Total number of comments: 145 (since 2009-07-30 19:57:13)
David
Human rights and peace activist. Christian. Lived in East Jerusalem for 16 months, worked in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Israel. Now live and work in Washington, DC.
Showing comments 145 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 145 - 101
Page: 2 1
Thanks for the conversation, which is interesting, and for the necessary point that Palestinian voices should be represented in this.
But one major issue I'd raise
"Also, The Bulletin article doesn't reflect much knowledge of the history of nonviolent resistance. If it did, it would recognize that enduring major onslaughts and not striking back has been done, successfully, on numerous occasions, by nonviolent resistors throughout the world and throughout history."
Ok, yes. But you're skipping out on some of the history, too. Nonviolent movements have also succeeded despite the fact that nonviolent discipline was not 100%.
The U.S. Civil Rights Movement is just one example. As a nonviolence scholar, I'd imagine you've read Taylor Branch's excellent 3 part history. Branch writes, very honestly, of the fact that protests in places like Albany and Birmingham weren't always the 100% violence free things we have whitewashed them to be in our collective memory. Stones and bricks were thrown at police; sometimes people fought back instead of sticking to nonviolent discipline.
So it seems to me that as a scholar of nonviolence, you're job is not just to ask "what succeeds and what doesn't, what works and what doesn't, from the point of view of the resister," but to do some analysis. What did internal critiques of violence and nonviolence look like within the Civil Rights Movement? Within Gandhi's movement? Gandhi would call off marches if people didn't adhere to total nonviolence--was this the most effective thing to do?
What would be "more effective," in your analysis? For the nonviolent resisters of Bil'in to call of the march if kids throw stones? But wait. I've been to Bil'in, and seen the leaders of the marches call off the marches when stone throwing start. People like Kristof don't notice--because they are focused on the 1% of the protest that's not 100% nonviolent.
And this is exactly what happens in media coverage here in the U.S. of any major nonviolent mobilization. 1 or 2 people, perhaps put there as instigators or perhaps not, start a ruckus and that's what get's the coverage.
The problem is in the coverage, not in the 99% of people in the mobilization who stuck to nonviolence.
So you can say you're not judging, but I think your critique is still pretty surface-level, and isn't really addressing a lot of the complexities of nonviolent conflict.
Additionally: "Apart from the limited reach of the anti-boycott provisions, the Act that contains the antiboycott provisions, the Export Administration Act, has expired. It is our opinion that the Act’s antiboycott provisions cannot lawfully be enforced unless the EAA is reenacted by Congress. Presidential Executive Orders purport to continue the Act, but this is, in our opinion, dubious authority for imposing sanctions for violation of the anti-boycott provisions. Nevertheless, the Act could be reenacted by Congress at any time. Therefore, our advice rests on an analysis of the Act as though it were still in effect.'
From the US Campaign/NLG resource Adam mentions:
"BDS campaigns that are conceived independently, rather than as support for or in response to pressure by a hostile foreign government or in concert with the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, do not violate the anti-boycott laws. This is because the Act specifically defines an “unsanctioned” foreign boycott as one that is “fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation.” 50 U.S.C. App. § 2407(a)(1). A boycott against the State of Israel or an Israeli company or concern would be prohibited under the EAA only if the boycott is specifically intended to support or comply with boycotts initiated by foreign countries. The phrase “foreign country” refers to the official
government of the country and does not encompass NGOs."
Ah, the NYTimes blog that Phil referenced above also has raw footage from RT: link to thelede.blogs.nytimes.com
I brought it up in this RT interview but haven't seen other coverage of it: link to youtube.com
I'll take "pro-Palestinian" over "anti-Israel" or "anti-Israeli" any day, which is the phrase that I most commonly see, including in local news reports on Emily Henochowic (who is from around here).
The map website is link to
On that note: link to palestinenote.com
Excellent!
And you can bring it up anytime, even if you can't make it to the shareholder meeting: link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
"I suspect my country had no idea what you were using this weapon for."
I've got to disagree on that one, Cheryl. Those D9 and D12 bulldozers are provided through U.S. military aid. They are provided as weapons. CAT knows what they're being used for, and so does the U.S. government
Cheryl,
Not sure whether the specific canister that hit Tristan was U.S.-provided or not, but we certainly do provide Israel with "riot control" devices through military aid. In FY2007 alone, the US gave Israel 121,991 pieces of teargas and riot control agents valued at $1,654,536. (Since 2007 DOS has changed the way they account for the pieces of military equipment included in the military aid budget, so it's harder to track this individual number post-2007).
link to endtheoccupationblog.blogspot.com
Hi kalithea,
A few things in response. First, this article isn't seeking to draw any analogy at all, it's pointing to very real technology/technique sharing that goes on between U.S., Israeli, Mexican, and Egyptian "security" forces, all of which are participating in some form of human rights violation. Understanding these concrete connections is an important step in building cross-issue solidarity.
Secondly, nobody is claiming that Palestinians are "illegal immigrants." But just to be clear, the analogy that you are drawing--that Israeli settlers are "illegal immigrants"--is also false and harmful. Migrants to the U.S. are economic refugees in a globalized economy, looking for jobs as a result of neoliberal economic policies that have decimated local economies. Israeli settlers are part of a policy of colonization and apartheid. Not the same thing.
Finally (and respectfully), I don't sense in your responses that you have a particularly in-depth of the issues being addressed by the border justice movement here in the U.S. Militarization on the border, the hypocrisy of neoliberal economic policies being coupled with a "close the border" security mentality, and the division of formerly contiguous communities, to name just a few things, can't be reduced to rhetoric about "illegal immigrants."
I understand your concerns, but I think you're setting up a straw man on this one.
To give a sense of what SB1070 means, here's a quote from author Tayari Jones, who has canceled her appearance at a writer's conference in Arizona because of the law:
"Yesterday, I spoke with a dear friend who is an American citizen of Mexican descent who said that he would not feel safe in Arizona, although he (like me) used to call the state home. That people should be legally required to show proof of citizenship is similar to the antebellum mandate that black people produce 'free papers' proving themselves not to be slaves. It recalls the pass system under South Africa's apartheid."
link to guardian.co.uk
Note that the friend she is referring to is a U.S. citizen, by birth--not an "immigrant" at all.
I'd again refer to Desmond Tutu's excellent response--"Abominations such as Apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here."
link to thecommunity.com
In the U.S., we have the chance to act against the seeds of this sort of apartheid. In Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, apartheid is already in full swing.
I responded to some of your comments on your post below.
kalithea,
Several points:
1) I don't disagree with anything you are saying regarding ethnic cleansing in Palestine/Israel. Palestinians are the rightful inhabitants of land occupied by Israel, and to displace them is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Yes, this is ethnic cleansing. Yes, the settlers are there illegally. No argument from me.
2) The reason SB1070 is causing such outrage isn't that it calls for deporting people who are in the U.S. without documentation (I truly deplore the constant stress on "illegals" and "illegal immigrants." People aren't illegal, although their actions might be). Deportation was already the U.S. policy. I oppose this, personally, but that's not the point of the reaction to SB1070. The reason SB1070 is causing such outrage is precisely because it mandates racial profiling and will target people who are perfectly "legal" and documented, as long as a cop has "reasonable suspicion" that they are undocumented?
What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"? Ask the Arizona police officers who are suing to have the law overturned, in part because there's no such thing as "reasonable suspicion" of a lack of documentation other than race: link to azcentral.com
3) I don't find the "comparative suffering" argument to be particularly compelling, in part b/c once rights are taken away, it becomes much easier to take away more rights; see Desmond Tutu's response to the law: link to thecommunity.com
; and in part because there aren't many rational readers of this site who find the suffering of Palestinians to be anything less than horrendous.
