Buckeyes take their stand for Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 25 Comments

Committee for Justice in Palestine at Ohio State University calls to us.  Here are a few lines of their poem:

“Palestine is one of the most reported places in the world….
But there still is a bunch of misinformation….
​What much of the media fails to explain​….
Since 1948 nearly 75 percent of the indigenous population….
have been forcibly driven off their land….
Denied the Right of Return
All under brutal Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The remaining 25 percent of Palestinians live as second-class citizens in Israel
While our government provides 8.5 million dollars in military aid to Israel each day
While our tax dollars are used to purchase weapons and sustain an illegal Occupation
Our government stands by a country that has and continues to violate International Law,
“[Altogether] “We, we, we, we, The Ohio State Buckeyes, stand with the Palesinian people and support their struggle for freedom and equal rights.
If I boycott Israeli goods…,
It’s because it’s because I oppose racism, it’s because I oppose brutality toward the indigenous people.
There’s only one line of division:
It’s not a line of division between Muslims and Jews,
It’s not a line of division between Palestinians and Israelis….
It is a line of division…. between those who stand for the equality of all
And those who stand for the supremacy of some,
It’s a line of division between what is right and what is wrong
Boycott Apartheid, boycott Israel….”

Grace in caring, gentleness in choice, fortitude in action: What principle.

About Susie Kneedler

Who reads and sometimes writes....

Other posts by .


Posted In:

25 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    November 20, 2013, 2:44 pm

    Wish I’d written that. A beautiful statement of the case.

  2. LanceThruster
    November 20, 2013, 3:39 pm

    Beautiful indeed.

  3. Bill in Maryland
    November 20, 2013, 3:51 pm

    Fantastic- thanks for sharing Susie, and congratulations to the Ohio State Buckeyes on a wonderful video!

  4. Blaine Coleman
    November 20, 2013, 4:28 pm

    Text of Wayne State University’s Student Council Divestment Resolution:

    Approved on April 17, 2003,
    Detroit, Michigan.

    This Resolution is on the Web at:
    link to inminds.co.uk

    “WHEREAS, the Student Council of Wayne State University has grave misgivings about financing violent ethnic cleansing, racially directed against millions of occupied Palestinian civilians, who are both innocent and helpless,

    “WHEREAS, those millions of Palestinians suffer long-term malnutrition, are surrounded by Israeli army bulldozers, tanks, soldiers, and by jet bombers, all of which have killed thousands of occupied Palestinians,

    “WHEREAS, on Sunday, March 16, 2003, an American college student, Rachel Corrie, was killed in plain sight, while dressed in bright orange, while waving, and while shouting at an Israeli Army bulldozer through a megaphone, by that same Israeli Army bulldozer, in the Occupied Gaza Strip,

    “WHEREAS, that Israeli Army bulldozer ran her over twice,

    “WHEREAS, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has urged us all to divest from Israel due to its violent and humiliating apartheid policies,

    “WHEREAS, Israel was a long-time, close ally of White Apartheid South Africa,

    “WHEREAS, the Wayne State University Board of Governors (“the Board”) has knowledge of University investments, including what governments our University is paying taxes to by means of investment, and has the authority to seek such information from its fund managers,

    “THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that we ask the Board to immediately divest (dis-invest) our university from Israel,

    “THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that we ask the Board for a report this semester, on its progress in divesting the University from its investments in Israel, including divestment from all companies doing business in Israel, and divestment from all stocks and pension funds which include those companies.”

    _____________________________________________________

  5. ritzl
    November 20, 2013, 4:36 pm

    Poignant. Effective.

  6. jon s
    November 20, 2013, 5:11 pm

    So if 75% of the indigenous population (and I assume that by “indigenous” they refer to the Palestinians. Jews are not “indigenous” …) have been driven off their land and the “remaining 25%… live as second-class citizens in Israel”, that accounts for 100% of Palestinians. In other words there are two categories of Palestinians: those who were driven off (75%) and those who are Israeli citizens (25%). But, wait a minute, what about the population of the West Bank and Gaza, the people in Nablus and Ramallah , Khan Yunis and Rafah? Who were not “driven out” and are not Israeli citizens?
    Are we sure these guys are really in college?

    • Qualtrough
      November 20, 2013, 9:42 pm

      Nit-picking, for what purpose I am not quite sure. In any case, I believe that a good portion of the people in the areas you mention are there because they were driven off the land they originally inhabited.

      • jon s
        November 21, 2013, 7:29 am

        Not nit-picking, just pointing out ignorance and sloppy thinking.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 21, 2013, 8:22 am

        The only ignorance and sloppy thinking is yours, jon s, oh “man of the left.”

        Can you not read simple English?

        “Since 1948 nearly 75 percent of the indigenous population….
        have been forcibly driven off their land….
        Denied the Right of Return
        All under brutal Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
        The remaining 25 percent of Palestinians live as second-class citizens in Israel”

        75% driven off their land, denied their right to return, all those under occupation in West Bank and Gaza and 25% living as second-class citizens in the israeli state.

        It accounts for all three groups: the 25% in pre-1967 occupied Palestine; and the 75% who who are living under the occupation of post-1967 occupied Palestine or were driven off, to be denied their right of return by the barbaric thieves.

      • jon s
        November 21, 2013, 9:51 am

        “Pre 1967 occupied Palestine” – you could have just written “Israel”.

        “Those living under occupation …or were driven off” – nice of you to add the first part, which doesn’t appear in the text.

