Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Mní On Trial
Listening to Indigenous Voices on Standing Rock
For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:
“The name Oceti Šakówiŋ, meaning The Seven Council Fires, is known today as the collective name of our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Oyate (people)—seven distinct yet related nations bound together through ancient kinship, shared language roots, and ceremonial responsibilities. According to our elders, the name Oceti Šakówiŋ carries meaning far beyond political or tribal organization. It is rooted in the stars, the cosmos, and the sacred cycles of life. One way we received this name is from the universe itself. Our ancestors understood that the universe spirals with seven great arms, ever-turning, much like the sacred fire that brings our people together. We also inherited the name from the heavens—from the Wičháȟpi Šákowin, the Seven Stars of the Big Dipper constellation. These seven stars are a sacred teaching for our people, reminding us to live in balance, to walk the path of the Woopȟe (natural law), and to recognize that our ancestors are watching from above.
The Oceti Šakówiŋ also reflects the Seven Directions: East, South, West, North, Above, Below, and Within—the sacred center, where our spirit resides and where we light the fire. Each direction holds teachings and responsibilities, and together they make the circle of life complete. There are the Seven Sacred Stages of Life: Conception, Birth, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood, Elderhood, and Death (and Rebirth)—each a fire that burns in our journey, each a step in our becoming. These seven stages align with the sacred hoop of life and are honored in our ceremonies, especially those given to us by the White Buffalo Calf Woman. To be Oceti Šakówiŋ is not only to belong to the Seven Council Fires on Earth—it is to remember that we are patterned after the universe itself. Our name is a living prayer, a reflection of the stars, the spirals of creation, the sacred stages of life, and the sacred fire at the heart of every Tiwahe (family unit), every Tiospaye (extended family), and every Oyate (people).”

Mní Wíčoni means “WATER IS LIFE” in the Lakota and Dakota languages. On February 24, 2025, Standing Rock’s most essential resource of survival was on trial. Alone and at risk. Again. Since 2014, the Tribe’s water and human rights have been threatened by American corporate giant Energy Transfer (ET), and their golden child, the DAPL pipeline (The Dakota Access Pipeline).
The pipeline’s goal: Profiting $1.37+ billion per year off the lives of The Oceti Šakówiŋ and thousands of Indigenous communities, farmers, and towns in four different states (modern-day North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois), and going after one world-famous Environmental NGO: Greenpeace.
Before we can even dive into the ET vs. Greenpeace trial, we must keep up with the long-standing legal battle between The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Oceti Šakówiŋ) and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This 2016 lawsuit was over the illegalities of ET’s permitless pipeline’s location and construction, residing on Sovereign inherited ancestral Tribal land, Unceded Territory and Treaty land. After years of questionable court delays and dismissals, in 2024, Standing Rock decided to file a new lawsuit against the Army Corps—for allowing the continuation of the DAPL Pipeline’s illegal transport of crude.
“The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,” Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement announcing the appeal for their new lawsuit against the Army Corps. “We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline.”
The “black snake” (aka today’s crude oil) is an ancient prophecy of the Oceti Šakówiŋ. The snake carries 574,000 barrels of liquid gold per day, under and across 200 waterways. DAPL had been “re-routed from a crossing above Bismarck, ND (84% white) across the Missouri River at the mouth of the Cannonball River on the Lake Oahe reservoir, less than one-half mile upstream from The Standing Rock reservation,” explained the Tribe. In today’s world, that would be considered a severe act of Environmental Racism.
Tim Mentz, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, produced the most thorough literature I have read regarding the environmental and cultural resource reviews of that specific territory. Read Mentz’s letter to Washington DC’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. It is a crucial document that has been purposely and strategically discredited by Energy Transfer, its executives and attorneys.
As Standing Rock explains, “The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed Unceded Treaty lands to the Oceti Šakówiŋ Oyate (The Seven Council Fires, colonially known as The Great Sioux Nation) at the crossing of the Heart River in present-day central North Dakota.”
If we were to step outside the corrupt racist structure of our Judicial system, anyone with logic would ask how the US government could allow a corporation to bypass an industrial-scale easement, profit billions, and go after an NGO for more than half a billion dollars. To add to the chaos, many also don’t know that there was a third lawsuit playing in the background, dancing with the other two. In the 2019 lawsuit, North Dakota State won $28 million, which to many, proved that the state believed USACE was responsible for the financial losses and for the costs of law enforcement to quell the Standing Rock protests. ET’s theory was that Greenpeace was responsible for all the financial losses and delays impacting DAPL’s construction, when in actuality there were two other lawsuits challenging the pipeline’s claims. This fight for Indigenous human rights had involved three active lawsuits with many complex layers, designed this way to confuse us all.
Coincidentally, about a week after Greenpeace lost, Standing Rock’s case was put on the back burner again by Federal Judge Boasberg. He dismissed their lawsuit and announced they would have to wait for USACE’s complete environmental study, which after five years, is still ongoing. On June 7, Standing Rock filed a notice of appeal signaling their intent to ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Boasberg’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit. An investigative journalist should investigate why USACE’s environmental study is taking so long. Something is fishy.
Whilst Standing Rock’s lawsuit was playing in the background like a colonial ghost story, this past February-March 2025, I had the chance to witness the monstrous case: Energy Transfer (ET) vs. Greenpeace fund, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Inc. Most people still don’t know the legal breakdown of ET’s SLAPP suits against Greenpeace. You can catch up here.
I have yet to see this important statement issued by The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairwoman, Janet Alkire, in any mainstream media outlet. They had a lot to share about the case, yet no one seems to have read it. To stay afloat, one must learn what the Indigenous communities, especially the elders, are saying. This is what helped steer me in the right direction in the midst of the information war that Energy Transfer and our legal system were creating and injecting into all three lawsuits pertaining to the pipeline.