4) But finally and most importantly, this is all beside the point; or perhaps better said, proves the point. Calls for boycotts of Arizona because of SB1070 were quick, forthright, and mainstream. Not only that, but the boycott calls focused on sports teams, conventions, artists and authors not visiting--in other words, an instant leap was made to what we would term "cultural boycott."
And yet calls to boycott Israel are deemed "controversial," and cultural boycott in particular is seen as an "extreme" response.
So my point, really, was simple--if across the U.S. we react with such (justified) outrage to the racist law passed by a state, where is the same outrage when it comes to war crimes committed with our tax dollars?
Sorry, I of course mean "who's"
kalithea, see my response to Avi above (and thanks both for your responses).
I would imagine many people who will be targeted by SB1070 in Arizona (assuming it's not overturned in the next 6 months before it comes into effect) would have a very similar thing to say--just as, knowing the reality of Palestine/Israel, my response was "Infiltrator? Whose calling who an infiltrator?"
Avi, many of the people who will end up targeted by SB1070 are U.S. citizens. Many of them have families that have lived in what is now the state of Arizona long before my ancestors came to this continent to colonize it.
I disagree. I find the rhetoric around "illegal immigrants" in the U.S. and the Israeli rhetoric about "infiltrators" to be remarkably similar in this case.
Hence:
"As with SB1070, the Israeli military order purports to be in response to illegal migration (“infiltration”), but is actually a license for racial profiling and mass deportation–i.e., ethnic cleansing."
Note that McCartney calls boycotts an "all-American" response to oppression.
Absolutely time to start making these connections:
link to hoseyblog.blog.com
From Btselem: link to btselem.org
"Does Christian Zionism have anything to do with Schumer's advocacy?"
I mean, yeah. Christian Zionism isn't just ideology, it's money and votes and lobbying. CUFI and its ilk spend massive money on lobbying efforts.
Schumer and others who are genuinely ideologically committed to an "Israel-first" world view wouldn't be able to maintain their power without Christian Zionism anymore than they would be able to maintain their power without corporate support.
Ahmed, your perspective on BDS is interesting and, in my opinion, justified.
But to be clear, your linking of BDS with anti-Zionism is not reflective of the actual call for BDS from Palestinian civil society, although there is certainly plenty of room in the BDS movement for people holding your views just as there is for folks who might disagree with you.
The BDS call (link to bdsmovement.net
is silent--and I believe rightfully so--on the "hot button" issues of "Zionism vs. anti-Zionism" or "one-state vs. two-state." It's silent on these because it is a call to ACTION, not to more endless debate about labels.
Palestinian leaders in the BDS movement, including Omar Barghouti and Rifat Kassis, have repeatedly made it clear that they are calling for action--and that if the action fits within the framework of the BDS call, they welcome it even if it doesn't fit into an ideological purity. Jewish Voice for Peace hasn't endorsed the BDS call, but their work on Caterpillar and selective divestment is welcomed by the BNC. Berkeley divestment was supported and commended by the BNC even though it's a very selective divestment proposal.
I heard Omar Barghouti speak a little while back in DC, and he framed things in an easy to remember way. He told the audience, "Look, if you don't agree with a total boycott, fine. Boycott something. An egg. A tomato. I don't care what it is, but start doing it. Otherwise this is just more talk."
You're welcome to ideological purity, but the BDS movement doesn't call for it. It calls for action. Berkeley divestment is action.
link to standwithstudents.org
Seems like Hannah and Andrew are talking about two different things, at least from my understanding of their points.
The word "Hafrada" on a flier or a title of an event might intrigue. It also has the advantage of being the Israeli term for the policy, so someone backing out of a discussion because of the phrase "hafrada" would actually be a big win in a lot of ways--you're offended by what Israeli calls its own policy?
The word "apartheid" is defined under international law. So there's an argument that needs to be made continually that "hafrada" is, in fact, apartheid, as defined under international law.
Not sure if that made any sense, it just seems like Andrew's reasoning is more about why supporters of international law and human rights need to be using the term apartheid, and Hannah is more talking about how to hook people in or start a conversation.
Wow, Cecilie. This is great. Thanks for sharing.
Just to clarify, that first quote is from Richard Witty, on an earlier post.
"Richard Witty April 14, 2010 at 2:12 am
More accusations of “sickness”, “monsterhood”."
That's in the post on Richard Cohen's piece in the Washington Post.
Now. Phil Weiss posts a link to an article that describes Finkelstein as an example of "unsavory Jews," "sick," having a "disease," "one of the bruised apples," "hating himself."
So Witty--where is the condemnation of the accusations of sickness and monsterhood? Why, instead of saying "it is wrong to call people sick" on this one, you instead accuse Phil and talk about how grating Finkelstein is?
Ah, Richard Cohen. The great humanizer.
Unless, of course, you use the term "apartheid" to refer to Israeli policy, in which case you are a liar and an anti-semite.
link to endtheoccupationblog.blogspot.com
My favorite part of his latest bit of drivel:
"Soon, the villagers attract allies -- young Israeli peace activists. Now, the Israeli soldiers have to contend with their fellow Israelis. For critics of Israel, this is a bracing and unsettling moment. The Palestinians are the good guys -- but so are the young Israeli peace activists. If this could happen in any Arab country, I'd like to know its name. "
Yes. You are right Richard Cohen. I get very unsettled when Israeli peace activists join in resisting the occupation. It totally freaks me out.
Cohen has no interest in humanizing critics of Israel, who he thinks are all lying anti-semites who can't handle the thought of Israelis working with Palestinians against the occupation. And he has no problem slandering Arabs everywhere.
Will Cohen humanize his critics instead of slandering them? Will Cohen write about Arabs who saved Jews during the Holocaust, Arabs who saved Jews during the massacres in Hebron/Al-Khalil?
I doubt it.
Adalah also has probably the best summary I've seen of the concrete legal and policy discrimination faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel:
link to adalah.org
I found the contrast that was pointed out between Palestinian citizens, who are physically present but whose rights are absent, and the legal presence of individuals in the Jewish diaspora who are physically absent, to be particularly powerful.
Yet another response to Cohen: link to endtheoccupationblog.blogspot.com
We should flood the Washington Post with letters to the editor.
Here's talking points and tips: link to endtheoccupation.org
The article Cohen op-ed also appeared in the NY Daily News, so responses can be directed there as well: link to nydailynews.com
Josh Ruebner at Huffington Post: "U.S. Can't Afford Military Aid to Israel."
link to huffingtonpost.com
You can find out how much your state and county (and soon city and Congressional district) contributes in military aid to Israel at a new website: link to
and see what the budgetary tradeoff of that aid is in terms of public services. Very handy.
Christian Science Monitor has also covered this:
link to csmonitor.com
It's amazing to me that the group going after NIF is funded by CUFI--folks who believe that all the Jews must be ingathered to the "Holy Land" so that the Warrior Christ can come back and slaughter most of them.
Horrifying stuff. See Max Blumenthal's "Rapture Ready": link to youtube.com
Thanks Lia.
I feel similarly--a lot of my activism ends up feeling sort of like scrubbing dirty words off of elementary schools steps...
Note connection of BDS target Motorola to Israeli drones:
link to endtheoccupation.org
You can use this tool on the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation site to find out if your member of Congress signed on to the Gaza letter and then "cheer or jeer" them: link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
BBC has picked this up: link to news.bbc.co.uk
Avi, not sure if there are a lot of options flying to and from Prague.
Great news on Jamal and Mohammad, now let's keep up the pressure to free Abdallah Abu Rahmah and the rest of Israel's anti-apartheid prisoners:
link to endtheoccupation.org
10-year agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) signed in 2007, under Bush. But the administration does actually have to request the money each year, and Congress has to approve it--the MOU is bilateral between the Administration and Israel, the budget still has to be approved each year.
