Dan Sisken reports on Congresswoman Donna Edwards's town hall meeting earlier tonight in Silver Spring, MD:
For the first hour or so, Edwards talked about how she had come to
get involved in Israel-Palestinian issues and take a trip to the region. Edwards was cautious in her statements, referring
many times, for instance, to the "security infrastructure" but saying
very little directly about checkpoints. She also spoke about Israel's
security needs and expressed fear at the growing influence of Hamas in Gaza. She
saw the large number of kids in Gaza as being especially susceptible to
Hamas's influence.
get involved in Israel-Palestinian issues and take a trip to the region. Edwards was cautious in her statements, referring
many times, for instance, to the "security infrastructure" but saying
very little directly about checkpoints. She also spoke about Israel's
security needs and expressed fear at the growing influence of Hamas in Gaza. She
saw the large number of kids in Gaza as being especially susceptible to
Hamas's influence.
But as the evening wore on, she injected more comments and
observations that one seldom hears in public discussion about the
Middle East in the United States from members of Congress. This was
particularly the case in the question and answer session when she often
directly answered questions instead of just mumbling some pat phrases.
When someone asked her if she would support the current aid bill in
Congress, she said she didn't know (b/c she hadn't read it yet). And by
the end of the event, it was her willingness to go fairly far outside
of the AIPAC talking points that left the strongest impression on me.
observations that one seldom hears in public discussion about the
Middle East in the United States from members of Congress. This was
particularly the case in the question and answer session when she often
directly answered questions instead of just mumbling some pat phrases.
When someone asked her if she would support the current aid bill in
Congress, she said she didn't know (b/c she hadn't read it yet). And by
the end of the event, it was her willingness to go fairly far outside
of the AIPAC talking points that left the strongest impression on me.
One of her main themes was that we do not have an open discussion
of Middle East issues in this country. She made this point repeatedly
(often to vigorous cheering by a sizeable minority in the room). She
noted that her delegation (with two other representatives) spent a day
at the Knesset meeting with Israeli MKs, observing the proceedings.
She remarked that she wished we had similarly spirited debates on Middle East
issues in Congress. Later on, she made the point that she thought that
there was a vigorous debate within the US Jewish community and that as
an African-American it would be extremely offensive if someone assumed
that all African-Americans thought the same way about something. She
encouraged all Americans to bring this debate into the open (more
applause) and that it was an important American security interest.
of Middle East issues in this country. She made this point repeatedly
(often to vigorous cheering by a sizeable minority in the room). She
noted that her delegation (with two other representatives) spent a day
at the Knesset meeting with Israeli MKs, observing the proceedings.
She remarked that she wished we had similarly spirited debates on Middle East
issues in Congress. Later on, she made the point that she thought that
there was a vigorous debate within the US Jewish community and that as
an African-American it would be extremely offensive if someone assumed
that all African-Americans thought the same way about something. She
encouraged all Americans to bring this debate into the open (more
applause) and that it was an important American security interest.
On Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, Edwards strongly
supported Obama's attempts to get a freeze on all Israeli construction
(and received more applause). On Gaza, she said that the border
closure "was not helpful" and that while Israel has legitimate security
concerns, it was important to let goods in and let people out. She
thought this was a high priority.
supported Obama's attempts to get a freeze on all Israeli construction
(and received more applause). On Gaza, she said that the border
closure "was not helpful" and that while Israel has legitimate security
concerns, it was important to let goods in and let people out. She
thought this was a high priority.
On a final solution, she said she strongly supports a Palestinian
state side-by-side with Israel with a clear border between them. In her
view, this was an Israeli interest, a Palestinian interest and an
American interest. She said that while there might be some adjustments
to the green line, the international border as of 1967 was the starting
point for diplomacy.
state side-by-side with Israel with a clear border between them. In her
view, this was an Israeli interest, a Palestinian interest and an
American interest. She said that while there might be some adjustments
to the green line, the international border as of 1967 was the starting
point for diplomacy.
Finally, she called many times for more open discussion of
Israel-Palestinian issues and asked people to support this at the
community level.
Israel-Palestinian issues and asked people to support this at the
community level.
I found it interesting that Edwards' somewhat heretical views were
aired with not a lot of resistance or even surprise. I would put the number attending this meeting at between 200 and 250.During the
question/answer period, a few (almost all elderly) people stood up and
recited the standard AIPAC talking points, but they were often shouted
down ("ask your question!") and didn't appear to get much traction. I
left before it was over so don't have a sense about what sort of
conversations might have taken place afterward.
aired with not a lot of resistance or even surprise. I would put the number attending this meeting at between 200 and 250.During the
question/answer period, a few (almost all elderly) people stood up and
recited the standard AIPAC talking points, but they were often shouted
down ("ask your question!") and didn't appear to get much traction. I
left before it was over so don't have a sense about what sort of
conversations might have taken place afterward.
