How We Deal with Criticism in Our Movements: A Follow-Up to “Open Letter to the Encampments and Protests in Support of Palestine”

A follow-up response from the authors of, Open Letter to the Encampments and Protests in Support of Palestine.

by A&B

A: An encampment participant and Cleveland organizer who has been engaging in many conversations since the open letter was shared and B: one of the coauthors of the original “Open Letter.”

A note on the tone, i.e. how to read this letter.

We are writing this letter first from a place of gratitude for all the wonderful conversations we’ve gotten to have and all the great people out there trying their best. Also, we’re giving ourselves permission to blow off a little steam and poke a little fun, given how ridiculous the responses to the Open Letter got in certain corners of the internet and certain social scenes/political cults…

So please read it with that tone and have a lovely week! down with all settler states!

Since the “Open Letter to the Encampments and Protests in Support of Palestine,” we’ve had lots of really good conversations with people–both friends and strangers–who shared some or all of the critiques. There were some points of disagreement, which we were able to discuss to the enrichment of all, and others who had the same experiences we did.

Those people also saw all the appreciations included in the letter, because– and this is a fact– the letter is full of constructive appreciation for the movement, which we also form a part of.

On the internet, however, the letter was met with a great deal of fear and anxiety.

B: On certain lists, people were spreading surveillance culture, aiding and abetting police repression of our movements, by attacking our anonymity as the two authors of the original Open Letter, claiming we were afraid to make our criticisms openly or even that we weren’t real movement participants. When the other coauthor responded on those lists, identifying themself, suddenly everyone ghosted them, and no one engaged. It occurs to me that they were projecting their own ego-driven fear at being called out onto the age-old, respectable practice of anonymity, because they certainly weren’t brave enough to make any criticisms of the letter to our faces.

There has also been a flawed sentiment of foregoing critique for the sake of “unity” and to that we say, solidarity without critique is not solidarity. It is simply compliance.

A: I, a co-author of the current letter, engaged with people who were dogpiling after the original letter’s release, only to discover that some offering critique had not read this specific letter. They were fueled by past negative interactions– understandably– and sweeping mischaracterizations others were systematically sharing in large group spaces (more on that in a second). I was taken aback by the unwillingness to pause and reflect, especially by those who hold positional power in the space. Despite loud voices spewing ableist vitriol and calling for a witch-hunt, I went on to have really fruitful conversations about the letter’s critiques and the importance of self- and collective reflection as part of principled organizing efforts. 

And while fruitful conversations are happening beyond large group spaces, it is especially concerning that at the heart of many of these large group dogpiles is a sentiment that boils down to “but we’ve done so much.” Hiding behind the work you’ve put in (that we’ve all put in!) to abdicate responsibility for critically interrogating what is and isn’t working ultimately decenters Gazans’ call for escalation that results in material change. So I ask, what have we materially done to interrupt the war machine? 

It is a stark reminder that relying on “leaders” to tell us what to do, how to feel, and what to think is a surefire way to undermine relationality and co-opt a “diversity of tactics” into nonprofit and vanguardist organizational hegemony that leaves us all marching in circles designated by cops and yelling at politicians week after week.

B: In several cases, individuals reached out personally to myself or the other coauthor to suggest that maybe we shouldn’t have published the letter. In each case, these tended to be very condescending interactions coming from people who felt called out by the letter, because they were being called out. These were by and large people who have power in the present movement despite not having many years of experience outside of NGO spaces, people who were not marginalized or endangered by the organizing practices we were criticizing. In the better version of these interactions, they commiserated with the bad experiences and problems we were calling out, though we have never seen them–and have a hard time imagining them– risking their power and comfort by having our backs or sharing those criticisms in public. In the worse version, it was just condescension, a gross misunderstanding of what solidarity means, and a big concern about “unity” that felt less than sincere. Some even told the other co-author–who is Palestinian–to be “patient” and not “disruptive.”

The vast majority of people who reached out, though, did so in a sincere and self-reflective way. To those who reached out, agreed with some or all of the critiques, felt unable to share deviating perspectives from the loud voices, or simply are curious to pause and reflect, we hope you’ll join us in conversation or start one of your own. Keep reading for an invitation to an initial community conversation.

On a whole other level, the PSL was spreading blatant lies about the contents of the letter, to the point that many people who had not even read the letter were participating in the dogpile. That kind of manipulation is a frequent PSL tactic. We understand that other texts are coming out about them, but to sum up our position, it is impossible to take the PSL seriously. They are movement parasites who have been caught numerous times taking credit for other people’s actions, collaborating with the police, endangering people, and in the case of the current solidarity movement, co-opting Palestinian resistance language to raise funds for their own organization.