Actually, MRW, I think this was sort of a timely reminder that we shipped tons of ammo to Israel DURING Operation Cast Lead...
Thanks Tree, much appreciated! Looks like you're right on as far as this being a progression in Siegman's thinking. I'm wondering how much of that we're going to see in the coming months--I was at the Churches for Middle East Peace conference this past summer, and a lot of the middle-of-the road, peace process industry types were saying things like "we have a 6-month window on the 2-state solution" or "we have a one year window," etc.
I'm wondering how many of those people are going to start saying, "our window of opportunity is passed."
Adam, I thought this part was particularly important:
"Sooner or later the White House, Congress and the American public--not to speak of a Jewish establishment that is largely out of touch with the younger Jewish generation's changing perceptions of Israel's behavior--will have to face the fact that America's "special relationship" with Israel is sustaining a colonial enterprise."
Julian, do tell where Henry Siegman has "spouted this nonsense" before. I'd love to read it!
Re: Witty's comments about gentrification, some notes on the "cleansing" of a neighborhood in Baltimore, ironically enough called Middle East:
link to faithinactiononline.com
Here in the States, communities have to fight hard to be legally compensated when they are "renewed" out from under the people living their. Many communities don't manage this.
In Palestine, people get charged for having their house demolished.
Both are a tragedy. Neither should be used as a reason for ignoring or justifying the other.
But Chaos, they are run out by firearms, public housing demolitions, and police jeeps.
Witty ignores might ignore Al-Nakba, but that's no reason to gloss over the the expulsions, evictions, and demolitions going on right here in the good ol' U S of A. The racist logic behind them is remarkably similar--one reason why it's so hard to get our government to stop funding these crimes elsewhere is that we seem so comfortable with them happening here.
Actually, if you ignore Witty ignoring the history of 1948, I think this raises a very good point.
One of the things that my time in Palestine and Israel did for me was make me much more aware of trends in my own neighborhoods and communities back in the States. The type of crimes that we bankroll and abet in Pal/Isr are not out of place in the neighborhoods I see here in Washington, DC.
Listen to the language. "Clean this place up." "Urban renewal."
"Ethnic cleansing" "Redeem the land"
Check out this video from Detroit artists Invincible and Finale. See the parallels (down to the CAT bulldozers demolishing houses). If we're committed to human rights, we need to care about this too: link to current.com
(Invincible, btw, is Israeli, a supporter of BDS, and calls Israel out for its crimes as well: link to hoseyblog.blog.com
What an amazing message...
You can take action to free Abdallah and other Palestinian nonviolence leaders by clicking here: link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
Thanks for posting this, Adam--really fascinating to see the U.S. media coverage classifying uprisings against apartheid as "violent riots."
To me that's hopeful in a way (not optimistic, really, just hopeful): that despite deeply ingrained U.S. racism and negative media coverage an international grassroots movement with U.S. participation arose to challenge apartheid.
Here's hoping (and working to ensure) that we're seeing that happen once again, despite the obstacles.
Video of DC Vigil for Gaza: link to palestinevideo.blogspot.com
CNN has coverage now, although it's buried on their website. This headline is running on their network ticker, though, at least at the time of my lunch break:
link to cnn.com
Kathleen, you've actually got it a bit backwards on this one. Norman Finkelstein dropped out b/c the Palestinian partners of the GFM insisted that the march show some recognition of the occupation as a whole. They drafted a political context document which Finkelstein accused of being "partisan" and then he dropped out.
Let me see if I can find that document and story for you, it'll take a second.
CNN has coverage now, although it's buried on their website. This headline is running on their network ticker, though, at least at the time of my lunch break:
link to cnn.com
New York Times gives the march some pretty decent coverage:
link to nytimes.com
Gosh, yes, let's discuss "modern" cars in two seconds of footage. That gets my discussion juices all worked up.
Personally I prefer post-modern cards. So much more hip.
Witty--
If you are so interested in the cars, why don't you call Al Jazeera (where the footage comes from) instead of interrogating random bloggers about it? You just sound like an ass.
Those looked like PA uniforms to me, which would indicate West Bank, but it's actually sort of tough to tell where the gray-block buildings in the background are from a second of footage.
Care to elaborate as to what your POINT is on that? Other than just harassing people? Are you surprised that there are cars in Gaza? It wasn't always blockaded, you know...and all sorts of stuff comes through the tunnels, including food, appliances, and fuel.
David, Baird's planning not to run again:
link to mondoweiss.net
Ellison is also Muslim, I believe, which gets you all sorts of cupcakes from fellow Members of Congress, I'm sure
Baird is not running for re-election. bob, if you want some more info on that, check out the related posts on this post. The one called "What will Brian Baird do next" has a link to the announcement.
"Are the Gazans going to undertake their mass demonstration, or is the western 1300 the only game in town, worthy of reporting on?"
Remains to be seen. Would be very risky for Palestinians alone to approach the Erez crossing en masse--it's a kill zone, and without an international accompaniment presence there, there is not much guarantee that there will not simply be a mass slaughter.
Done and done, thanks for the tip...
Gaza Freedom March in the New York Times (Reuters and AFP both got it out there, very good news):
link to nytimes.com
New York Times!
link to nytimes.com
"No it doesn’t look like we will be getting into Gaza, still we are doing important work in Cairo, to transform ourselves and our presence on the world stage."
Now it's time to do important work in St. Louis, in New York, in Denver, in DC....
Resources for Gaza solidarity action in the media, with Congress, and in the streets:
link to endtheoccupation.org
Gaza solidarity actions near you: link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
Hey look! It's all those tear gas canisters I bought with my own tax money! Arranged in a peace sign! $3 billion in military aid a year is worth it, after all.
That's the really good news, this actually was an appeal.
Here's the most recent announcement English (not a full victory yet, just a jurisdictional clarification, but now the case can go forward):
*The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirms the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Nanterre regarding the legal claim brought by AFPS against Veolia
transport, Alstom and Alstom transport regarding the construction and
operation of a light railway in East Jerusalem*
Following the admissibility ruling handed down on the 15th of April
2009 by the High Court of Nanterre, accepting jurisdiction over the claims
commenced by AFPS against Veolia Transport, Alstom et Alstom Transport, The Alstom et Alstom Transport companies contested this ruling in
front of the Court of Appeal of Versailles by asking for the invalidation of the ruling of the Court of Nanterre.
The court of Appeal of Versailles handed down its ruling on the 17th
of December 2009. The decision follows the line of arguments of our lawyers and
satisfies us. The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirms the ruling of the High Court Nanterre regarding its jurisdiction on the case.
Thus, the case should come back the the High Court of Nanterre which
will judge at last the substance of the case as soon as possible. AFPS will publicize further useful information on the continuation of the proceedings.
Another BDS victory--French court rules that Veolia can be sued for its role in the E. Jerusalem light rail project.
link to france-palestine.org
Here's what I find revealing about this:
Wolpe gets applause for claiming that Israel gets pushed around. He claims that if Israel tried to ban Arab [sic] building in Israel, the High Court would instantly act, but that banning Jewish building [sic] in the occupied Palestinian territories is acceptable.
Black is white. Up is down.
Look at Phil's post before this one from Adam. The Knesset is considering legislation to ban Arab landowners from building. Arab towns and cities in Israel have very restricted building zones (they're called 'blue lines' I believe, the area around a community that is zoned for building), one of the many ways of discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel. And there has not been a single Israeli administration since 1967 that has actually, concretely limited settlement building.
Two words come to mind. The first is mendacity. The second is apartheid.
Wow. That sort of sums it up, doesn't it? Thanks spuxx.