        From a barbaric thief…

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 21, 2013, 10:24 am

        “Pre 1967 occupied Palestine” – you could have just written “Israel”.

        The zionists refuse to recognize the State of Palestine or the 1967 border, and refer to it all as “disputed,” so why should I recognize them or give them the courtesy of pretending their ethno-supremacist Apartheid state is in any way legitimate?

        “Those living under occupation …or were driven off” – nice of you to add the first part, which doesn’t appear in the text.”

        Which part of “All under brutal Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip” can you not read? (or is it because it is poetry that you have a hard time deciphering it?…)

        “From a barbaric thief…”

        At least you’re now admitting it.

      • jon s
        November 22, 2013, 12:59 am

        Woody, what is it that I supposedly stole?
        I never even stole a towel from a hotel.

      • talknic
        November 22, 2013, 4:39 am

        @jon s “Woody, what is it that I supposedly stole?”

        You support the illegal acquisition of Arab territory link to pages.citebite.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 22, 2013, 8:15 am

        “Woody, what is it that I supposedly stole?”

        If you’re a zionist, you stole Palestine from its rightful owners.

    • Sammar
      November 21, 2013, 7:15 am

      to jon s

      Many Palestinians who live in the WB do not necessarily live on the land they originally owned and from which they were indeed driven. And still are today, in order to make way for new or enlarged illegal Jewish settlements. Even inside Israel, many of the second-class citizens have been driven from their homes and their villages were destroyed.

      Whether they are living under Israeli occupation or under Israeli discrimination – let me assure you that we are lucky not to be in their place. Kudos to Ohio U for taking a stand that may well bring the ire of the Jewish lobby upon them.

    • talknic
      November 21, 2013, 8:14 am

      jon s “what about the population of the West Bank and Gaza, the people in Nablus and Ramallah , Khan Yunis and Rafah? Who were not “driven out” and are not Israeli citizens?”

      Many of them are refugees from the 75% of the indigenous population. Not all fled completely out of Palestine

      Are we sure these guys are really in college?

      Doesn’t take college to think.

      “Jews are not “indigenous”

      Uh huh. No Jews indigenous to Palestine….WOW, I wonder if those that were know they weren’t

      • jon s
        November 21, 2013, 9:42 am

        Jews are not indigenous in the Jewish homeland. Wow indeed.

      • eljay
        November 21, 2013, 11:02 am

        >> Jews are not indigenous in the Jewish homeland.

        Jews who were born in or who were citizens of Palestine were indigenous to their homeland of Palestine.

        Jews who were born in or who were citizens of other countries were indigenous to their respective homelands.

        None of them was indigenous to an imagined / pined for / prayed for / costumed-up for / danced for “Jewish homeland”.

      • Cliff
        November 21, 2013, 11:08 am

        There’s no ‘Jewish’ world in the ME. There was a tiny minority of Jews who lived in Historic Palestine and it was certainly their homeland – but they were PALESTINIAN Jews along with Palestinian Arabs.

        Perhaps not in nationalistic terms, but as a territory, a region – from which they then defined themselves as whatever else.

        But to say Jews are indigenous implies that a Jew can be born in America and somehow be indigenous in Palestine.

        That is the bullshit you Zionist colonists spread.

        Israeli Jews now are indigenous to the ‘land of Israel’/Historic Palestine.

        In time, that’s how it will work. But to imply that prior to the Zionist invasion and eradication of Palestine (see we can use ‘destruction’/’eradication’/etc. too to describe the usurping of a society), ‘Jews’ (an abstraction, generalization) were ‘indigenous’ to the ME is a f****** lie.

        Jews are not a nationality. The Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are NOT ‘Jewish’ citizens.

      • jon s
        November 22, 2013, 1:01 am

        So I’m not “indigenous” because I wasn’t born here but my wife and kids are because they were?

      • talknic
        November 22, 2013, 4:25 am

        @ jon s “So I’m not “indigenous” because I wasn’t born here but my wife and kids are because they were?

        Correct

      • talknic
        November 22, 2013, 4:33 am

        @ jon s “Jews are not indigenous in the Jewish homeland. Wow indeed.”

        LOL … If YOU say so…. what was actually written is still there for all to see

        A) In typical idiotic Hasbara style, you had to change “Palestine” to “the Jewish homeland” which is “the State of Israel” link to knesset.gov.il Then you ignored;
        B) “I wonder if those that were know they weren’t” (past tense for Palestine)

      • Djinn
        November 22, 2013, 5:01 am

        So I’m not “indigenous” because I wasn’t born here but my wife and kids are because they were?

        “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means” Inigo Montoya.

      • MHughes976
        November 22, 2013, 9:58 am

        People may define words how they like, so long as they make clear what definition they are using. If ‘indigenous’ for you means (among other things) ‘connected to the place by ancestry and cultural sentiment’ we note that that is how you use the word. The implications of the word under that definition include that one person may be indigenous in many places and that the status of ‘indigenous’ comes in many degrees. I would be indigenous in varying degrees in England, Wales, Germany and Norway, possibly elsewhere. At this rate it can hardly be held to confer the same rights on me in every place where I am indigenous by this standard. Whereas ‘indigenous’ in the more restricted sense – ‘indigenous by local birth’ – could well be held to convey rights because it is fairly obvious that denying political rights to someone in place of birth is often highly painful to that individual and disruptive to the order of the world.

Leave a Reply