B: As for myself, the PSL was the organization I had in mind when speaking of “vanguardist organizations” who pacify the movement, those jackasses with the megaphone who try to put themselves at the head of every movement that doesn’t intentionally kick them out. I didn’t want to name them because for me it’s about naming the harmful behaviors and failed strategies, rather than drawing sectarian lines around people or organizations. But if they’re going to spread lies and hurt the movement even more than they already have, they’re going to get called out.

We do know from history that rumor-spreading kills movements, and we would ask everyone to discourage their friends from spreading all these bad-faith, knee-jerk reactions on social media, reactions that aren’t actually supported by the words we wrote.

To clarify: nothing in the letter denounces anyone for “not being revolutionary enough” or “pure enough” or anything remotely similar. It is simply untrue that our letter delegitimizes the entire movement or casts aspersions on the entire movement or anything similar. Go back and read it, and if you’re able to be honest with yourself and your discomfort, you’ll see.

We voice numerous appreciations of the movement, and encouragement to continue. We name some encampments that we believe can serve as a better model for moving forward. We don’t give a “solution” for how everything in the movement should be done, because we don’t claim to possess any truths beyond our own experiences and our partial sense of history. An open letter is not a blueprint, nor should it be. It is a call to look around, and perhaps consider a perspective that is being drowned out.

We do ask quite clearly for people to think about those of us with disabilities or chronic health problems, undocumented people, and others who are endangered by the police. People who read this letter and didn’t respond to those concerns in any way have most certainly told on themselves.

We wrote this letter to call attention to dynamics that any of us can reproduce. Some people think we are attacking Palestinian organizations with this letter, which is not the case. Some Palestinian organizers have done things in a way that we are trying to address with these constructive, gentle criticisms, just like we have friends in the DSA, in the anarchist groups, in the cooperative movement, in the legal support groups, among unaffiliated students and graduates, who are doing their best to participate in this movement just like we are, but who we feel are sometimes also involved in the counterproductive dynamics we wanted to call attention to.

They disagree with us on some things, agree with us on others, and it’s all fine, because they’re not leading with their egos, and because they understand that criticism is a gift.

In fact, if there is anything here that we are offering as a solution, it is in the methodology that we are pointing out, which is exactly what all the bad-faith reactions have been trying to cover up. It is a leaderless methodology that does not homogenize, that recognizes a multiplicity of entangled forms of oppression, a methodology that encourages people to define and advocate for their own needs and experiences, to build solidarity across these differences by listening, reflecting, and always being open to criticism, by expecting everyone to make mistakes, being brave enough to confront those mistakes with compassion and to keep moving forward.

The expectation that people need to have a solution, a blueprint for a completely free society, before they make any criticism, is bizarre and–if we’re being frank–it’s an insincere, bullshit ploy that people in positions of power use to shield themselves from criticism. We can understand the desire for an easy solution, but if we have any sense of history, we know how disastrous it’s been every time so-called revolutionaries have come on the scene promising everyone a blueprint for a better tomorrow.

There is no blueprint. Blueprints are antithetical to liberation because they do our thinking for us. The methodology we need to be using is a process. It is based on encouraging ourselves collectively to learn, to assess our risks and capacities, to care for each other beyond utility to a cause, to try new things, and to confront our limitations together. Liberation is not accepting the correct answer, it is developing the ability to come up with our own answers, the best answers we can offer to each situation, learning as we go. Liberation is not a destination, it is the path. And we can only walk that path by creating a culture of solidarity that allows us to tap into our collective intelligence. And that requires us to learn how to give and receive criticism.

We are organizing a more in-depth, collective conversation around all of this for the second week of June, with people we know and trust and with recent strangers we’ve met in the course of this movement, who have engaged with these criticisms in a sincere way. We encourage others to organize similar broader conversations in their own personal networks. If you’re not sure where to start, Zines 4 Solidarity Encampments might inspire curiosity and reflection.

We know our criticisms were valid because of how many people resonated with them. People who want to lead by claiming all those folks are ignorant, or purists, or saboteurs, go right ahead.

Folks who want to listen to a perspective they disagree with or hadn’t considered yet: we’ll surely be sharing spaces of solidarity more and more as the months go on.

As always, the conversation continues.