David, great post. One thing I'd add is that the using Darfur to argue against, say, BDS, is particularly disingenuous b/c BDS is exactly the strategy that many actors, especially churches, have used to engage Darfur. My church, the United Methodist Church, passed several resolutions calling for the church to examine its investments in companies doing business with the Sudanese government at our 2008 General Conference. At the same time, the committee that dealt with divestment resolutions regarding companies profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land released an argument against divesting based entirely on fiduciary responsibility.
Note the double standard: divestment re: Sudan is based on the situation on the ground, divestment re: Israel is based on "fiduciary responsibility."
So actually, not only is the claim that activists for justice in Palestine and Israel should have bigger fish to fry questionable, it ignores that obvious alliances between groups working across "issue" lines. The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation coalition, for example, includes member groups that work on Iraq, Afghanistan, China, groups that also serve as local chapters of Amnesty International, etc. Churches that engage on the I/P issue and are roundly accused of promoting anti-Semitism are at the same time engaged in Sudan, in Colombia, in the Philippines.
Note, too, that the areas that are raised--Sudan, Burma, China--are not U.S. funded conflicts, unlike the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Colombia, which are.
Finally, I wonder if those advocating against an end to genocide in Sudan examine themselves THOROUGHLY for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment, as per Richard Witty's suggestion? Or does this only apply to anti-Semitism? As if somehow Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment is not deeply ingrained in Western culture? How about those advocating for human rights in Zimbabwe? Does opposition to Mugabe necessitate that I examine myself for racism based on skin color? I'm all about examining our own assumptions and deconstructing racism in our own perceptions--but this is hardly something that should prevent us from working against other forms of oppression.
It's "Foreign Military Financing," comes out of the same chunk of the State Department budget as the rest of our foreign aid.
Other exciting recipients of U.S. military aid include Egypt, the Philippines, Colombia, and Sri Lanka. We really know how to pick 'em.
Uh...you're wrong.
$2.775 billion in military aid (which is the same as "arms sales" incidentally, only...free for Israel!) for FY 2010
$3 billion likely to be requested for 2011.
$30 billion over 10 years as agreed on in the last Memorandum of Understanding signed under Bush.
You're talking about loan guarantees, which is a separate chunk of change.
Is Hamas considered a key partner for the United States?
Nope. Not at all.
Right on, Adam.
This same question needs to be asked of the Obama Administration after he emphasized human rights and international law--and the diplomatic isolation of consistent violators of said rights and law--in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Let's hold him accountable to his words.
Danaa, thanks, these are some really perceptive comments. I was writing furiously about this on my blog at the time but it was hard to find any real action to participate in (and I'm too swamped with P/I stuff to plan on my own, damn). PEARL was about the only group I found doing any national level work on it: link to pearlaction.org
I really think there is room for a serious, sustained movement critiquing U.S. military aid and the way it is used globally. Sri Lanka, Israel, the Philipines, Colombia, Nigeria, Egypt--it's maddening that we are funding and directly supporting militant violations of human rights in all of these places. Loewenstein's post and your comment on it has really gotten my mind churning on this...
For folks interested in advocacy/activism resources on this: link to pearlaction.org
Can I just say how much I appreciate Antony Loewenstein's coverage of the atrocities in Sri Lanka and the comparisons between what the "war on terror" looks like on the ground there and in Palestine/Israel?
One thing I'd add, though, or rather something left out that I'd like to see included:
"Colombo received arms and backing from India, China, Israel"...and the United States
We provided Sri Lanka $590,000 in military aid in FY2009 and $1,600,000 (more than doubled) in military aid in FY2010. (This is directly from the State Department, link to state.gov
pg. 91-93).
$1.6 million is small change compared to $3billion (or to the $1 billion that we give Egypt, who is now going to build an "iron wall" on the Gaza border according to recent Ha'aretz article), but it's a whole hell of a lot of weapons for a country the size of Sri Lanka.
We feed and fuel human rights abuses and violations of international law, globally. Loewenstein isn't from the U.S., but most readers of this site are, so that's important to point out. potsherd is right--defenders of Israel love to point to Darfur or Saudi Arabia, but not to Sri Lanka, Colombia, the Philippines, Nigeria, and all the other violators of human rights that are directly funded and enabled by the U.S. government:
link to hoseyblog.blog.com
Great post, Antony, thank you.
I don't usually jump into this particular b/c I think the debate about "is Zionism racism" is generally entirely theoretical and beside the point, but Richard, I think you just inadvertently pointed out the problem with your line of argumentation here.
If you had said this: "France is democratic and French. Canada is democratic and Canadian. Hungary is democratic and Hungarian. Czeck Republic is democratic and Czeck. Israel is democratic and Israeli" I wouldn't have seen it. But you said "Israeli is democratic and Jewish."
I would criticize a definition of France that defined it as "Catholic," as "white," as "European" in any sense other than location. "French" is national identity. "Jewish" is not--no more than "Muslim" or "Christian."
And the idea that people-groups should be allowed to self-govern is always tempered by the facts on the ground in a given place. Bosniak Muslims didn't automatically get to self-govern on some sort of exclusive basis--the government had to be as representatively mutli-ethnic and mutli-religious.
The national identities you've mentioned have been self-defined by people actually living in geographic proximity to each other. But Israeli identity was constructed on top of another identity--a Palestinian identity--that has been consistently denied and targeted for elimination.
Palestinians are not immigrants. They are not newcomers. Their own right to a national identity is regularly excluded by claims to a Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist (all three, interlocking) national identity.
You make a lot of good points, Donald.
Actually, in a way I agree with Chomsky on this. Although I think the analysis of folks like Meirsheimer and Walt is useful, a lot of the conversation about "the Lobby" as it plays out in U.S. activism on this issue is really problematic because it's often a demobilizing discourse.
I've had so many encounters like this: I'm giving a presentation on Israel/Palestine. Things are going well. People are engaged. I start giving advocacy tools. I talk about advocating against military aid or about BDS. And someone says something like "Well, the thing is that the Israeli lobby is so powerful that there's nothing you can do."
When I hear that, all I hear is "I don't feel like really doing anything, so I'll find a powerful force to blame." It's not the the Israeli lobby isn't powerful. It's that so is the military tech/'defense industry' lobby and the insurance lobby and all sorts of other powerful forces that we are up against. That's no excuse. It just means we have to be creative and clever and dedicated and wear oppressive structures down. Which is why I think BDS is such an important tool.
I see a lot of this "demobilizing discourse" in the sort of self-righteous attacks that you describe. It doesn't usually advance the cause or the debate at all, it's just venting emotion. And we don't want to vent emotion. We want to figure out how to channel it into effective campaigns.
Reading this comment again, the arrogance of it is mind-numbing.
Richard, do you examine how you sound to others?
"When I, as arbitrator of what is acceptable inquiry, was confident that Phil was simply curious, I regularly referred him to articles that I, as a self-proclaimed expert on the topic, had discovered (being quite the explorer, myself), and was an incredible example of balance and honest inquiry.
But now, Phil has drifted away from the bounds of inquiry as defined by me, unlike myself, who maintains my balance. What a shame."
Ugh. Gross. Get over yourself.
Witty, do you think you are just inquiring? You have defined for yourself your position as "nonpartisan," but it's simply not true.
To assume that someone's identity influences their views is not at all indicative of racist assumptions about that identity. Claiming that there is some sort of monolithic entity called "the Jews" or that, say, Jews steal Christian babies and drink their blood, is anti-semitic. Saying that a person's identity as an American Jew married to an Israeli or as an Israeli Jew probably influences that persons views on Palestine and Israel is not. By any stretch of the imagination.
And you, Richard Witty? You lay claim, repetitively, to a "humanistic" world view. Yet have you critically examined the biases inherent in your own perspective? Have you searched your own statements? Examined from all angles the definition of words like "humanism" and "Zionism" that you use so frequently?