With so much at stake, I wanted to witness everything firsthand, so I tagged alongside my close friend and renowned environmental justice attorney and corporate prisoner Steven Donziger who was meeting up with other legendary attorneys, Mandela’s Martin Garbus, The Farmers’ lawyer Sarah Vogel, Water Protector Legal’s Natali Segovia, and Environmental lawyer Scott Badenoch, to name a few. Judge Gion had declined all Press requests, which led the trial monitoring group to form a website to provide expert independent legal analysis to the public. There are many alarming findings that the Trial Monitors listed on their website, under “Trial Monitoring Statements.” The one that really bothers me is:
Prejudicial Mailers and Advertising: Energy Transfer or its affiliates appear to have distributed materials—including mailers and advertisements—in the jury catchment area and in other local 2 areas of the state portraying Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in a negative light. These materials appear designed to sway public opinion and influence prospective jurors against Greenpeace. We are also concerned that Judge Gion has thus far denied a motion by Greenpeace to take discovery on who exactly paid for the mailers and ads, essentially denying the rights of the organization to motion the court for a remedy based on all relevant information.
Back in the courtroom, I observed the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher’s Trey Cox (Fossil Fuel’s favorite law firm), aggressively take over the linguistics of this case, arrogantly discrediting the Tribe’s Indigenous rights and existence.
On March 19, 2025, the oil town’s 9-member jury found Greenpeace guilty of nearly double the amount of the claims, $666 million to be exact. Interesting number. Despite my state of shock, my courtroom flashbacks reminded me of the jury’s PTSD stories. A local cafe owner had shared that the jurors had lived through 100k+ “strangers” coming and going through their towns, turning their daily lives upside down. The jurors’ verdict was an emotional symptom of colonial generational trauma bonding. The bias was oozing. I saw it in their eyes and facial expressions. I had never seen a jury collectively take such an extreme emotional vendetta on an NGO. When Greenpeace was charged with the maximum allowed punitive damages, it was clear to everyone that this legal fight had just morphed into a massive financial legal battle.
This shook the entire Environmental Justice community to its core and was another racist slap to The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the entire Indigenous community of Turtle Island (aka The USA). As for Greenpeace, they have made it very clear to me and the public that, “If we have to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, we will!”
As Paul Paz y Miño, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, said so passionately whilst being interviewed by Steven Donziger next to the Missouri River, “It is the mighty corporations flexing their muscles to abuse the legal system… Greenpeace is not the only one on trial. Everyone is on trial. Standing Rock, all the organizations that stood with them. Greenpeace is just the sacrificial lamb because Energy Transfer wants its pound of flesh, and it thinks it can bankrupt Greenpeace and terrify the other organizations alongside it.”
Many unanswered questions were flying outside the courtroom and are still blank today.
How can 9 people define so much for Indigenous land and water rights?
Will the outcome of this case influence The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s chances to win their own legal battles?
Can peaceful protests be banned or severely challenged in this country?
Will transparent journalism be at risk of existing?
Will our freedom of speech vanish indefinitely?
Will one of the oldest and most notable American Environmental organizations in the world cease to exist?
Everything about this trial had been designed to fail. The cherry on top of it all, was when I found out how political it really was, as ET’s Kelcy Warren, was also one of Donald Trump’s top supporters, donating approximately $16 million+ to his presidential campaigns, fundraisers, and Trump groups, between 2016-2024. At one point, Trump even had direct financial ties to ET, by owning shares in the pipeline’s stocks.
This trial was a circus. A very expensive one. ET plucked Greenpeace out of the anti-DAPL movement’s hat, strategically ignoring that there were 100k+ Tribes, Nations, Indigenous groups, and allies from all over the world (veterans, activists, attorneys, scientists, religious groups, NGOs, famous musicians, celebrities, and even a president) coming together. This became one of the most united international solidarity movements in the world, led by a National Indigenous uprising.
In 2016, The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues visited Standing Rock and issued a statement and report. This past April, the Trial Monitors sent a letter requesting for an independent United Nations human rights expert to “investigate ‘flagrant and repeated’ due process violations in the proceeding that resulted in an unprecedented $600 million verdict against the environmental organization.”
Steven Donziger weighed in: “We believe it is critical that people all over the world pay close attention to what is probably the most important legal case in the world related to the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to squelch free speech as a way to try to stifle the climate movement. The showdown between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer will go a long way toward determining whether our courts have the fortitude to push back against industry’s abuse of power and its targeting of Indigenous Peoples and the environment. As trial monitors, our purpose is to document the due process violations at trial and bring them into the public domain.”
This case led me to meet incredible souls and community leaders who were gracious enough to share their wisdom. “There is a complete disconnect between the colonial world and our Lakota way of Life. There is no accurate way to translate our way of life into ‘written documents or laws.’ The colonial way, it doesn’t belong to us. Our stories are passed down from our ancestors through oral history and teachings. We live by our Lakota way of life. Our connection is deep rooted in the land and mother earth. It is simple but hard to put into words. The colonial world likes to place us in boxes and for our people it is a worldview,” explained Jen Martel, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, community organizer at Standing Rock, Sitting Bull College Visitor Center Coordinator, and Filmmaker of “Oyate.”
Father Floberg from St. James Episcopal church and longtime community member at Standing Rock, happened to sit next to me in court for most of the time I was there. One of the first things he shared with me was the ongoing frustrations he had with the courtroom, as everyone kept ignoring: “That unceded territory is HISTORIC TRIBAL TERRITORY. It was unlawfully ‘taken’ when the United States Congress broke the 1868 Treaty as it took the Black Hills and this territory. That act by Congress was unlawful, without remedy being provided for the unceded territory and an unacceptable remedy for the Black Hills theft itself. The distinction is critical. Reservation Land is not the same as Historic Tribal Territory.”