I think she's right saying that there is a need for an open talk regarding this issue. There are a lot of things at stake here and it is not wise to have all this issue bottled up.
What the hell? Cheap scrubs? You just go around posting empty platitudes ('I think we should have an open discussion on really important issues' – REALLY? GET OUT OF TOWN!) while advertising random crap?
I'll be donating to her campaign. She's going to need the help of all of us.
Edwards' talk sounds pretty meaningless to me. So what if she veered from AIPAC's standard line, if she could support "aid" for Israel, or clings to having the U.S. sign off on some final border that will probably make neither side happy? My guess is that Edwards didn't mention the interests of the U.S. taxpayers, or the fact that Israel shouldn't be an issue for the United States–and wouldn't be except for massive pressure from a small ethnic group. My guess is that Edwards isn't about to denounce ethnic politics.
"Later on, she made the point that she thought that there was a vigorous debate within the US Jewish community and that as an African-American it would be extremely offensive if someone assumed that all African-Americans thought the same way about something." I'm sure that Blacks and Jews do debate certain things within their communities, and that a variety of opinions exist among each group. But I see a solid front when perceived group interests are at stake. Over 90% of the Black vote went to Barack Obama, and evereything points to a large percentage of Jewish support for Israel… and everything that support saddles the rest of us with. If this is what America has become, it looks like the rest of us have to start looking at out own interests and fight tooth-and-nail, just like everyone else. There isn't going to be any vigorous or honest debate until it is forced. The system is broken.
I thought of the same thing. As the USA white majority continues to dwindle, it's hard to imagine they won't increasingly join the battle of colors as a group, the white group. Census Bureau projections put whites as a statistical minority by 2040; this trend keeps getting pushed forward. Of course in key places they already are. The Hartford firefighters case and Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court are Blowing in The Wind. Maybe the old multi-cultural Austro-European Empire is this new model?
How would a model based on the old Ausro-Hungarian Empire would work in the U.S.? The immigrant groups that make up the majority of the "new arrivals" that are forcing change are far more different from one another, and from Americans, than Austrians were from Serbs, Hungarians, or other central Europeans. Also, I don't think that many Americans want their form of government or demographics changed. The laws that would make the changes legal can be pushed through with brute force, but I see no way of cementing the change without violence and chaos, or at least an authoritarian government willing to silence dissent. Is it really worth it? Who gave the ethnic and social radicals the right to do such things? Those questions will be asked eventually, and I don't see a happy ending for anyone involved.
I liked her proposals. What of her views do you think were "heretical"?
even now she is too circumspect in putting forth the problems. as is with other americans she is frightened. to speak against israel and its depravities.
Todd and Citizen: I think it's best if we start working towards the end of ALL "ethnic politics." None of us know what our grandchildren will look like….look what happened to Thomas Jefferson's descendants, they are of all the colors of the rainbow. Instead of advocating for a new minority ethnic group (white) it makes more sense to work toward the improvement of all mankind. Otherwise you risk sounding like those Jewish Israelis wringing their hands over the Palestinian demographic time bomb.
Exactly, this is tribal identity politics. Not principled at all. The suffering (legitimate I should say) of Blacks and Jews have become internalized in American society. There are several reasons why. But we have not learned the principles of this progression in social awareness and acceptance of 'the other'.
Ana, I hope for the best, but it is naive not to see the writing on the wall. When demographic change (and the massive expense that goes along with it) is forced on a population that doesn't want it, and preferences are added for the "new comers", a sensible person considers the obvious. Even Barack Obama made nasty racial remarks about people in small towns during the presidential campaign–and the remarks were racial even if race were implied! I think all the talk about rainbows and salad bowls is nonsense, and reality proves it. Just look at how groups vote in local and state elections when given a choice to vote for one of their own, if you see the minority vote for Obama as a novelty. And on a more basic level, I know which neighborhoods to avoid. I may not know what my grandchildren will look like, but the editors of Newsweek seem to know, because they have placed the "future face of America" on their magazine's cover, and I've seen the same thing in other magazines. Surely, there are aggressive ideologues afoot, and they have intended victims. How else should the situation be read?
Not only does the USA lack a spirited discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but Americans should also be forthrightly discussing Jewish Zionist political, journalistic, economic, and scholarly subversion: Freeman, American Naiveté, Israel Lobby.
I don't disagree with you.