I see you defending Zionism a lot, as an example. I don't see you internalizing much of the critique that Zionism, regardless of how one theoretically defines it, has manifested itself in a campaign of ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism. That is how Zionism has been experienced by Palestinians. I don't think you lose much sleep over it, though.
Because you are not really as inquiring as you want to be. You are, in fact, quite partisan. Which is fine. Just don't pretend to be something you are not.
Phil, do you sense that these sort of accusations are still as toxic as they once were, or is it fading a bit?
When my name got posted on ADL's site for giving a talk about divestment at Eastern Mennonite University, I took it as sort of a badge of honor--laughed it off. I have a sense that my generation of activists on this is a lot less terrified of being called anti-semitic. We have a lot more in the way of people who have gone before us who have demonstrated that you can confront racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, and that in fact all of this is a key component for the struggle for justice and equal rights, including for the Palestinians.
When I told my dad ADL had put my name on their site, he was really worried. I wasn't. I know that I work in my church against remnants of anti-Jewish and anti-semitic theology. I know that my Jewish friends feel safe and do not worry that there will a government-sponsored campaign targeting them. I know that I and my friends will go to town on the crazy right-wingers spewing anti-semitism just like we'll go to town on them for spewing racist and sexist speech. So I'm not worried. Do you get the sense that this lack of worry is spreading?
"I think it is critical for someone like Phil, or any other person that can influence public debate in any way, to sincerely ask themselves if they are anti-semitic in attitude, or functionally"
I think it would be amazing if anyone who could influence public debate in any way would critically examine their own biases--and critically examine their own racism and phobia, including anti-semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab bias (which some would argue needs to be included in anti-semitism), heterosexism, sexism, etc.
Witty, would you say that, as a consistent (and prolific) commenter on this blog, that you have the ability to influence public debate? Do you consistently critically examine your own biases, including anti-Arab and anti-Islam biases?
I think Phil actually examines his own biases right in front of our eyes, all the time--publicly, in a way that I don't think many people do.
"Humanist" discourse can be incredibly racist. The Enlightenment was incredibly racist. It led to humanism but also to colonialism. Just saying "I'm a humanist" does not count as a critical examination of ones own racism.
One wonders why you only want Phil to examine his attitude for traces of "functional anti-semitism"? Why is that the most important attitude to examine--especially here in the United States, where rampant racism and Islamaphobia are part and parcel of our mainstream discourse, whereas the mainstream discourse tends toward a lifting of Israel onto a pedestal?
CiF Watch? Seriously?
I wish I had that much time on my hands. As it is I don't have time to really read most of the posts on this one blog...
Ridiculous.
Nonsense! There is no bias toward Israel in U.S. news media. Which is why you can find great coverage like this in a leading U.S. paper:
"The US cash behind extremist settlers"
link to guardian.co.uk
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Has anyone seen this bit of propaganda from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs?
link to jcpa.org
It doesn't take long to get hilarious:
"Yet the comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system."
Except for Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Richard Falk, John Dugard, Bill Fletcher, Jr., etc., etc.....
The truth is that the anti-apartheid movement is popular now....more than a decade after apartheid fell. While it was ongoing, though, the ANC were a bunch of terrorists and anti-apartheid activists a bunch of rabble-rousers. Zionism might have more political power here in the U.S. than apartheid did (a debatable assertion, I think, until the dying days of apartheid) but its contradictions are bound to collapse at some point.
Ergo, couldn't you find a Palestinian correspondent? Since many Palestinians speak Hebrew and Arabic, whereas many Israeli Jews and American Jews do not speak Arabic?
Hey, you could even find one with Israeli citizenship, or citizenship in the diaspora, seeing as there's an awful lot of 'em.
Arabic not being a local language?
Great work Susan! Exactly what is needed--sustained, personal, relationship-building and pressure on Congress.
For folks who are interested, you can sign up to be a coordinator in your Congressional district for exactly this kind of work: link to endtheoccupation.org
No excuses for Obama. This is where our work comes in--we have to organize to change the discourse and to change the policy. It's a lot of work. What's our excuse?
And just for the record I could care less what Obama was like at law school. Our job is to work to change the goddamn policy, not try to figure out whether Obama's "black experience" or "lack thereof" is the reason why he isn't changing the policy.
Of course, that would require organizing. In communities. But that sounds too much like "street hustling," eh?
"Community organizer=street hustler."
Gosh, America First. Thanks for that insightful comment on community organizing. Right in line with Sarah Palin on that one.
I'm a community organizer. We work our asses off and usually don't get paid for it. Read a book.
I'd say the fact that they said it wasn't approved is a tacit admission that supporting settlement outposts in your ad slogans is beyond the pale for the company.
We're never going to get a full on, "Yeah, sorry about supporting human rights abuses, we'll stop" admission, from any company, ever--celebrate victories where we get them!
Ha. Lived in Jerusalem/Al-Quds for 16 months, so I know the drill...
But nevertheless, I am fascinated by it. I was speaking at a school in VA a few months back, and later a student from a local university (not the school I was actually speaking at) came up and confronted me. He used the "calling Gazan cell phones talking points," and I just asked him point blank whether he really believed that would make it better. He deflected.
That's part of my bizarre....man, I can't think of another word besides fascination--comes from. Do folks really convince themselves that getting an anonymous phone call--in a language other than your own, one imagines--telling you that your house is going to be bombed is somehow a good thing? If Palestinians did this to Israelis, it would of course be lumped in as terrorism.
Because it is. It is causing fear. And then bombing people who have nowhere, nowhere, nowhere to go.
Yeah. I particularly liked the bit about identifying "ethnic cleansing" somehow being mudslinging. Lived in E. Jerusalem for 16 months. Not sure what the hell else to call it, to be honest. If anything, it's a very clinical, cynical description of an incredibly dirty, brutal process.
Oops, that was obviously meant to be "would not apply to, for example, companies..."
It is, to me, endlessly fascinating that defenders of Israel's actions get away with saying "you can't start with Gaza, you need the context"....and that context consists solely of context-less statements about rocket fire.
It is only Israeli violence that has a context, in other words. Palestinian violence has no context. It comes from nowhere, from the "hate that is taught in schools," or whatever.
Another fascinating thing to me: to hear Fletcher say "I've never heard of anybody else doing this" in reference to telling Palestinians they were going to be bombed.
I've heard of this before. In my high school, a bunch of kids thought it was funny to phone in bomb threats to the school. They were caught and tried for it. When Israel calls in bomb threats on civilian neighborhoods and then follows up with real bombs, it is somehow to be commended. What?
Actually do agree with Witty on this one--wish we had the whole debate, it was fascinating.
Disagree that the criteria of BDS are stated vaguely. This was exactly Barghouti's point--ending identity-based criticism is pretty darn concrete. Fletcher's point about the Montgomery bus boycott indicates a complete confusion between tactics and strategies, outcomes and goals. The MIA was one specific campaign within a much larger movement. BDS is a strategy with long-term goals. Within this strategy, there are different campaigns with very specific outcomes. The Veolia campaign, for example, targets settlement-related construction in East Jerusalem. It is over when Veolia pulls out of the contract. Move on to the next target. The Montgomery boycott was over when buses were desegregated. That was hardly the end of the civil rights movement, which had specific goals in specific campaigns but was broadly, simply, a movement for equal rights.
Fletcher's point about sacrifice and putting one's body on the line is complete and utter hogwash. Of course, as everyone reading this blog should know by now, there are people doing exactly that in the occupied Palestinian territories, every day. And it is exactly these people who are calling for BDS as a movement of INTERNATIONAL solidarity. I doubt Fletcher would actually put his body on the line to try to stop evictions in E. Jerusalem.