Today, Indigenous Nations and their descendants express that their very existence, including their oral history and Tribal law, is in jeopardy. They are struggling to survive and to be properly taught by the US educational system, let alone to be recognized and adopted in the US Federal Judicial system, or any US court for that matter.
The elders have a lot to express, and they want to be heard. It is up to each and every one of us to open our ears and offer our hands in support. The fight continues.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Mní On Trial: Listening to Indigenous Voices on Standing Rock",
"author" : "Giada Lubomirski",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mni-on-trial-lakota-dakota-nakota-greenpeace-and-energy-transfer",
"date" : "2025-07-20 17:35:46 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/mni-on-trial-thumb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:",
"content" : "For one to understand the accurate truth of Indigenous Peoples’ oral history and their present-day struggles, we must listen first. This is part of the oral history of the Oceti Šakówiŋ, shared with me by community leader Phil Two Eagle, Sicangu Treaty Council Executive Director:“The name Oceti Šakówiŋ, meaning The Seven Council Fires, is known today as the collective name of our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Oyate (people)—seven distinct yet related nations bound together through ancient kinship, shared language roots, and ceremonial responsibilities. According to our elders, the name Oceti Šakówiŋ carries meaning far beyond political or tribal organization. It is rooted in the stars, the cosmos, and the sacred cycles of life. One way we received this name is from the universe itself. Our ancestors understood that the universe spirals with seven great arms, ever-turning, much like the sacred fire that brings our people together. We also inherited the name from the heavens—from the Wičháȟpi Šákowin, the Seven Stars of the Big Dipper constellation. These seven stars are a sacred teaching for our people, reminding us to live in balance, to walk the path of the Woopȟe (natural law), and to recognize that our ancestors are watching from above. The Oceti Šakówiŋ also reflects the Seven Directions: East, South, West, North, Above, Below, and Within—the sacred center, where our spirit resides and where we light the fire. Each direction holds teachings and responsibilities, and together they make the circle of life complete. There are the Seven Sacred Stages of Life: Conception, Birth, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood, Elderhood, and Death (and Rebirth)—each a fire that burns in our journey, each a step in our becoming. These seven stages align with the sacred hoop of life and are honored in our ceremonies, especially those given to us by the White Buffalo Calf Woman. To be Oceti Šakówiŋ is not only to belong to the Seven Council Fires on Earth—it is to remember that we are patterned after the universe itself. Our name is a living prayer, a reflection of the stars, the spirals of creation, the sacred stages of life, and the sacred fire at the heart of every Tiwahe (family unit), every Tiospaye (extended family), and every Oyate (people). ”Mní Wíčoni means “WATER IS LIFE” in the Lakota and Dakota languages. On February 24, 2025, Standing Rock’s most essential resource of survival was on trial. Alone and at risk. Again. Since 2014, the Tribe’s water and human rights have been threatened by American corporate giant Energy Transfer (ET), and their golden child, the DAPL pipeline (The Dakota Access Pipeline). The pipeline’s goal: Profiting $1. 37+ billion per year off the lives of The Oceti Šakówiŋ and thousands of Indigenous communities, farmers, and towns in four different states (modern-day North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois), and going after one world-famous Environmental NGO: Greenpeace. Before we can even dive into the ET vs. Greenpeace trial, we must keep up with the long-standing legal battle between The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Oceti Šakówiŋ) and the U. S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This 2016 lawsuit was over the illegalities of ET’s permitless pipeline’s location and construction, residing on Sovereign inherited ancestral Tribal land, Unceded Territory and Treaty land. After years of questionable court delays and dismissals, in 2024, Standing Rock decided to file a new lawsuit against the Army Corps—for allowing the continuation of the DAPL Pipeline’s illegal transport of crude. “The Corps of Engineers has not earned the trust of our Tribe,” Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in a statement announcing the appeal for their new lawsuit against the Army Corps. “We cannot rely on the Corps to properly evaluate DAPL, so we are continuing our legal efforts to protect our water and our people from this dangerous pipeline. ”The “black snake” (aka today’s crude oil) is an ancient prophecy of the Oceti Šakówiŋ. The snake carries 574,000 barrels of liquid gold per day, under and across 200 waterways. DAPL had been “re-routed from a crossing above Bismarck, ND (84% white) across the Missouri River at the mouth of the Cannonball River on the Lake Oahe reservoir, less than one-half mile upstream from The Standing Rock reservation,” explained the Tribe. In today’s world, that would be considered a severe act of Environmental Racism. Tim Mentz, former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, produced the most thorough literature I have read regarding the environmental and cultural resource reviews of that specific territory. Read Mentz’s letter to Washington DC’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. It is a crucial document that has been purposely and strategically discredited by Energy Transfer, its executives and attorneys. As Standing Rock explains, “The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed Unceded Treaty lands to the Oceti Šakówiŋ Oyate (The Seven Council Fires, colonially known as The Great Sioux Nation) at the crossing of the Heart River in present-day central North Dakota. ”If we were to step outside the corrupt racist structure of our Judicial system, anyone with logic would ask how the US government could allow a corporation to bypass an industrial-scale easement, profit billions, and go after an NGO for more than half a billion dollars. To add to the chaos, many also don’t know that there was a third lawsuit playing in the background, dancing with the other two. In the 2019 lawsuit, North Dakota State won $28 million, which to many, proved that the state believed USACE was responsible for the financial losses and for the costs of law enforcement to quell the Standing Rock protests. ET’s theory was that Greenpeace was responsible for all the financial losses and delays impacting DAPL’s construction, when in actuality there were two other lawsuits challenging the pipeline’s claims. This fight for Indigenous human rights had involved three active lawsuits with many complex layers, designed this way to confuse us all. Coincidentally, about a week after Greenpeace lost, Standing Rock’s case was put on the back burner again by Federal Judge Boasberg. He dismissed their lawsuit and announced they would have to wait for USACE’s complete environmental study, which after five years, is still ongoing. On June 7, Standing Rock filed a notice of appeal signaling their intent to ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Boasberg’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit. An investigative journalist should investigate why USACE’s environmental study is taking so long. Something is