They were heretical in that, as moderate and balanced as they were, even that much is rarely said in public by a US Congress representative–as Phil pointed out clearly. Witty, get a clue.
Hi Ana Please reread my comment. I was not advocating anything, certainly not advocating for ethnic politics. I was rather stating what I thought was increasingly obvious. In a nutshell, as whites become a statistical minority too, as has been happening at a good rate, e.g., in 1960 the whites were about 90% of population, and now they are about 65% at best. Amnesty is coming fast, anchor babies sprout, etc. If you look at the voting blocks, the only one de facto voting for the person and his or ideas as distinguished from ethnic/race group interests are the whites. That's the general rule that's been playing out for a long time when push comes to shove on any issue with high impact for or against any group. In my own extended family and my own personal family I have every "color of the rainbow," as is said. I contributed to that myself with my own intermarriage. I think the only groups not represented in my own extended family are orientals and muslims. The religions otherwise and ethnicities cover the gamut. When the white gentiles are a minority nationally, will we still be talking about disparate impact? If so, I'm afraid whites will become much more unified; they will join the ethnic politics de facto policy exhibited by the general rule of the other groups. Then truly there will be no more Americans, in many, one. That's my beef.
Americans generally are taught nothing about the historical role of Jews in Eastern Europe (and it's spill over into Western Europe). The only thing most Americans know about Eastern Europe are Polish jokes. How many does it take to screw in a lightbulb, etc. Their understanding of Zionism is nill, of Bolshevism is nill. All they know is Nazis were evil personified. Oh yeah, and they do remember Pearl Harbor. As with 9/11, they have not a clue as to why in either case.
The situation should be read as "divide and conquer." We have much more in common and much to gain for all if we advocate for the good of all instead of just for our own little ehtnic group. We are being kept artificially divided and weakened by the concept of ethnicity; if we put that aside and really concentrate on good old-fashioned principles such as "liberty and justice for ALL" we might become a force to be reckoned with.
I am a Jewish peace activist– pro-Israel and pro-peace……a negotiated peace agreement that starts with the Green LIne and makes adjustments for population shifts around Jerusalem. A fair negotiation will yield a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state in the West Bank hopefully unified with Gaza. Todd's nasty, cynical tone is not appreciated.
I was there last night. It was a good meeting with a range of views expressed. The hostile views from the Jewish community were almost all from older members of the Jewish community. As we did in 2008, I believe that we will overcome the failed ways of doing things and bring about a better future for Israelis and Palestinians. As a Jewish activist in Metro Washington I am working very hard to build support for the sort of fair solution envisioned by the President and Representative Edwards.
I agree with you, Ana, and hope your version of the future plays out. But I just can't help being cynical when I see what's happening around me. The people driving events seem to be really lousy human beings.
Pro-Israel and pro-peace??? The cynic in me appreciates you, Lee.
"look what happened to Thomas Jefferson's descendants" – The story put out by the MSM was speculation and after DNA testing it was found to be questionable, but of course that was barely announced because it doesn't go along with the idea of multiculturalism or the idea that white man always took advantage of non-white woman and therefore our early leaders were not men of honour. In 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS)[103] commissioned a study by an independent 13-member Scholars Commission. The commission concluded that the Jefferson paternity thesis was not persuasive. On April 12, 2001, they issued a report. The conclusion of most of the Scholars Commission was that "the Jefferson-Hemings allegation is by no means proven." Jefferson wrote in 1814 that "[t]he amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent." Government institutions and government funded institutions push the multicultural meme because a multicultural society is easier to control.
We will be like Brazil and look who's on top there. And we will have all the same social problems.
Martillo, the only people who'll be discussing these issues with you are your friends in the loony bin.
History does reward all research, the damage inflicted upon jewish people during WWII – I thought mainly took place in Europe, so why is the restitution attempt taking place in Africa? whom ever committed the crime should pay the (fine), I guess again the poor fellah without council may loose out again. Sober minded people need only apply.
Unfortunately, I think you are right.
when last I checked the european holocaust was a white on white crime – despite the claimes of semetic heritage that european jewery contends. This is white power at it finest – because we aren't talking about the black holocaust here in america!
7/6/09 Congresswoman Edwards sounds to me like she has been bought and paid for by AirPac.The woman is a coward afraid to tell the truth about how Israelis Zionist has sucked all the wealth,water,land and freedom from the Palestinian people.The Black Caucus along with President Obama are under the control of the Zionist Jews in America and Israel.President Obama has been a major disappointment to me and oppressed people around the world when it comes to taking a just stand for people living in the so-called Middle-East region.When it comes to doing what is fair, just Obama act as though he has been castrated.He is a major disappointment to me a Black man.