His point about lawsuits=fascinating, since of course this tactic is being tried, and is actually very compatible with BDS. I actually think Barghouti missed the strongest argument on this one. Bil'in HAS taken the settlement companies building on its land to court. Tried it in Israel, didn't work. Still trying in Canada. If the cases are refused, not much you can do, that's where the boycotts and divestment come in. Legal action is being tried, at many levels, but if the courts won't hear it--or if the military ignores the court--you have to go on to the next level.
Witty, I'm surprised you were disappointed with Fletcher, it seems like he presented many of the same arguments that you raise.
On an unrelated note, did it rankle anyone else's nerves that Fletcher referred to Barghouti as "Bargouti" but Barghouti referred to Fletcher as "Mr. Fletcher"?
Applies to companies complying with the Arab League Boycott, but would apply to, for example, companies whose shareholders voted to end military sales to Israel, no does it apply to civil society efforts at boycott or divestment.
For more info see NLG legal memo on the subject:
link to endtheoccupation.org
There's actually already a lot of accusations being thrown at the BDS campaign, arguing that it violates U.S. federal law by complying with the Arab League boycott. This is an inaccurate accusation. For more information on it, check out this legal memo from the National Lawyers' Guild: link to endtheoccupation.org
Way to dodge the point.
His point (obviously) was that you will face opposition. Why would you call J Street opposition? Because they have openly declared themselves to be so, unlike the tact that the more progressive wing of the movement initially took toward J Street.
Tough to "convince" J Street when they kick opposition out of their conference.
One more thing: for those with connections to campus or student groups, one of the resources that was available at the Hampshire BDS Conference:
link to endtheoccupation.org
Now, to Phil: Great post, thanks for the insights. Thanks especially for the reporting on the Q & A for Abunimah's speech, that's incredibly important and clarifying.
I think it's worth noting that the perception of social movements is always, always, always that they have no ability to affect "real," power politics. Anna is completely right--while people write articles about whether we can affect real change, we'll be out here, building that critical mass. And more and more, people are starting to realize how powerful words like Anna's are. I used to go to talks on this and hear, again and again, the speaker being disrupted by StandWithUs-types in the audience. Now, I'm giving talks on this, and when the StandWithUs types stand up, I try to answer their question clearly and politely and then move on to the people I'm actually interested in working with--those with an interest in peace, justice, equality, and nonviolence, not those interested in justifying state violence against civilians. My answers are now aimed at the latter group, even when I'm fielding questions from the folks--less and less of them, with weaker and weaker-sounding arguments--who show up to "ask me the tough questions."
Critical mass, indeed.
A lot to respond to in both Witty and Phil's post, but just want to clarify one thing:
"I am NOT confident in the motives and methods of the BDS movement, nor in its appearance of even indirect association with Hamas, nor for its condemnation (”enemies”) rather than criticism of liberal movements like J Street, and for its condemnation of Fatah and the PA again rather than criticism."
What?
1) J Street put out anti-BDS talking points in response to Hampshire's conference (which were totally weak and contained no legitimate critique, merely blanket condemnation, by the way). The feeling in the movement early this year was that J Street was generally a good thing, gave a space for voices that had been silenced before, big tent, more the merrier, etc. Then J Street ridiculed the Toronto Film Festival protests, kicked poets out of its conference, lobbied FOR H.Res. 867, and issued anti-BDS talking points.
Uh...who sees who as the enemy here? We're hardly going to applaud a group that is blatantly against things we stand strongly for. These things are BIG DEALS. That you happen to agree with some of them is fine, but you can't express "discomfort" with the BDS movement and then expect us to hold your hand and do whatever you say.
2) What's the association with Hamas, exactly? The BDS call came from Palestinian civil society, not Palestinian political leaders (either Fatah or Hamas). Many of the leaders of the BDS movement are secular intellectuals. If I were worried about Hamas, I'd run as fast as possible to support these guys.
3) What exactly is the condemnation of Fatah and PA that is without criticism? The criticism of the PA is pretty simple. They are operating, in "cooperation" with the Israeli army, to suppress Palestinian civil society dissent. Breaking up protests in response to the situation in Gaza with tear gas is a legitimate target for criticism. And yeah, condemnation. Refusing to support the Goldstone Report is a legitimate target for criticism.
Again, I don't expect you to agree with any of these things, but Witty, you see things however you want to see them. If people criticize the PA, you see it as condemnation. If people refuse to being every sentence with, "Well, Hamas is awful, but..." you see that as some kind of endorsement. If J Street issues an entirely condemning set of talking points with no alternative proposal other than "give $2 for two states" (seriously?), you see them as the group with the positive, alternative proposal, whereas the BDS movement--which stands on principles of equal rights, human rights, and nonviolence--is the group that is entirely negative and critical.
Witty, it's you who is entirely critical. I'm fine with you not being in the BDS movement. You keep working for "justice." We'll be out here, actually working. For actual justice.
Thanks, Richard. Apropos, especially given recent events in Mindanao (which, of course, my tax money funds...)
link to usapan.org
link to bdsmovement.net
is the website of the global BDS movement and serves as a "a central clearing house for information on the disparate BDS movements."
Also provides an 'M' for the giggle fest going on here in the comment section.
Exactly--in terms of international law, both East Jerusalem and the West Bank are occupied Palestinian territory.
Alright, look. I disagree with most of what Witty posts on here. But frankly, I don't come here to read ad hominem attacks on people. Argue, disagree, advance the discussion, but I'm not very interested in participating in a sight where people think calling other posters "assholes" and talking about their marital status makes for good discussion.
Also, Witty is right--Gilo is in East Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem is in the West Bank--it was controlled by Jordan between '49-'67, just like the West Bank. The only difference between E. J'lem and the West Bank is the the urban fabric, which has changed dramatically since '67.
One more comment:
The Palestinian BDS call explicitly distanced itself from the very distinction you're proposing between working toward a '2-state solution' and working toward '1-person 1-vote.' The focus is on an end to the occupation, international law, and equality for all.
Thanks for responding Scott.
So, first of all, kudos to everyone--this is by far the most interesting discussion I've seen on Mondoweiss!
I disagree with many of McConnell's points, but I'm wondering first what his background on South Africa is. Did he play a role in working against apartheid? Is he a scholar of apartheid South Africa? It would seem not, by his own statement: "I was one of those who worried more about Soviet advances in southern Africa than apartheid."
I'm not asking this maliciously, but rather wondering whether many of the points McConnell makes are really accurate, or whether they emerge from a process of historical forgetting.
Just a few examples: McConnell downplays U.S. support of apartheid South Africa. Although he makes some interesting points about comparative power of U.S. constituencies, it hardly seems justified to say that if there was a larger Afrikaaner constituency in the United States, that working for BDS or a "one-man, one-vote" solution would have suddenly become wrong-headed. In addition, after vetoes used to protect Israel from criticism, the majority of U.S. Security Council vetoes--1/3 of its total veto uses--were to protest apartheid regimes in Southern Africa from criticism. It is telling that the U.S. gov't continued to support apartheid until well into the Reagan era--several decades after the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
There is also, I think, a tendency to downplay the extent to which the ANC and other anti-apartheid activists were portrayed as violent actors by the apartheid government. Terrorists and Communists, all of them! Also, is it actually true that no S. African anti-apartheid activist ever used violence against "soft" targets? I seem to remember that there was at least one night club bombing or something of the sort.
My point here isn't that the two situations are identical--of course they are not. But it seems like the distinctions that McConnell is making are driven more by the authors view of the one-state solution--which, by the way, I don't necessarily disagree with--then by the actual importance of the distinctions.
And I do want to echo Mr. Witty, with whom I seldom agree:
"I definitely want to applaud Scott’s courage in presenting an analysis that is contreversial here.