fishy. Whilst Standing Rock’s lawsuit was playing in the background like a colonial ghost story, this past February-March 2025, I had the chance to witness the monstrous case: Energy Transfer (ET) vs. Greenpeace fund, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Inc. Most people still don’t know the legal breakdown of ET’s SLAPP suits against Greenpeace. You can catch up here. I have yet to see this important statement issued by The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairwoman, Janet Alkire, in any mainstream media outlet. They had a lot to share about the case, yet no one seems to have read it. To stay afloat, one must learn what the Indigenous communities, especially the elders, are saying. This is what helped steer me in the right direction in the midst of the information war that Energy Transfer and our legal system were creating and injecting into all three lawsuits pertaining to the pipeline. With so much at stake, I wanted to witness everything firsthand, so I tagged alongside my close friend and renowned environmental justice attorney and corporate prisoner Steven Donziger who was meeting up with other legendary attorneys, Mandela’s Martin Garbus, The Farmers’ lawyer Sarah Vogel, Water Protector Legal’s Natali Segovia, and Environmental lawyer Scott Badenoch, to name a few. Judge Gion had declined all Press requests, which led the trial monitoring group to form a website to provide expert independent legal analysis to the public. There are many alarming findings that the Trial Monitors listed on their website, under “Trial Monitoring Statements. ” The one that really bothers me is:Prejudicial Mailers and Advertising: Energy Transfer or its affiliates appear to have distributed materials—including mailers and advertisements—in the jury catchment area and in other local 2 areas of the state portraying Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in a negative light. These materials appear designed to sway public opinion and influence prospective jurors against Greenpeace. We are also concerned that Judge Gion has thus far denied a motion by Greenpeace to take discovery on who exactly paid for the mailers and ads, essentially denying the rights of the organization to motion the court for a remedy based on all relevant information. Back in the courtroom, I observed the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher’s Trey Cox (Fossil Fuel’s favorite law firm), aggressively take over the linguistics of this case, arrogantly discrediting the Tribe’s Indigenous rights and existence. On March 19, 2025, the oil town’s 9-member jury found Greenpeace guilty of nearly double the amount of the claims, $666 million to be exact. Interesting number. Despite my state of shock, my courtroom flashbacks reminded me of the jury’s PTSD stories. A local cafe owner had shared that the jurors had lived through 100k+ “strangers” coming and going through their towns, turning their daily lives upside down. The jurors’ verdict was an emotional symptom of colonial generational trauma bonding. The bias was oozing. I saw it in their eyes and facial expressions. I had never seen a jury collectively take such an extreme emotional vendetta on an NGO. When Greenpeace was charged with the maximum allowed punitive damages, it was clear to everyone that this legal fight had just morphed into a massive financial legal battle. This shook the entire Environmental Justice community to its core and was another racist slap to The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the entire Indigenous community of Turtle Island (aka The USA). As for Greenpeace, they have made it very clear to me and the public that, “If we have to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, we will!”As Paul Paz y Miño, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, said so passionately whilst being interviewed by Steven Donziger next to the Missouri River, “It is the mighty corporations flexing their muscles to abuse the legal system… Greenpeace is not the only one on trial. Everyone is on trial. Standing Rock, all the organizations that stood with them. Greenpeace is just the sacrificial lamb because Energy Transfer wants its pound of flesh, and it thinks it can bankrupt Greenpeace and terrify the other organizations alongside it. ”Many unanswered questions were flying outside the courtroom and are still blank today. How can 9 people define so much for Indigenous land and water rights?Will the outcome of this case influence The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s chances to win their own legal battles?Can peaceful protests be banned or severely challenged in this country?Will transparent journalism be at risk of existing?Will our freedom of speech vanish indefinitely?Will one of the oldest and most notable American Environmental organizations in the world cease to exist?Everything about this trial had been designed to fail. The cherry on top of it all, was when I found out how political it really was, as ET’s Kelcy Warren, was also one of Donald Trump’s top supporters, donating approximately $16 million+ to his presidential campaigns, fundraisers, and Trump groups, between 2016-2024. At one point, Trump even had direct financial ties to ET, by owning shares in the pipeline’s stocks. This trial was a circus. A very expensive one. ET plucked Greenpeace out of the anti-DAPL movement’s hat, strategically ignoring that there were 100k+ Tribes, Nations, Indigenous groups, and allies from all over the world (veterans, activists, attorneys, scientists, religious groups, NGOs, famous musicians, celebrities, and even a president) coming together. This became one of the most united international solidarity movements in the world, led by a National Indigenous uprising. In 2016, The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues visited Standing Rock and issued a statement and report. This past April, the Trial Monitors sent a letter requesting for an independent United Nations human rights expert to “investigate ‘flagrant and repeated’ due process violations in the proceeding that resulted in an unprecedented $600 million verdict against the environmental organization. ”Steven Donziger weighed in: “We believe it is critical that people all over the world pay close attention to what is probably the most important legal case in the world related to the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to squelch free speech as a way to try to stifle the climate movement. The showdown between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer will go a long way toward determining whether our courts have the fortitude to push back against industry’s abuse of power and its targeting of Indigenous Peoples and the environment. As trial monitors, our purpose is to document the due process violations at trial and bring them into the public domain. ”This case led me to meet incredible souls and community leaders who were gracious enough to share their wisdom. “There is a complete disconnect between the colonial world and our Lakota way of Life. There is no accurate way to translate our way of life into ‘written documents or laws. ’ The colonial way, it doesn’t belong to us. Our stories are passed down from our ancestors through oral history and teachings. We live by our Lakota way of life. Our connection is deep rooted in the land and mother earth. It is simple but hard to put into words. The colonial world likes to place us in boxes and for our people it is a worldview,” explained Jen Martel, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, community organizer at Standing Rock, Sitting Bull College Visitor Center Coordinator, and Filmmaker of “Oyate. ”Father Floberg from St. James