports to protest Donald Trump's #MuslimBan targeting refugees, immigrants, Arabs, Iranians, Africans, and others based on their religion and national origin. 
 
The ban has torn families apart, put asylum seekers at risk, and further endangered countless refugees fleeing wars and famine. As Trump continues to expand the War on Terror in places like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there will only be more civilians killed and forced to leave their homes.
 
USCPR and member groups joined the chorus calling out the racism, xenophobia, and anti-Muslim bigotry behind this proposed ban, which is all the more grotesque considering the role of U.S. interventions and militarism in creating the conditions from which people are being forced to flee. We knew this:
 
If you have an opinion about Israel's ban on refugees, you have an opinion about Trump's #MuslimBan.
 
Join us for a ground-breaking webinar on World Refugee Day.
Sign-up here
 
No Bans on Stolen Lands: Refugee Resistance from the U.S. to Palestine
 
Next Tuesday, June 20th at 9am Pacific / 12pm Eastern, connecting and lifting up 70 years of Palestinian resistance to Israel's refugee ban and those impacted by and fighting Trump's ban, the webinar will feature:
  • Kafia Ahmed, who organizes with the Somali community in Minneapolis
  • Badil, Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights
  • Ramah Kudaimi, USCPR Director of Grassroots Organizing and member of DC Justice for Muslim Coalition
 
We cannot exceptionalize Israel's actions that are mirrored by our own government. Likewise, we must also say clearly: 
 
If you have an opinion about Trump's Muslim ban, you have an opinion about Israel.
 
We can and must bring in those aghast by Trump's ban to see the connections with Israel's own U.S.-supported 70-year ban on Palestinian refugees. Israel was created and is maintained through the ethnic cleansing and ongoing exile of more than 7 million Palestinian refugees who are denied the right to return to their homes and lands -- an inalienable right inscribed in international law -- simply because of their religion and national origin. 
 
In a united front against racism and white supremacy, there is no more room for "PEPs" (Progressives Except on Palestine), just as there is no more room for "POPs" (Progressives Only on Palestine).
 
Anna Baltzer
Director of Organizing & Advocacy
 
Ramah Kudaimi
Director of Grassroots Organizing
 
US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
P.O. Box 21539
Washington, DC 20009
(703) 312-6360

 

June 15, 2017