And, I’d like to applaud Phil or Adam for posting it. "
Folks, ad hominem attacks get old quick.
Carpet bombing is not restraint.
I've known a few other folks who used these talking points right up until the point when they actually went into Gaza to survey the devastation.
"Restraint" does not mean "something less than total destruction."
I believe Levy is factually wrong in one important sense:
Although he's right about the EU, I believe U.S. free trade agreements with Israel explicitly include the occupied Palestinian territories. This was Clinton's doing, promoting "economic coexistence" and free trade zones in the West Bank, etc.--part of the same process as the separate roads around Bethlehem.
So although in Europe, if products were labeled correctly as coming from settlements, they would be barred from preferential treatment, this isn't the case in the U.S.--a good reason to boycott all Israeli products unless they are clearly marked as NOT being made in settlements.
Agreed. With Congress, take the victories you can get.
If you're in a district where your Member of Congress voted No or Present, be SURE to write them and thank them. They need all the support they can get (I know Donna Edwards in MD-4 is getting a lot of flak for voting no). And write op-eds and letters to the editor in local papers thanking your Member for voting no or calling them out for voting yes. Congressional staff monitor local media outlets for mentions, positive and negative.
Calls and emails matter. They generally aren't read or passed along word for word but they are compiled by Congressional staff and the general sense of expressed public opinion is passed along. So numbers matter. Call!
The vote will happen TODAY, so call your Representative and ask them to vote NO on H.Res. 867
link to endtheoccupation.org
Congress will vote on H.Res. 867 TODAY, so be sure to call this morning and let your Representative know you want them to vote NO on this thing: link to endtheoccupation.org
" Even if J Street fails to become more representative of its base, the networks and energy formed during events like this can create momentum for other endeavors.
…Like BDS. "
Agreed.
Maybe another way of posing my question would be, "Are the participants at these conferences (such as CMEP and J Street) representative of the majority of the grassroots base of these organizations? Are they representative of the funding base? Are they representative of the grassroots movement for justice and peace, whereas J Street is looking not for grassroots activist support but trying to build a mild base of middle class opinion that will eventually turn the policy tide?
"The leadership of J Street is to the right of its base. The base is leftleaning."
This is fascinating stuff, Phil. Thanks for posting. I found something similar with the base of Churches for Middle East Peace. CMEP has very tightly controlled messaging, but delegates at this year's CMEP conference stood to applaud Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (who will be appearing on the Daily Show tomorrow along with Anna Balzer) when he talked about direct action and BDS.
What does it mean to have so much of the grassroots support for justice and peace consistently represented in "the mainstream" by centrist talking points? Does that convey legitimacy to a movement? Or does it dissipate energy?
I am very interested to hear Adam and Phil's impressions of the J Street Conference.
Does J Street's careful approach mean that it will this will be more watered down peace process talk? Or does it seem that they will be able to be effective in a certain niche?
Is J Street interested in being in dialogue with the BDS movement or with international law and human rights groups even if they do not agree with them? Or do they view themselves in opposition to these groups in order to maintain inside the beltway 'legitimacy'?
Re: Mitchell's statements.
Anyone remember the Robin Williams movie Mrs Doubtfire?
"My marriage isn't ending. It's just on hiatus."
In fairness to Israel, it is very difficult to negotiate with suicide bombers.
Seeing as they are dead and all.
Hey, people are complex. That's why this guy should be allowed to do speaking tours of the U.S., right?
Karadzic plans to boycott trial
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Hmm. Since we're lending a sympathetic ear to folks we disagree with, let's let one of the protesters describe in their own words why they did what they did:
link to electronicintifada.net
If former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had merely been a diplomat or an academic offering a controversial viewpoint, then interrupting his 15 October speech at University of Chicago's Mandel Hall would certainly have been an attempt to stifle debate (Noah Moskowitz, Meredyth Richards and Lee Solomon, "The importance of open dialogue," Chicago Maroon, 19 October 2009). Indeed, I experienced exactly such attempts when my own appearance at Mandel Hall last January, with Professor John Mearsheimer and Norman Finkelstein, was constantly interrupted by hecklers.
But confronting a political leader suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be viewed the same way.
The report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict last winter, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, found that Israel engaged in willful, widespread and wanton destruction of civilian property and infrastructure, causing deliberate suffering to the civilian population. It found "that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions" and that many may amount to "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." If that proves true, then the individual with primary responsibility is Ehud Olmert, who, as prime minister and the top civilian commander of Israel's armed forces, was involved in virtually every aspect of planning and execution.
The killings of more than 3,000 Palestinians and Lebanese during Olmert's three years in office are not mere differences of opinion to be challenged with a polite question written on a pre-screened note card. They are crimes for which Olmert is accountable before international law and public opinion.
Israel, unlike Hamas (also accused of war crimes by Goldstone), completely refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Mission. Instead of accountability, Olmert is, obscenely, traveling around the United States offering justifications for these appalling crimes, collecting large speaking fees, and being feted as a "courageous" statesman.
In their 20 October email to the University of Chicago community, President Robert Zimmer and Provost Thomas Rosenbaum condemned the "disruptions" during Olmert's speech. "Any stifling of debate," they wrote, "runs counter to the primary values of the University of Chicago and to our long-standing position as an exemplar of academic freedom."
Was it in order to promote debate that the University insisted on pre-screening questions and imposed a recording ban for students and media? In the name of promoting debate, will the University now invite Hamas leader Khaled Meshal -- perhaps by video link -- to lecture on leadership to its students, and offer him a large honorarium? Can we soon expect Sudan's President Omar Bashir to make an appearance at Mandel Hall?
When I and others verbally confronted Olmert, we stood for academic freedom, human rights, and justice, especially for hundreds of thousands of students deprived of those same rights by Olmert's actions.
During Israel's attack on Gaza last winter, schools and universities were among the primary targets. According to the Goldstone report, Israeli military attacks destroyed or damaged at least 280 schools and kindergartens. In total, 164 pupils and 12 teachers were killed, and 454 pupils and five teachers injured.
After the bombing, Olmert and Israel continued their attack on academic freedom, blocking educational supplies from reaching Gaza. Textbooks, notebooks, stationery and computers are among the forbidden items. In September, Chris Gunness, spokesman for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, publicly appealed to Israel to lift its ban on books and other supplies from reaching Gaza's traumatized students.
Israel destroyed buildings at the Islamic University and other universities. According to the Goldstone report, these "were civilian, educational buildings and the Mission did not find any information about their use as a military facility or their contribution to a military effort that might have made them a legitimate target in the eyes of the Israeli armed forces."
Gaza's university students -- 60 percent of them women -- study all the things that students do at the University of Chicago. Their motivations, aspirations, and abilities are just as high, but their lives are suffocated by unimaginable violence, trauma, and Israel's blockade, itself a war crime. Olmert is the person who ordered these acts and must be held accountable.
Crimes against humanity are defined as "crimes that shock the conscience." When the institutions with the moral and legal responsibility to punish and prevent the crimes choose complicit silence -- or, worse, harbor a suspected war criminal, already on trial for corruption in Israel, and present him to students as a paragon of "leadership" -- then disobedience, if that is what it takes to break the silence, is an ethical duty. Instead of condemning them, the University should be proud that its students were among those who had the courage to stand up.
For the first time in recorded history, an Israeli prime minister was publicly confronted with the names of his victims. It was a symbolic crack in the wall of impunity and a foretaste of the public justice victims have a right to receive when Olmert is tried in a court of law.
Luckily, there is:
link to endtheoccupation.org
link to endtheoccupation.org
link to endtheoccupation.org
"They are politely only laughing at the demonstrators."
And that is what we can get away with, we who are so far removed from suffering.
Children burn. And we only laugh politely.