Episcopal church and longtime community member at Standing Rock, happened to sit next to me in court for most of the time I was there. One of the first things he shared with me was the ongoing frustrations he had with the courtroom, as everyone kept ignoring: “That unceded territory is HISTORIC TRIBAL TERRITORY. It was unlawfully ‘taken’ when the United States Congress broke the 1868 Treaty as it took the Black Hills and this territory. That act by Congress was unlawful, without remedy being provided for the unceded territory and an unacceptable remedy for the Black Hills theft itself. The distinction is critical. Reservation Land is not the same as Historic Tribal Territory. ” Today, Indigenous Nations and their descendants express that their very existence, including their oral history and Tribal law, is in jeopardy. They are struggling to survive and to be properly taught by the US educational system, let alone to be recognized and adopted in the US Federal Judicial system, or any US court for that matter. The elders have a lot to express, and they want to be heard. It is up to each and every one of us to open our ears and offer our hands in support. The fight continues. "
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Argentina’s Migration “Security Turn”: How Javier Milei’s Migration Policies Are Reshaping Belonging in Argentina",
"author" : "Marina Simonet Hernandez Jurado",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/argentinas-migration-security-turn",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:39:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-4.14.21PM.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In late January, Argentina’s Ministry of Security published a video on Instagram showing federal forces conducting an operation in Villa Celina, a working-class neighborhood in La Matanza, reportedly searching for undocumented immigrants. Days earlier, a Colombian-born trans man who had requested asylum in Argentina, was detained at the airport for six days, unable to communicate with his family. According to La Izquierda Diario, his asylum claim was rejected, and he was placed on a flight to Porto Alegre, Brazil, under the classification of a “false tourist. ” According to an X post by Alejandra Monteoliva, Argentina’s Minister of National Security, “in December and January, nearly 5,000 foreign nationals were either denied entry or expelled from the country”. These episodes unfolded amid significant changes to Argentina’s immigration governance. Before Javier Milei took office in December 2023, immigration policy fell under the Ministry of the Interior, but former Minister Patricia Bullrich transferred oversight of immigration to the Ministry of National Security in November 2025, effectively redefining migration not as a matter of civil administration, but as an issue of national security. There have been no large-scale arrests of undocumented migrants in Argentina. Yet the symbolic force of security operations in poor neighborhoods and the high-profile expulsion of an asylum seeker signals to a broader political narrative. Like Donald Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric in the United States, Milei’s discourse relies on nationalist appeals and moral distinctions between “decent Argentinians” and those portrayed as threats. Slogans such as “el que las hace las paga” (an idiom similar to “do the crime, do the time”) compress complex social realities into punitive certainties, repositioning immigrants, workers, and other vulnerable groups as subjects of suspicion rather than individuals with rights. The correlation between Milei’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant policies is clear from the dates of implementation: Javier Milei took office in December 2023 and made no major changes to immigration policies until May 2025 (only five months after Trump took office) with the publication of the decree 366/2025 that announced modifications to the Migration Law, especially in article 114 where the creation of the “Auxiliary Migration Police” was announced. Furthermore, the desire to emulate Trump’s ICE is explicit even from members of the Milei administration, as reflected in these statements published by La Nacion, by a source close to Patricia Bullrich’s office: “The ANM (National Migration Agency) will adopt a security-driven approach. It will be modeled on the United States Department of Homeland Security, including its Border Patrol and the TSA [Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airport screening]. We are working to establish a civilian-police force operating at all of Argentina’s border crossings — an agency that centralizes migration control and maintains comprehensive records of individuals with criminal backgrounds”. Argentina’s Ambivalent Immigration TraditionArgentina’s national mythology celebrates immigration more explicitly than that of most countries in the Americas—a tradition rooted not only in historical narrative but also in constitutional language, and linked to the country’s vast, sparsely populated territory. The 1853 Preamble famously commits the nation to “secure the blessings of liberty … for all men of the world who wish to dwell on Argentine soil,” embedding an explicit invitation to migrants within the country’s founding legal imagination and framing hospitality as a foundational principle rather than a contingent policy choice. Dominant narratives credit European migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with shaping Argentina’s economic and cultural development, as well as its national identity—one that has often imagined Argentines as descendants of Europeans and, therefore, distinct from the rest of Latin America. However, enthusiasm for immigration was never universal. In 1899, physician and intellectual José María Ramos Mejía wrote in Las multitudes Argentinas that immigration had “made Buenos Aires ill,” contaminating the traditions of established families. This anxiety reflected elite fears of demographic change, urban disorder, and political radicalism. In the context of the country’s expanding capitalist economy, these fears translated into hostility toward labor organizing, often portrayed as a foreign and subversive activity, as unions began to develop under the influence of anarchist and socialist ideas, including organizations such as the FORA, the country’s first major anarchist labor federation, as documented by Working Class History. The state also responded with legislation facilitating deportations, most notably the 1902 Ley de Residencia (Law 4144), which allowed the executive to expel foreigners deemed a threat to public order. Today’s nostalgia for a “good immigration” rests on two fragile premises. First, European migration is interpreted through a contemporary lens that imagines Europe as inherently prosperous and orderly, projecting present-day “First World” status onto a past marked by poverty, instability, and social conflict. Second, that race did not matter. Yet Argentina’s self-image as a predominantly white nation emerged alongside the violent erasure of much of its Indigenous population, including state campaigns such as the Conquest of the Desert, and the marginalization of Afro-Argentine communities. The celebration of European immigration has always been intertwined with racial hierarchy, evident in the markedly different treatment given to European migrants compared to those from neighboring countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia, who were racialized in distinct ways. The distinction between “good” and “bad” immigrants persists, now recorded through the language of legality and security. The False Security ArgumentThe Milei administration justifies its migration policies in the name of public safety. However, official data complicates that claim. Administrative data from the National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) indicates that Argentina has roughly 2. 3 million foreign-born residents, representing about 5 percent of the total population. Compared to countries where immigration dominates electoral politics, Argentina’s foreign-born population remains relatively small. According to 2023 national penitentiary statistics, foreigners account for roughly 6 percent of Argentina’s incarcerated population, approximately in line with their share of the country’s population. These figures suggest that migrants are not overrepresented within Argentina’s criminal justice system. Essentially, migration has not been a central axis of political instability or social crisis in recent years. Framing migration as a primary security concern appears disproportionate to the available evidence and contrasts with claims by President Javier Milei that migrants disproportionately benefit from public services such as health care and education or contribute significantly to Argentina’s economic crisis. Emulation and Political StrategyThe parallels with Trump-era discourse are not accidental. Javier Milei has openly aligned himself rhetorically with global right-wing leaders who frame migration as both a cultural and criminal threat. The emphasis on border control, internal enforcement, and moral categorization mirrors strategies used by U. S. and European conservatives to consolidate political identity around fear and grievance, while also resonating with broader regional trends. Argentina is not an isolated case in the adoption of restrictive migration policies; rather, it reflects a broader regional trend. In Chile, President-elect José Antonio Kast campaigned on proposals that included large-scale deportations of undocumented migrants. Similarly, in Costa Rica, President Rodrigo Chaves Robles declared a state of emergency in 2023 in response to migrants transiting the country en route to the United States, as reported by Reuters. In a recent interview with Louis Sarkozy, son of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Milei argued that when a migrant “does not adapt to your culture,” it constitutes an “invasion” capable of “altering the cultural foundations” of a country. Yet beneath this security narrative lies a broader political project. The administration’s economic agenda (including labor reforms framed as “modernization”) favors deregulation and business interests. In this context, anti-immigrant rhetoric functions less as a response to empirical conditions than as a symbolic instrument: it constructs an internal adversary while redirecting attention away from structural economic transformation. The coherence of this narrative is further complicated by reports, including those published by The New York Times, suggesting an alleged agreement between Trump and Milei for Argentina to receive deported migrants from the United States. In this sense, security has become the language through which a deeper class realignment is articulated. Argentina’s history shows that debates over immigration have often reflected anxieties about identity, race, and labor control rather than measurable threats. The current turn toward securitization thus represents not merely a policy shift, but a transformation in democratic language itself. The question, then, is not whether Argentina faces a migration crisis, the available data suggests it does not, but what political purpose is served by insisting that it does, and what this insistence reveals about the broader direction of governance under Milei. By constructing an internal enemy embodied by vulnerable populations, the government seeks to redirect attention to politically expedient scapegoats. This logic is reflected not only in the immigration policies described here, but also in labor reforms that frame workers’ rights as a burden on public spending, the repression of retirees demanding improved pensions, and new restrictions on protest and the right to strike that limit collective organization. Taken together, these measures suggest that immigration restrictions form part of a broader institutional reconfiguration, one that prioritizes the projection of authority over the resolution of concrete social and economic challenges. In doing so, the government reframes manageable social dynamics as existential threats, a shift that risks undermining the very constitutional principles it claims to defend, both domestically and in its international positioning. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Borrowed Geography: How US Bases Serve the Empire",
"author" : "Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/borrowed-geography",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:03:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/us-syria.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning.",
"content" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning. The Scale of PresenceThe American military footprint in the Arab region is staggering. The United States maintains forces in more than a dozen countries, with at least nineteen military sites, eight considered permanent. Qatar hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US installation in the Middle East, serving as the forward headquarters for US Central Command with around 10,000 troops. As of mid-2025, roughly 40,000 American service members were deployed across the region. The narrative behind the purpose of these bases were sold to Arab governments, and by extension, to Arab publics, as shields against regional threats, primarily framed as Iran. But the record tells a very different story. They have served as launch pads for the destruction of Arab states, not their protection. What the Bases Did to IraqThe invasion of Iraq in 2003 remains the most damning evidence, and a vital one to read alongside what is happening today with Iran. Here is an Arab country, a founding member of the Arab League, destroyed using bases hosted by neighbouring Arab states. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others became staging grounds for an invasion whose human cost is staggering. Population-based studies estimate over one million Iraqi deaths resulting from the war, while the Iraq Body Count project has documented between 186,901 and 210,296 violent civilian deaths. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan, with more than 432,000 of those being civilians. The bases did not protect Iraq. The bases destroyed Iraq. And the Arab states that hosted those bases were complicit, whether they admitted it or not, in the annihilation of an Arab neighbour. If the bases exist to protect Arab nations from external aggression, then what do you call an invasion launched from those very bases against an Arab capital?At the time of writing this, the pattern is repeating, and it is vital to read what is happening today alongside the record of Iraq. The US-Israeli alliance has launched strikes on a sovereign nation, Iran, calling it preemptive. Unnecessary, unprovoked, and deeply violent. What much Western media has failed to acknowledge is that the strike is unlawful. Not a grey area. A criminal act under international law. The current escalation is driven not by any genuine Iranian or Arab interest but by Israeli strategic calculations that position American bases as staging grounds for strikes against a neighbouring, non-Arab, Muslim-majority country with which Arab states share geography, trade, and centuries of cultural exchange. The shield became the