"It's Gettin' Hard Out Here for a War Criminal"
"Poor Ehud Olmert. Being a world-renowned war criminal just isn't what it used to be."
link to endtheoccupationblog.blogspot.com
Richard,
It might be possible to make the argument that remorse for and conversion from past actions ( I am not at all convinced that we really have either in Olmert's case) should be taken into consideration when holding someone accountable for their actions.
But that's the kind of decision that a jury and a sentencing judge make. It's no substitute for accountability.
Do you agree that Olmert is culpable in war crimes, just as those responsible for planning attacks on Israeli civilians are culpable for war crimes? Do you think that those responsible for planning attacks on Israeli civilians should be given high paying speaking gigs at universities and in ballrooms?
I think Israel was absolutely right. They should have blown up as many Palestinians as possible. In fact, 1400 isn't enough. There are 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. 1400 is peanuts.
That's not what I said at all Nomi. I said you should kill all of their families and their pets. I totally agree with you.
I agree with Nomi998. This one time, this guy attacked me. Well, he threw a rock that missed me. Luckily, I had the right to defend myself, so I torched his house, killed his wife, kids, and dog, and then demolished his neighborhood.
Thank goodness for the right to self-defense. If the left were to take that away, I'd really be in big trouble.
It's a fascinating irony that Levy points out, although I'd take the irony one step further: J Street criticizes BDS in order to score beltway insider legitimacy points (I believe they will actually have a workshop at their conference on how to combat campus divestment movements). Israel returns the favor by boycotting J Street.
And that, my friends, is reason number 350 or so why I'm for BDS.
I'm late on seeing this post, but great coverage. I'm really interested in seeing how Adam and Phil cover this as it develops. What will J Street give up to maintain inside-the-beltway legitimacy? To what extent is that just "playing the game" and to what extent does that undermine the movement for a more just U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine?
J Street came out early against BDS (and I believe is including a workshop on how to resist divestment efforts on campus at its conference). It attacked the TIFF protesters. Now it's given Healy the boot. Will the influence that J Street gains in Washington justify this aggressive attitude toward the rest of the movement? Or will J Street become just another Washington organization patting itself on the back for keeping the term "the two state solution" PC?
I like that Obama is an Arab, but doesn't understand the Arab mentality.
Racism can be so confusing sometimes...
Lol.
Ok, blatantly self-promotional tone aside (and hey, who of us here in the blogsphere isn't engaged in constant acts of self-promotion?), who supports Richard Witty's call for Richard Witty to be featured on GRITtv? I actually think a conversation between Richard Witty, Omar Barghouti, and Phyllis Bennis would be fascinating. Takers?
Hell, for good self-promotional measure, she should have me on, too!
"The dot-IL at the end stands for “illumination!” "
Hilarious!
Or perhaps Tom DeLay, John Hagee, and Moose Isaacson?
link to youtube.com
Man. I had no idea.
Richard Witty, I think that your critique of progressives abandoning South Africa post-apartheid does have some merit, although the primary reason that institutionalized poverty has been allowed to continue is because of the pressure that the apartheid gov't was able to put on the ANC to abandon key principles of its Freedom Charter vis-a-vis economic justice in order to end blatant apartheid. If anything, this would mean that what is needed is a more radical approach to changing policy, not a more conciliatory approach. Naomi Klein has a good analysis of this in the Shock Doctrine, but here is a more concise and more charged analysis from Khadija Sharife at Foreign Policy in Focus: link to fpif.org
Here's an excerpt that is also relevant to the BDS conversation: "And yet, regardless of the government positions, this landmark decision [to allow suits against U.S. companies that aided and abetted the apartheid regime] sets a global precedent for corporate accountability and transparency. By finally laying to rest the ghosts of apartheid, the lawsuit may well usher in similar moves targeting the economic systems of global apartheid."
A have to take exception to your characterization of the BDS movement against apartheid as an "armchair" approach. Countless South Africans who struggled against apartheid, including Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, have testified to the importance that the international BDS movement played in maintaining their own steadfast resistance against apartheid. BDS was solidarity exactly where it was needed--in people's home communities, churches, investments, purchases, etc.
You pose interesting critiques--far more interesting then some of your interlocutors here are willing to admit!--but I think it's important to point out that many of the questions of motivation, tactics, engagement, etc. that you bring up are also being debated and discusses within the BDS movement (against Israeli occupation and apartheid policies) itself. You object to BDS. Fine. But your critiques often smack of dogmatism--there is only one right way to engage the situation, and it ain't ours. Your critiques are of progressive approaches to the situation; yet the more conciliatory approach towards Israeli policy you are proposing is the one that has been dominant in the policy of the most dominant actor in the region, the United States. You ask whether we are willing to let suffering go on for 10 years to have it our way, yet the question you pose about S. African solidarity is actually exactly the opposite question--are we willing to settle for a "solution" that will not actually grant freedom, self-determination, human rights, and equality for all in Palestine and Israel?
Have some faiths in Palestinians and Israelis to figure out the best way to do that ONCE an equitable bargaining table has been assured. This equitable bargaining table cannot exist as long as the United States pumps weapons into the region (to Israel and to the PA "security" that is increasingly being used to suppress Palestinian dissent) and as long as U.S., international, and Israeli corporations continue to profit off of military occupation and the dispossession of the Palestinians.
Think tactically. Join ongoing campaigns and work to make them successful. Every win strengthens the next campaign:
link to endtheoccupation.org
As far as a list, Interfaith Peace Initiative has the best U.S. list that I've seen: link to interfaithpeaceinitiative.com
The Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace is also a good resource, you can search their database by country: whoprofits.org
The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed a complaint with the treasury department in March about exactly this issue. Not sure where other organizations stand on it. Here's the ADC press release: link to adc.org
"Today, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed multiple administrative complaints with the US Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), requesting investigations into the activities of organizations claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(C)3 of the US Tax Code yet allegedly raising funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Among other allegations, the ADC complaints allege that these organizations are using assets and income in direct violation of their addressed purpose, and to support illegal and terrorist activities abroad."
I believe Obama is also honoring Stephen Hawking, who recently classified Israeli attacks on Gaza as "out of proportion" and compared the situation to "that of South Africa before 1990," noting that "people under occupation will continue to resist in any way they can":
link to youtube.com
"On the evening of Tisha B’Av, people gather in synagogue, sit silently on the ground, and read the Book of Eikha, or Lamentations, which was written by the prophet Jeremiah after the destruction of the First Temple."
Here's an excerpt from the 5th chapter of Lamentations: " Remember, O LORD, what has happened to us; look, and see our disgrace. Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens, our homes to foreigners. We have become orphans and fatherless, our mothers like widows. We must buy the water we drink; our wood can be had only at a price. Those who pursue us are at our heels; we are weary and find no rest."
It's a powerful, poetic statement of a dispossessed people. Reading these verses, and then looking and Israel/Palestine, it strikes me that today it is the Palestinians whose homes have been turned over to foreigners, Palestinians whose mothers have overwhelmingly been made into widows, Palestinians who--literally--have to buy the water they drink from the occupying power. Read these verses, and you have a poem describing the Palestinian experience of Nakba and occupation that the Palestinians have experienced for decades.
I'm not saying this to undercut the importance of this passage in the Jewish experience, but because it seems to me that one of the reasons that one of the great tragedies of the Israeli occupation is that it prevents many people who have been raised with scriptural reference to exile and return, dispossession and refuge, from seeing that this story characterizes the Palestinians as much as it has the Jews and other dispossessed peoples throughout history. The tragedy of their Palestinians is that, reading this passage from Lamentations, one gets a sense of how their story resounds with the Jewish historical and religious narrative, if they could be in dialogue rather than being dealt with at the point of a gun.