target. Exactly as predicted. Netanyahu’s Guarantee; Peace Is Always One War AwayThere is no better illustration of Israel’s role as the architect of this configuration than the words of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, whose career has been defined by a single recurring promise: destroy the current enemy, and peace will come. The enemy changes. The promise never does and it never will. In the 1980s, Netanyahu told Pat Robertson that the Soviet Union was “a major force” behind international terrorism and that “if you take away the Soviet Union, its chief proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. ” In 2002, Netanyahu appeared before the US Congress to lobby for the invasion of Iraq. He told lawmakers: “If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations in the region. ” Predicting that regime change in Baghdad would trigger the implosion of Iran. In 2015, he returned to Congress to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it would guarantee an Iranian bomb. The same language of certainty he had used about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which never existed. In 2024, he stood before Congress again: “Israel will fight until we destroy Hamas’s military capabilities and its rule in Gaza. That’s what total victory means. ” He framed every front as one war: “When we fight Hamas, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight Hezbollah, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight the Houthis, we’re fighting Iran”. The normalisation agreements of the Abraham Accords were about integrating Israel into a security architecture in which American bases, Arab territory, and Israeli strategic interests become indistinguishable. Even the $142 billion Saudi arms deal is constrained by America’s guarantee that Israel receives more advanced weaponry than any Arab state, a policy known as the “qualitative military edge. ” A deal that, as Foreign Affairs documented, was designed to normalise relations with Israel without demanding, in exchange, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The bases that were once justified as protecting Arab sovereignty now serve a framework that prioritises Israeli security at Arab expense. At no point in this trajectory have the bases served the interests of ordinary Arab citizens. They have served American power projection, Israeli regional ambitions, and the narrow survival calculations of ruling elites who exchange sovereignty for patronage. The geography has been borrowed for decades. The return on that investment has been the destruction of Iraq, missiles falling on Doha, and trillions flowing in the wrong direction. The Geography Reclaims ItselfBut the myth is fracturing. In January 2026, the Iraqi army assumed full control of Ain al-Asad Airbase after a complete US withdrawal, ending more than two decades of American military presence in western Iraq. In Jordan, daily protests after October 7 forced the government to recall its ambassador from Israel; Israel evacuated its own and has not replaced its diplomatic mission since. In Morocco, which normalised relations with Israel in 2020, public support for normalisation collapsed from 31 percent to 13 percent after October 7, and in 2025, the country’s largest labour union called for banning Israeli-bound ships from Moroccan waters and organised protests in support of Gaza. The 2025 Arab Opinion Index, the largest public opinion survey in the Arab world, covering 40,000 respondents across fifteen countries, found that 87 percent of Arabs oppose recognition of Israel, citing its status as a “settler-colonial state occupying Palestine”. Despite the Abraham Accords, support for normalisation dropped even further, including in signatory states. This is not passive discontent. It is a political force constraining governments that would otherwise deepen their alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. Within the Arab world, a generation of writers, organisers, and researchers from Azmi Bishara’s work on sovereignty and the failure of normalisation, to Abdel Razzaq Takriti’s recovery of Gulf revolutionary traditions, to the policy analysts at Al-Shabaka dismantling the security-sector myth, is building the analytical tools to name what previous generations could not say aloud: that the security architecture sold to them was never designed for their protection, and that genuine regional security begins with sovereignty–not the kind performed at summits and investment forums, but the kind that decides who can and cannot wage war from your soil. The Yemeni blockade of Red Sea shipping, whatever one’s position on the Houthis may be,, demonstrated something that decades of Arab League communiqués never did: that collective action rooted in solidarity with Palestine can materially disrupt the logistics of empire. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Kurdistan and Palestine: Mapping Solidarity Beyond Colonial Borders",
"author" : "Rojin Namer, Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/kurdistan-and-palestine",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:00:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/shutterstock_232668253-956x539-c.jpg",
"excerpt" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today.” - Duran Kalkan",
"content" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today. ” - Duran KalkanKurds live under imposed borders and know occupation firsthand. People shaped by displacement do not romanticize occupation or occupiers as allies. Kurdish writer Egultekin’s words cut through decades of propaganda that has painted Kurdish movements as Israeli proxies. The truth is simpler and far more painful: the “Kurdish-Israeli alliance” is a narrative weapon wielded by the very states that carved up Kurdistan, designed to turn regional solidarity into suspicion and transform indigenous resistance into foreign conspiracy. As a result, Kurdish and Palestinian struggles have been deliberately misunderstood as competing, when in fact they share a common root. Both of their people live as the largest stateless populations in the world, their identities fractured across borders drawn by colonial powers who never asked for their consent. The Kurds estimated number is 40 to 45 million across Turkey (Bakur), Syria (Rojava), Iraq (Başȗr), Iran (Rojhilat) – names the Kurds use for their own lands– as well as in diaspora. Palestinians number 15. 5 million, scattered across Palestine and the diaspora. Both peoples have lived and survived through genocide, displacement, and the systematic erasure of their existence, still fighting, relentlessly, just to assert their right to exist. The Architecture of FragmentingKurdistan is often described as if it were an absence, a land that does not exist because it does not appear on official maps. This absence is political, not historical. What appears today as four separate “minority” populations spread across widely recognized nation-states was once a connected social, linguistic, and cultural landscape where the Kurds lived as the indigenous people of the mountains, which is where the famous saying comes from, “No friends but the mountains,” a phrase born from watching these mountains given to different countries while the Kurds themselves were denied the ability to move through land that had always been theirs. Those same mountains were also pathways for commerce, escape, and cover for those fleeing or fighting. Many Kurds lived as Koçers–a Kurdish word related to families’ seasonal migration with their belongings, their sheep and goats, between lowland winters and highland summers. Their routes never knew the borders that would later claim to define them. Borders that would turn their ancestral movement into crime, making them “illegal” on land their ancestors had traversed freely for generations. To understand the ties between Palestine and Kurdistan, we must trace the borders that fractured them. In 1916, Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, dividing Bilad al-Sham, the Levant. They partitioned what had been a living geography of different tribes, faiths, and peoples into Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon, carving nations from what was once one land. The same lines fractured Kurdistan across Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, leaving its people stateless across four different borders. The agreement laid the ground for the Balfour Declaration the following year, which promised Palestine to a European Zionist movement while Palestinian hands still worked its soil, cultivating the land while it’s being promised away. These colonial borders made Kurdish existence itself a threat to four different nation-states simultaneously, which means attempts at autonomy have been met with violent repression to this day. Because acknowledging Kurdish identity challenges the legitimacy of the borders themselves, and challenging the story these states tell about who belongs and who doesn’t, also challenging who controls the resources beneath their feet. Kurdish lands, recognized as one of the world’s most significant untapped energy frontiers, holding massive reserves of oil, gas, minerals, and fertile agricultural land, none of which has benefited Kurdish populations. In Iraq alone, Kurdish regions sit on an estimated 45 billion barrels of oil reserves, resources that all four states have consistently fought to keep out of Kurdish hands. Taken together, control over these resources has allowed these states to determine who holds political power and who remains outside it; who sits at the table, and who is never invited. So when we ask why the mere existence of Kurdish identity remains so threatening to the states built on their erasure, the answer lies in understanding how statelessness becomes not just a condition but a tool. Israel’s interest in Kurdish movements has nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with weakening Iran, fragmenting Iraq. The same imperial logic that created Kurdish statelessness is now offered back as an alliance. Rojava: Liberation, ethnic and gender justice movementIn 2012, amid the Syrian civil war and the withdrawal of regime forces from Kurdish-majority areas, Kurdish political forces in northern Syria began to organize autonomous self-governance. While defending their territories against ISIS, they initiated a political project grounded in grassroots democracy. This radical resistance movement evolved into what is known today as the Autonomous Administration of North Syria. Crucially, what began in predominantly Kurdish areas expanded to include Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmens, and other communities as they joined the autonomous regions. The system adapted a council-based structure extending from local communes to district and regional assemblies. Representation is based not on ethnicity nor religion, but on a shared participation in self-governance. In a region marked by unresolved national questions and sectarian fragmentation, this model represents both a rupture and a possibility; challenging the nation-state through decentralization and multi-ethnic coexistence. Crucially, gender equality is not an addendum but the structure itself. The women’s movement within the revolution has transformed social and political life, placing women’s liberation at the center of democratic transformation. In this way, every governing body in Rojava operates under mandatory co-leadership between a woman and a man, with a minimum 40% quota for women’s participation across all institutions, and women’s councils hold autonomous veto power over community decisions, meaning that no law, no policy, or local decision can ever be moved forward without women’s consent. One of the most notable accomplishments perhaps is how the administration has banned polygamy, child marriage, and forced marriage. Equally significant, it criminalized honor killings and gender-based violence –transforming what were once dismissed as private cultural matters into prosecutable violations. Alongside this legal transformation, women formed their own armed units, the YPJ (Women’s Protection Units), founded in 2013 as an autonomous military formation that fought ISIS on the frontlines as independent fighters, defying the narrative of women fighters as auxiliaries to male forces by becoming instrumental in the liberation of Kobani and the rescue of thousands of Yazidis from genocide on Mount Sinjar. Beyond military defense, Kurdish women established their own justice system through Mala Jin (Women’s Houses), a network of more than 60 centers across the region. Here, women resolve disputes, address domestic violence, and challenge patriarchal practices without state or male mediation; offering reconciliation and mediation processes at the community level, instead of through courts or police. Educational academies followed, training women in everything from political theory to cooperative economics, and in the process, they created the infrastructure for women’s autonomous power. In the spirit of women resisting together, Leila Khaled, the Palestinian revolutionary and PFLP member, has consistently recognized the Kurdish struggle as inseparable from Palestine’s. Khaled visited Leyla Güven, a Kurdish parliamentarian imprisoned for opposing Turkish incursions into Syria, during Güven’s hunger strike demanding an end to the isolation of imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. Khaled draws direct parallels between the partition of Palestine and the partition of Kurdistan, between the denial of Palestinian return and the denial of Kurdish movement through their mountains. A Bijî Kurdistan & Free PalestineKurdish writer Özlem Goner’s words map the liberation path forward when she wrote: “Kurds and Palestinians in this particular context have suffered various forms of colonial violence at the hands of Turkey and Israel respectively, and it is our alliance, together with all the other colonized and oppressed populations of the Middle East and beyond, that can bring justice and peace. From learning to self-defend together, to invaluable moments of solidarity. ”Daily resistance is not always courageous. Sometimes it is a compromise you’re willing to take in simply choosing not to disappear. In both Kurdish and Palestinian contexts, resistance then, is a condition of existence, perhaps the only one available when your whole being is read as a political stance. The question has never been whether there will be one state or two, but whether that state will be based on equality or continue to be based on domination. The map with further fragmentation of lands promises resolution while preserving the very architecture of oppression. So, until the maps and borders reflect justice rather than colonial division, until Kurds can traverse their mountains and Palestinians can return to their lands, the project of liberation remains unfinished. Liberation will emerge, if at all, from the recognition that to be Kurdish, to be Palestinian, is to have one’s very existence made political by those who drew borders to erase it, and that survival itself no state has managed to extinguish. From women governing in Rojava to families returning to olive groves in Palestine, the stubborn refusal to stop being who we are is the political act no state or borders can legislate away. "
}
]
}